Global Security Management: the potential of emerging powers

Global security management has so far been the preserve of the United States, the Atlantic Alliance countries of Europe and the Former Soviet Union till its disintegration. In other words it was the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council which managed global security affairs with the exception of China. China as the late entrant as the fifth Permanent Security Council Member has so far not displayed any inclinations to be a responsible stakeholder in global security management.

In the Post-Cold War period, the United States emerged as the sole superpower with a total global predominance in global security management. In terms of effective global security management, the United States drifted into strategic distractions with its military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. This resulted in a certain sense the loss of sheen in the United States image of global strategic management and global security.

Concomitant with the temporary eclipse of Russia and the loss of strategic sheen of the United States was the silent Chinese military modernization and upgradation which by now has assumed startling proportions and a concern for all major powers in terms of global security management. In fact, the next major challenge for global security management would rest on how to manage the aggressive military rise of China as part of China’s global aspirations to emerge as the contending superpower with the United States.

With the global security environment becoming plagued with conflictual and complex flashpoints a stage is being reached in global security management where the established powers no longer can solely handle global security management and imperatives exist for wider regional powers involvement. Afghanistan’s long-stretched military crisis is a prime example in this connection.

As mentioned by me earlier, time has come for the United States as the lead player in global security management to adapt itself to outsourcing regional security to established regional powers like India in South Asia and South East Asia, Brazil in South America and South Africa on the African Continent This would call for the United States dispensing with its regional US-Centric strategic obsessions like Pakistan in South Asia.

With the United States having marginalised the United Nations in global security management as a result of its unrestrained unilateralism commencing in the 1990s, the perceived decline of United States power in the perceptions of China and the not so benign rise of powerful China, strategic gaze necessarily turns towards the potential of the emerging powers like India, Japan and Brazil and South Africa in terms of their contributory roles towards global security management.

This Paper would like to examine this theme under the following heads:

• Global Security Management: The Contextual Setting
• India a Star Candidate for Global Security Management But Power Potential Circumscribed by Indian Political Leadership’s Lack of Strategic Culture and Lack of Will to Use Power.
• Japan’s Power Potential Circumscribed by Reluctance to Amend its Peace Constitution
• Brazil at Best a Regional Power Confined to South America
• South Africa Yet to Generate Fully its National Attributes of Power for Global Roles
• Global Security Management: Major Deductions Arising From Above Analysis
•  

Global Security Management: The Contextual Setting

The contextual global security environment can best be characterized by the following features:

• The global security environment can be said to be in a state of transition in that out of the erstwhile bipolar structure of the Cold War, the United States is now increasingly being perceived as a declining power and Russia as the successor state is yet to fully translate its resurgence to regain its bipolar equivalence with the United States.
• The United States could effect sound global security management by co-opting Russia as a partner and restore the predictability that existed during the Cold War era and which in turn ensured that the lesser powers could not play off the United States and Russia against each other.
• United States reluctance to co-opt Russia as a partner in global security management arises from its “China Hedging Strategy” and thus robs the United States of its greater global strategic effectiveness with a cooperative Russia in tandem.
• China besides building its own massive power capabilities, both conventional and strategic to challenge the United States has indulged in nuclear weapons and missile proliferation to rogue nations like North Korea and Pakistan as disruptive strategies against the United States. With fostering ‘rogue nations’ like North Korea and Pakistan as its natural allies. China hardly qualifies as a trusted power for global security management.
• The global scene is now witnessing the emergence of newer powers with global power potential like India, Japan, Brazil and South Africa. In the years to come they could play bigger global roles provided they could effectively capitalize their respective power potential

The point that needs to be made at this stage is that all the emerging potential global powers seem more likely to have strategic convergences with the United States in terms of global security management, rather than with China as the contending superpower in the making.

Russia can also be expected to find strategic convergences with the United States and the emerging powers in terms of global security management.

India a Star Candidate for Global Security Management But Power Potential Circumscribed by Indian Political Leadership’s Lack of Strategic Culture and Lack of Will to Use Power

Amongst the ranks of emergent global powers, India stands out as the star candidate which can play a significant role in global security management supplementing the roles of other responsible stakeholders in global security. India is endowed in abundance with all the significant national attributes of power in terms of its subcontinental geographical size, geostrategic location, and geopolitical significance besides a billion plus population, and a booming economy. India’s financial health is sound.

India also possesses one of the world’s largest Armed Forces and a nuclear weapons and missiles arsenal. India has been involved over the years in multifarious United Nations peacekeeping and peace building operations all over the world. India is developing its force projection capabilities and while they may be not of global reach, but India still has a wide-reach in terms of regional context.

The strategic irony is that despite all these national attributes of power, India stands constrained considerably by the Indian political leadership’s lack of strategic culture and lack of will to use power in pursuit of its national security interests, leave alone using India’s considerable power potential for global security management. Indian political leaders shy away from hard strategic decisions and look for soft options. The most recent example is India’s reluctance to adopt a far more assertive regional role in security management of Afghanistan despite sizeable Indian national security interests that are involved in Afghanistan.

The foreseeable future offers no optimism that the Indian political leadership would be able to overcome its strategic disabilities and facilitate India playing its legitimate role in the management of global security challenges.

 Another 1962 pattern Chinese aggressive military attacks on India could possibly shake out the Indian political leadership from its strategic slumber.

Japan’s Power Potential Circumscribed by Reluctance to Amend its Peace Constitution

Japan has historically demonstrated that it has a national will to use power in the pursuit of its national security interests. But in the aftermath of the two atomic bombings by the United States in 1945 to bring about a foreclosure of the World War and the follow-up imposition of a Peace Constitution by the United States has robbed Japan of any desire to once again play a significant role in regional and global security roles.

Japan gives the impression that it is content and happy in being straitjacketed in a US-imposed Peace Constitution which permits it a piggyback ride and reliance on the United States for its security.

Spasmodic calls are made by assertive Japanese political leaders for amending the Peace Constitution to enable Japan to become more assertive and self-reliant in its national security postures but such initiatives are nipped in the bud and political leaders making such calls are sidelined thereafter.

Japan is further strategically circumscribed by being made a hostage of United States “China Hedging Strategy” and thereby made to adopt a subservient role to United States strategies in East Asia where successive United States Presidents feel inclined to concede the ‘regional policeman role’ to China.

In terms of adopting global security management roles Japan is presently decades removed from acquiring the capabilities which stand impeded by its current Peace Constitution which prohibits development of military capabilities beyond ‘self-defense’.

Brazil at Best a Regional Power Confined to South America

Brazil has the largest Armed Forces in South America and with a long history of involvement in United Nations peace-keeping operations in various parts of the world. It has significant potential as a regional power in South America and also as a potential global player. Brazil is already active in global political and economic affairs.

Like India, Brazil has considerable national attributes of power bur again like India it has shied away to adopt any assertive postures indicating that it is ready to adopt global security management roles. The United States has been nudging Brazil to adopt a more powerful profile and despite Brazil sharing strategic convergences with the United States, it has yet not given any indications to play larger strategic roles.

In terms of global security management it can be safely asserted that Brazil is not yet ready to play any significant roles in that direction.

South Africa Yet to Generate Fully its National Attributes of Power for Global Roles     

South Africa is uniquely endowed with a significant geostrategic location dominating the maritime transit routes connecting the Indian Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean. It is a sizeable nation dominating Southern Africa. It is richly endowed with natural resources including vital strategic minerals.

South Africa is the biggest economy in the African Continent and in a certain sense can be described as Africa’s superpower. It voluntarily dismantled its nuclear weapons program some years back

South Africa has taken part in many peace-keeping operations for the United Nations and for the Organization of African Unity to stabilize peace and stability in Africa.

However, with all such attributes richly endowed it has to yet generate the full potential of its national attributes of power. It has the potential to emerge as a significant regional power in Africa, but its effective contributory roles in global security management have yet to await the full generation of its national attributes of power.

Global Security Management: Major Deductions Arising From Above Analysis

The major deductions arising from the above analysis can be outlined as follows:

• Excepting India, the other emerging powers like Japan, Brazil and South Africa are a long way off from development of strategic capabilities that would equip them with the potential to effectively shoulder global security management roles in partnership with other established global powers.
• India despite being equipped with all the capabilities to shoulder global security management roles is handicapped by the limitations of its political leaders lacking a strategic culture that would embolden them to have the will to use power unapologetically.
• China, much that the United States would prefer it over Russia in co-opting for a partnership in global security management, does not enjoy the trust of its neighbors nor of the United States itself. The United States vainly hopes that its “China Hedging Strategies” could lead to China once again emerging as a quasi-strategic ally of the United States like it did in the late Seventies.
• The United States has no strategic option but to co-opt Russia as a partner along with NATO countries for global security management both within the framework of the United Nations and outside that framework
• On current indications the United States is unlikely to concede a major role in global security management to the United Nations.

One other point that needs to be strongly made and I have made it in the past too is that the global security environment is shaping such, and this applies to the United States more than the others, is that the United States would have to learn to adapt to outsourcing regional security to major regional powers like India. Brazil. South Africa and Japan. 

The problem is that in US National Security Strategy formulations a major strategic requirement that stands spelt out is to prevent the rise of hegemonic regional powers and while this may be applicable to China it cannot be applied to countries like India, Japan, South Africa or Brazil. 

Concluding Observations 

Global security management is bound to become more and more challenging judging the number of flashpoints that abound all over the globe. The United Nations in the last two decades stands rendered inadequate in dealing with the multiplicity of global crises. 

Afghanistan has highlighted that the United States aided by NATO was inadequate to deal with the military turbulence that followed in the wake of US military intervention. 

What has been highlighted also is that in such global security management crises, a wider participation of regional powers is required to supplement the overall effort. The United States reluctance to do so arising from US-Centric agendas has prolonged the conflictual situation in Afghanistan. Obviously, a transformation of United States approaches to global security management need transformation. 

The other inescapable conclusion for the United States as the predominant global power with prime responsibility for global security management is that Russia has to be factored-in in any formulations for global security management. Failure to do so could result in alternative constellations shaping around Russia of emerging powers to handle global security management.