ACE

Category: Asia

  • Primary Actors in the Ukrainian Conflict

    Primary Actors in the Ukrainian Conflict

    Since the Russian Federation’s annexation of Crimea through military action in March 2014, Ukraine has been a state plagued by conflict. The conflict now involves the region of Donbas, consisting now of the two separatist People’s Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk, in addition to Crimea. It has drawn in actors including the European Union and the United States, in addition to groups in Ukraine and the governments of both Russia and Ukraine. 

    Why did Russia annex Crimea?

    Russia has a historical relationship with the territory of Crimea; it was part of Russia for more than one hundred and fifty years, and was transferred to Ukraine in 1954 when both countries were part of the USSR.  Russia’s actions were precipitated by several factors, including Ukraine-wide protests which forced Ukraine’s Russian-aligned President Yanukovych to step down, and concerns that Ukraine was developing stronger ties to the European Union.

    Next Steps and Peace Agreement

    Not long after the annexation, pro-Russia separatists seized multiple government buildings across Eastern Ukraine and declared themselves the heads of independent states; these seizures effectively represented the start of the conflict in the Donbas. After a few months of fighting, Russian military forces formally entered Ukraine to provide support to the separatists. The Second Minsk Agreement was signed by then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2015. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and then-French President Francois Hollande provided diplomatic assistance and mediated the negotiations. The agreement sought to establish an immediate ceasefire and security zone. However, the agreement’s goals were not achieved, and fighting continued sporadically—most of which was attributed by outside conflict monitors to Russian and separatist forces. 

    Since the failed 2015 agreement, fighting has remained sporadic with western actors, specifically the United States, offering lethal aid to the Ukrainian government in 2017. This decision signaled a significant change in the United States’ policy towards Ukraine, which had only offered nonlethal, economic assistance to that point. There appears to be no clear victor or path to peace in the Donbas. March of 2021 signaled a renewed intensity as, after a relative calm, the conflict escalated once again with an increase in casualties.

    Image source: Council on Foreign Relations

    Pro- Ukrainian Actors

    The Ukranian side of the conflict involves both the Ukrainian national military and volunteer civilian battalions. The primary goals of the military—and by extension, the state—are to maintain territorial integrity and defend the Ukrainians living in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Unofficial civilian battalions are motivated more by an ultra-nationalist sentiment and Ukrainian patriotism. The fervent nationalist views exhibited by volunteer battalions sometimes coincide with extreme far-right positions, the most notable far-right battalion being the Azov Battalion.

    Pro-Russian Actors

    The Donbas region has two main economic centers, Donetsk and Luhansk, and a significant proportion of both these cities’ residents identify with Russia either ethnically or linguistically. Russian is widely spoken as a first language. Separatists and their supporters see themselves as distinct from the rest of Ukraine despite their shared national origin. Pro-Russia and separatist forces represent the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in Eastern Ukraine, both of which declared independence in 2014. The primary goals of these actors are to achieve independence from Ukraine and strengthen their ties with Russia. Despite operating within the territorial boundaries of Ukraine, these groups are considered pro-Russian actors.

    As the other prominent state actor, Russia has a vested interest in the outcome of the conflicts. The Donbas and Crimea situations make it unlikely that Ukraine can join NATO, because an attack on one NATO state must be treated as an attack on all. Therefore, Ukrainian membership would severely escalate the risk of armed conflict between NATO and Russia, at a time when the goal for the US and many European governments is to de-escalate tension. The conflicts also make EU accession unlikely for the foreseeable future. A western-aligned Ukraine would damage the close economic, political, and cultural ties the two countries share and that Russia values highly. Were Ukraine to become a member of either or both organizations, Russia would see this as an encroachment by western states on its perceived sphere of influence. Thus, by actively backing the separatist and deploying its forces in Ukraine, Russia can forestall encroachment, despite the threat of further sanctions by the international community.

  • U.S Response to the Rohingya Crisis

    U.S Response to the Rohingya Crisis

    Click here to read this paper as a PDF.

    The Rohingya people of Myanmar are a majority-Muslim ethnic group native to the coastal Rakhine State in Myanmar. Before the mass migration of Rohingyans, there were an estimated 1.5 million living in Myanmar. 

    Despite making up only 2% of the entire Myanmar population in 2014, the Rohingya people have been subject to numerous human rights violations such as having their right to vote and citizenship stripped away in 1974 and 1982. As a result, the Rohingya people have been subject to state-sponsored, violent crackdowns such as Operation Dragon King in 1978, Operation Clean and Beautiful in 1991, the 2012 Rakhine State Riots and the recent Refugee Crisis.

    The current refugee crisis began on August 25th, 2017, when a group of militant Rohingya Muslims attacked police bases in northern Myanmar. The army retaliated by burning villages, killing civilians, and raping women. More than 420,000 Rohingyas have crossed the border into Bangladesh, thereby making them stateless refugees. 

     In September 2019, the United Nations-backed International Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar found that the 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar “may face a greater threat of genocide than ever.” Although some news sources have dubbed the state-sponsored violence a genocide, the UN and other state authorities such as the United States government have yet to officially declare it a genocide.

    The Rohingya Crisis has sparked an international backlash from the global community, particularly regarding the military’s actions and the failure of the governing Aung San Syu Kyi administration. Syu Kyi’s government has repeatedly failed to condemn the attacks and avoided mentioning the Rohingyas by name, claiming that no violence or village clearances had occurred. Her reaction to the event has resulted in criticism from the media and sparked discussion around revoking her 1991 Nobel Laureate award. However, as of 2021, no actions have been taken to do so. 

    The United Nations condemned the crisis, and the UNHCR launched a Joint Response Plan (JRP) for the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis, calling for US$951 million to continue delivering lifesaving assistance from March to December 2018. As of early August 2018, the JRP remains just 32 per cent funded.

    Under the administration of Donald Trump, the United States denounced the actions of the Burmese government, with former Vice President Mike Pence calling the situation a “historic exodus” and a “great tragedy.” Vice President Pence also noted the situation could, “sow seeds of hatred and chaos that may well consume the region for generations to come and threaten the peace of us all.” The United States State Department issued a statement condemning the issue and applauding the efforts of the neighboring Bangladeshi government to provide aid and refuge to fleeing Rohingya.

    In 2018, the U.S. Government responded to the Rohingya by imposing sanctions on the Myanmar military over the Rohingya crackdown. These sanctions were imposed on top Myanmar generals, police commanders, and two army units, accusing them of ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims and widespread human rights abuses. Since August 2017, the United States has provided humanitarian aid amounting to more than $760 million to the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. This aid was allocated to the UN bodies working in the area to establish refugee schools and provide necessary food, shelter, and other resources. The Biden administration is yet to give an official response concerning the crisis, but has continued former President Donald Trump’s sanctions on key military generals involved in engineering the crisis.

  • Nixon’s Trip: Establishing US-China Relations Brief

    Nixon’s Trip: Establishing US-China Relations Brief

    Read this brief as a PDF

    President Richard Nixon’s trip to the People’s Republic of China in February, 1972 marked the formal establishment of normal relations between the United States and China, and can be arguably considered one of the most significant moments in modern world affairs. It was not just significant as the first ever visit of an American President to China, but it also signaled the end of a quarter-century of hostilities between communist China and the United States. The new relationship marked the beginning of a sizable shift in the Cold War arena, and brought China into the international community. The relationship between the two powers continues to play a major role in the current climate, so understanding its establishment is vital. 

    China had a tense relationship with the West throughout the 19th century. Western imperialism contributed to the eventual disintegration of the Qing dynasty and left China on the brink of collapse. During the ensuing civil war, the US backed the Nationalist faction against the Communists. By 1949, the Chinese Communists were victorious and gained control of mainland China, establishing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) while the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan and established the Republic of China there.

    The relationship between the PRC and the United States was hostile from its inception. They were ideologically opposed, and the US continued to support the Nationalist government in Taiwan which claimed sovereignty over the entire county. The US also attempted to keep the PRC out of the United Nations and other international forums. The two countries were on opposite sides of the Korean and Vietnam wars, with China supplying arms and troops to communist forces and the US supporting the anti-communist factions.

    Shifting dynamics in both countries created the opportunity for normalized relations. The Soviet Union and China split over ideological and geopolitical differences, and the Communist bloc appeared to be crumbling as the two states turned against each other. As the 1960s progressed, China found itself isolated; it was threatened by the Soviet Union, India, and large American deployments across Asia. The ongoing Cultural Revolution had also pushed China into turmoil and instability. The United States was also vulnerable on the global stage. It had been involved in the Vietnam War for almost two decades which had been largely unsuccessful, as well as unpopular both at home and abroad. It had damaged the United States’ perception on the global stage, and worried allies. China was an important actor in the Vietnam war, and building relations would aid American interests in the region. President Nixon also believed the Soviet Union was the primary enemy, and the U.S should capitalize on the Sino-Soviet divide by establishing closer ties with China to weaken Soviet influence in Asia. Both leaders in China and the United States began expressing a desire for normalized relations, but the road to reconciliation was delicate and complicated. Various diplomatic overtures were made from both sides through intermediaries such as France and Pakistan. Pakistan also arranged the secret visit of the U.S National Security advisor, Henry Kissinger to Beijing for his meeting with Chinese Premier, Chou Enlai in July 1971, where they agreed that President Nixon would visit China in the following year. 

    Normalized relations with China faced considerable opposition at home and from American allies. US allies were distrustful of communist China and felt the United States was abandoning Taiwan. Anti-communist Republicans provided internal opposition, and Nixon faced considerable pressure from both Democrats and the press, who felt that Nixon was betraying America’s close allies like Taiwan. Despite the opposition, Nixon and his administration pushed through the China trip and tried to manage the image they presented at home and abroad. Nixon felt that establishing closer ties with the People’s Republic of China would shift the balance of the Cold War in Asia and help to further American interests globally. This hypothesis proved to be correct, and the opening of relations had three immediate impacts:

    1. Chinese support aided America’s position during the Vietnamese peace negotiations. Because of the damage done to the US’s image (domestically and abroad), a swift but ‘honorable’ exit to the conflict was crucial. China had been a principal ally of the North Vietnamese, and was able to pressure the North Vietnamese to come to the negotiating table. China also virtually ended military support for North Vietnam in 1973. 

    2. China also worked with the US in Korea, even though both powers continued to support opposing sides in the Korean war. The United States had clear objectives in that region, as it wanted “to bring about stability in the peninsula, avert war and lessen the danger of the expansion of other powers”, and Chou Enlai “in effect” accepted these aims and objectives during his meeting with Kissinger.. 

    3. The most important benefit for both countries from the new relationship was increased leverage against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had been increasing in military strength by acquiring advanced nuclear weaponry. It was also becoming more aggressive, and adopted the Brezhnev doctrine which justified military interventions in Central and Eastern Europe. Together, China and the US worked against Soviet expansion and influence over Asia and the Communist bloc which remained split between the Chinese and the Soviets. 

    The normalization of relations between these two countries in 1972 had major long-term reverberations. China, the most populous nation in the world, was brought into the international system and began playing a major role in the international community. The long-term economic relationship between China and the United States also grew out of this establishment, which continues to shape their respective economies to the present day.