by Lawrence Wittner | Mar 7, 2023 | Global Cooperation, World Federation
In the conflict-ridden realm of international relations, certain terms are particularly useful, and one of them is “Red Lines.” Derived from the concept of a “line in the sand,” first employed in antiquity, the term “Red Lines” appears to have emerged in the 1970s to denote what one nation regards as unacceptable from other nations. In short, it is an implicit threat.
Russian Red Lines
Vladimir Putin, self-anointed restorer of the Russian empire, has tossed about the term repeatedly in recent years. “I hope nobody will get it into their heads to cross Russia’s so-called red line,” he warned in April 2021. “Where it will be drawn, we will decide ourselves in each specific case.” These red lines, although addressing a variety of issues, have been proclaimed frequently. At the end of that November, Putin announced that Russia would take action if NATO crossed its “red lines” on Ukraine, saying that the deployment of offensive missile capabilities on Ukrainian soil would serve as a trigger. In mid-December, as Russian military forces massed within striking distance of Ukraine, the Russian foreign ministry demanded that NATO not only rule out any further expansion, but remove any troops or weapons from NATO members Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Balkan countries and obtain Russian permission before holding any military drills in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia.
Finally, on February 24, 2022, Putin―ignoring a U.S. offer to negotiate some of these items―sent a massive Russian military force pouring into Ukraine in a full-scale invasion. “This is the red line that I talked about multiple times,” he said, and “they have crossed it.” Most nations were not impressed by this justification, for the Russian invasion and subsequent annexation of large portions of Ukraine were clear violations of international law and, as such, were condemned by the United Nations General Assembly and the International Court of Justice.
Of course, Putin’s red lines and international aggression, though particularly blatant, are hardly the only features of this kind that have appeared throughout Russian or world history.
American and Chinese Red Lines
The United States has a lengthy record in this regard. As Professor Matthew Waxman of Columbia Law School has written, the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 involved “drawing a red line―with an implicit war threat” against “any European efforts to colonize or reassert control in the Western Hemisphere.” Given the relative weakness of the United States at the time, the U.S. government did not attempt to enforce President James Monroe’s grandiose pronouncement. But, with the emergence of the United States as a great power, its government expanded the Monroe Doctrine to justify frequent U.S. meddling in hemispheric affairs, including conquering and annexing Latin American territory. Even in recent decades, when U.S. annexations have become a relic of the past, the U.S. government has engaged in military intervention in other lands, especially in the Caribbean and Central America, but also in Asia and the Middle East (where President George W. Bush drew what he called “a line in the sand”).
In recent years, as China’s military and economic power have grown, its government, too, has begun emphasizing its red lines. Meeting with U.S. President Joseph Biden in mid-November 2022, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that Taiwan was the “first red line that must not be crossed.” Xi did not mention the tension-fraught situation in the South China Sea, where China had set up military fortifications on islands claimed by its neighbors, including Vietnam and the Philippines. But here, as well, China had red lines―leading to the current dangerous confrontations between U.S. and Chinese warships in the region. Sharply rejecting a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague that denied China’s control of the area, the Chinese government continued to build up fortifications on the disputed islands. Furthermore, Chinese troops have continued for more than six decades to engage in violent military clashes with Indian troops along the disputed border, in the Himalayan region, between their two nations.
The Dangers of Red Lines Drawn by Individual Nations
Although it could be argued that red lines are only an innocent expression of what a nation considers unacceptable in world affairs, it’s worth noting that they are employed especially by major nations. The “great powers,” after all, have the military strength to give their warnings some credibility. Conversely, smaller, weaker nations do not usually bother to issue such pronouncements, as their warnings―and even their interests―are rarely taken as seriously. For this reason, the issuance of red lines usually boils down to a matter of what nation has the power to compel other nations to accept its demands.
Consequently, red lines lead inevitably to spheres of influence that other nations are supposed to respect―including a U.S. sphere in Latin America, a Russian sphere in Europe, and a Chinese sphere in Asia. Naturally, people and nations living in the shadow of these major powers are not enthusiastic about this arrangement, which explains why many Latin Americans want the Yankees to go home, many Europeans fear Russian hegemony, and many Asians are wary of the rise of China.
Another problem with the issuance of red lines is their tendency to inspire international conflict and war. Given their roots in the professed interests of a single nation, they do not necessarily coincide with the interests of other nations. In this competitive situation, conflict is almost inevitable. Where, in these circumstances, is there a place for collective action to fashion a common agreement―one recognizing the fundamental interests of all nations?
A World Federalist Alternative
Rather than a world of red lines proclaimed by a few powerful nations, what humanity needs is a strengthened United Nations―a global federation of nations in which competing national priorities are reconciled and enforced through agreements, treaties, and international law.
Setting red lines for the world is too important to be left to individual, self-interested countries. They should be set―and respected―by all.
by CGS Blog Archive | Feb 11, 2018 | Global Cooperation, Peace & Disarmament
Recently, the Trump Administration announced increased sanctions on travel to Cuba. However, Cuba is not the only country to have sanctions leveled against it by the United States. Other countries in the same situation include: Syria, Iran, Russia and North Korea to name just a few.[1] Sanctions offer the US and other like-minded countries and economic unions, such as the EU, a way to alter another country or group’s way of operating that stops short of war while maintaining some bite. The United States, particularly after 9/11, has been the biggest proponent and user of sanctions in the world. The practice has become so ubiquitous in fact that even local governments have leveled sanctions.
Are all these sanctions actually doing anything though? Some experts would say yes and point to specific examples including preventing banks from hiding money for the North Korean regime or to the downfall of Charles Taylor in Liberia.[2] (Some people would even argue that all sanctions are effective compared to complete inaction, although that seems like an especially weak argument.) Despite these sentiments however, in many if not most other instances, sanctions seem to have had little impact.
Sanctions can also have unintended consequences. These can include driving away potential allies and creating anti-sanctioner sentiment through repeated threats against violators.[3] More importantly it can also mean harming innocent bystanders. This certainly appears to be the case in Cuba and North Korea where regular citizens live in abject poverty while the countries’ leaders continue to enjoy a wealthy lifestyle. Sanctions can also affect people from the sanctioning country as their goods and services now have fewer outlets.
This assumes sanctions have actually been passed. As the US has seen in its attempts to routinely punish nations such as Iran and North Korea, too many sanctions can lead to fatigue. In addition, countries are also hesitant to pass sanctions at times because they are hard to lift even in the rare instance where they are perceived as successful.
Experts explain this failure of sanctions results from being too broad or for expecting too much from them. These same experts generally suggest creating sanctions with clear goals, having multilateral support and being flexible when some of the goals have been met.
Sanctions having a multilateral coalition is especially important. Unilateral sanctions where the United States is imposing the sanctions alone, such as those against Cuba and Libya, have been largely ineffective due to their limited scope.[4] Conversely multilateral sanctions, such as against North Korea and Iran, while certainly not perfect have at least eliminated many of the unilateral sanctions’ weaknesses. Regardless of the type though, sanctions have ultimately proved futile and should not be used any longer. After all, Cuba is still run by the same regime and North Korea has still developed nuclear weapons.
Instead a policy of engagement should be adopted. Specifically the policy known as conditional engagement. Through this approach the would-be sanctioner would only engage the would-be sanctionee if they adhered to certain conditions.
While this policy reduces the power of the threat, history has shown in several instances that the threat of sanctions is still not enough to prevent an unwanted action anyway. Conversely, for evidence of engagement’s success one has to look no further than Iran. Iran, which has been sanctioned essentially since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, finally engaged and ultimately agreed to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons when it was met with dialogue instead of just threats. Another example of this process was when the US increased its relations with Myanmar by lifting certain sanctions once the country followed through on democratic reforms.[5]
This is a policy that can work in North Korea too. In the case of North Korea, relinquishing nuclear weapons would seemingly be the price of engagement. However, North Korea would be very unlikely and frankly unwise to give up its nuclear weapons program when they are ensuring that country’s leader’s survival. Instead the US could set a more realistic goal, such as no more weapons tests in exchange for food or energy supplies. This would not let North Korea off the hook entirely, but it would provide an avenue for building some trust, and be easy to adhere to. While it would be a long road from there to full nuclear disarmament, it would provide some direction versus the current stalemate.
Conditional engagement is not a panacea and works best through unilateral means and the threat of something worse such as sanctions. The best evidence of this is the Iran Nuclear Deal. Still though, conditional engagement is the best path forward. Unlike sanctions and direct military action, engagement encourages the two parties to work together in a soft power approach that also reduces the risk of creating an atmosphere of resentment going forward.
[1] U.S. Department of Treasury: Sanctions Programs and Country Information. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx
[2] Council on Foreign Relations: What Are Economic Sanctions? https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-are-economic-sanctions
[3] Brookings: Economic Sanctions: Too Much of a Bad Thing. https://www.brookings.edu/research/economic-sanctions-too-much-of-a-bad-thing/
[4] Brookings: Use and Effect of Unilateral Trade Sanctions. https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/use-and-effect-of-unilateral-trade-sanctions/
[5] The Interpreter: Suu Kyi and Obama open new chapter in US engagement with Myanmar. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/suu-kyi-and-obama-open-new-chapter-us-engagement-myanmar
by Ronald Glossop | Feb 5, 2018 | Global Cooperation, World Federation
Dear Professor Joe,
You have received so many much-deserved honors, including being named “Distinguished International Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota,” how can Citizens for Global Solutions add to that? For decades you have taught important courses and have been recognized for that. For many years you have also done significant work in seeking solutions to the Kashmir conflict. You have authored many professional articles and books, including being the editor and principal author of the Historical Atlas of South Asia, which in 1980 won the Watumull Prize of the American Historical Association. In 1984 you were presented the annual award of the American Association of Geographers. What a life!
With regard to our particular interests in a democratic world federation as the way to a better world, you have not only “talked the talk but also walked the walk.” You have served on the board of directors of the World Federalist Association, have chaired its Policy and Issues Commission, and have been President of the Minnesota Chapter of Citizens for Global Solutions. You have authored several significant monographs about specific ways to make the United Nations more effective, culminating in the monumental Transforming the United Nations System: Designs for a Workable World, published in 2013 by the United Nations University Press. On page 297 of that work that focuses on “a world that is workable, not a future utopia” you also say, “In broad terms, my strong preference is for a constitutional system of democratic, federal world government . . . .” In order to move things forward in our present situation, you have established the Workable World Trust, which is providing for translations of your book into other languages, as well as holding an important international conference in 2015. Presentations at that conference are viewable at the WWT website <https://www.workableworld.org/> accompanied by a helpful Discussion Guide for the book. The Workable World Trust that you established also sponsors other projects to advance humanity toward a more workable world.
Given that you have already been rightly honored with many plaques and trophies, what can we do to show the special place you have in our hearts? We members of Citizens for Global Solutions want to do something to show our gratitude and respect for all that you done during your whole life to advance the idea of world federation as the way to develop global justice and peace through world law. Thus, we want to present to you our “Lifetime Achievement Award”. The plaque on the award reads:
Lifetime Achievement Award
Joseph E. Schwartzberg
for his promotion of world federation and Citizens for Global Solutions
February 3, 2018
No one is more deserving of being so honored. Thank you, Joe!
On behalf of all the members of Citizens for Global Solutions
by Father Ben Urmston | Jan 31, 2018 | Global Cooperation, World Federation
Citizens for Global Solutions aims to move our world toward a just, democratic, and war-free global community. To make the necessary modifications in the existing external structures to reach that goal, it is necessary to pay attention also to internal values like openness and cooperation.
Attending to the manifesto of Father Francis J. Finn, SJ (1859-1928), could help promote the values that would lead us all in the right direction. During his life he was principal of a grade school, an assistant pastor, and author of 27 novels for young people. Those children’s stories have heroes who display strong spiritual values, leadership, and breadth of interests.
His manifesto posted on the wall of his office at a grade school in Cincinnati reads as follows:
AMERICA FIRST
Not merely in matters material, but in things of the spirit.
Not merely in science, inventions, motors, and skyscrapers, but also in ideals, principles, character.
Not merely in the calm assertion of rights, but in the glad assumption of duties.
Not flaunting her strength as a giant, but bending in helpfulness over a sick and wounded world like a Good Samaritan.
Not in splendid isolation, but in courageous cooperation.
Not in pride, arrogance, and disdain of other races and peoples, but in sympathy, love, and understanding.
And so, in that spirit and with these hopes, I say with all my heart and soul, “AMERICA FIRST.”
Those who endorse the principles and values of Citizens for Global Solutions could learn from Fr. Finn’s manifesto and even enlarge it with something like:
AMERCA FIRST
Not just in Gross National Product, but in degree of happiness for all.
Not just in armaments for war, but in civil discourse and careful listening.
Not just in violence in the media, but in education in peace and justice studies.
Not just in strengthening the United Nations, but in helping to transform it into a United Federation of Nations.
Not just in advancing international law and treaties, but in working to develop a World Parliamentary Assembly.
by Charles Marsh | Jan 14, 2018 | Global Cooperation, World Federation
The African Union usually does not receive the attention it deserves. Media coverage of the organization has been minimal, despite what has arguably been a very significant year for it. This began with the peaceful resolution of a disputed election in the Gambia followed by the reintegration of Morocco into the bloc. With that latter occurrence the entire continent, excluding those regions governed by overseas powers, is now a part of the organization for the first time since its foundation in 2002. Furthermore, ongoing reforms aimed at promoting democracy are changing the organization’s image from one that historically has been associated with dictators to one that is spearheading democratic change on the continent.
The African Union is now in a strong position, but its ambitions are greater still. Under its Agenda 2063 framework, the A.U. intends to initiate wide-ranging reforms to reorganize the entire continent of Africa into a coherent socio-political bloc. The most notable of these objectives is the stated intention to create a currency union by the mid-2030’s on the model of the Euro. Its initial step is the formation of about four or so currency blocs, which can then be integrated to form an overall single African currency. These precursor blocs are already coalescing. A single African Union passport is to be created in order to turn the entire continent into a visa-free travel zone. The first group of these passports has already been issued. In essence the African Union seeks to become an overarching organization designed in the image of the European Union. Should it succeed in these ambitions, we may see one of the most rapidly developing regions on the planet united under a single currency. If this comes to pass, the geo-political implications could be huge.
Nevertheless, its laudable ambitions do often struggle to find realization, and it is with this in mind that the current head of the A.U., Paul Kagame, has recommended wide-ranging reforms. These primarily aim to rationalize the current structure of the A.U., primarily by internalizing their finances. One of the main factors undermining the credibility of the A.U. is its financial arrangements. Its budget is primarily funded by overseas donors, with about 70% of the 2016 budget supplied by external sources. Kagame’s reforms include seeking to establish taxes among the member-states to fund the A.U. internally, thus decreasing their reliance on outside sources. Similarly, he also recommends reforms that would prioritize certain goals and increase organizational efficiency. Kagame has developed a strong reputation as a technically efficient leader during his tenure as president of Rwanda, making him well qualified to spearhead these reforms. If these reforms come to pass, we may find a more effective A.U. emerge over the next decade.
We must also consider the future in which these reforms are to come. Even considering the growth disparity between less well-off countries such as the Central African Republic and the better-off countries such as Ethiopia, the overall growth rate of the African continent is expected to rise to around 3.5% by next year. This will be further bolstered by record high levels of foreign direct investment into the continent, particularly from China. That will serve to increase infrastructural development and stimulate business growth on the continent. Therefore, even when considering the unavoidable challenges a lot of African countries will face in the coming years, the region has an undeniably unique potential for development and growth.
Only time will tell what lessons the African Union will leave for similar organizations seeking regional integration. It has been defined by inclusivity and compromise, which has allowed all countries on the continent to become members. This has in turn allowed its decisions to be holistic and focused, and has given it a sense of unity and purpose. The unique developmental and security challenges faced by the African continent facilitate this unity through provision of a common objective. It remains to be seen whether the growing economic disparity between countries in the region will lead to schisms over policy.
When considering the future of the African Union, we must consider it in light of its stable and qualified leadership, its impressive growth prospects, and its ambitions for greater reform and integration. In this light, it seems fair to return to our initial assertion: the African Union deserves far more attention than it currently receives.
by CGS Blog Archive | Jan 8, 2018 | Global Cooperation, World Federation
The new film, The World Is My Country, will be available, free, on-line, in a special password-protected site for Citizens for Global Solutions – but just for one week, Friday, January 26 through Thursday, February 1. You’ll be able to share the CGS password with others, so they can see the inspiring story of Garry Davis, “World Citizen #1”. I strongly encourage you to at minimum view the film and to share this communication about it.
“The World Is My Country” is the story of a young song and dance man who enters World War II as a bomber pilot. His experiences caused him to rethink the notion of war as a means to solve problems. Garry Davis is that man, and he tells his story in person at age 90. The film features rare footage of events like the opening sessions of the United Nations in Paris in 1948, and the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. More than half of the film is devoted to addressing the idea of solutions which are open and usable by ordinary citizens.
In the fall of 2012, I showed a very early draft of the film to a dozen high school students in St. Paul – I wanted to see how they’d react to a story told by a 90 year old man, about his adventures which began more than 50 years before they were born. It was there that I observed that this story would attract and keep the interest of young people. “The World Is My Country” is a permanent demonstration to today’s and future generations that citizens can and do make a difference. Young people need to look to the future. They need to see this film and then discuss with others about what it means to them and their future.
All ages, I have learned while watching subsequent audiences view the film, find the film both interesting and inspiring.
Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS): Minnesota Chapter, an organization in which I’ve long been active, has been involved since the beginning and sponsored the very successful World Premiere of “The World Is My Country” at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Film Festival in April, 2017. The filmmakers were very pleased with the success of this CGS sponsorship – as you can see here. That’s why they are offering this free week – to invite others to help sponsor the film at other film festivals, or even hold their own mini-film festival showing three or more uplifting films about global solutions. The free-week movie will state that it is a Film Festival Screener and can’t be copied or reproduced.
To pre-register for the free week click here and spread the word. They will send the password via e-mail to all who register. This special film will be accessible to anyone with the password and access to the internet from January 26 to February 1.
