Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). In the second part of this series, we examined the efforts of the ‘axis of change’ to undermine Western influence and sanctions. The following Part III outlines how the US and its allies can allegedly counter this ‘threat’.
The ‘axis of upheaval,’ consisting of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, poses a serious threat to the US-led global order. At least, that is the opinion of the two authors of this three-part summary of their lengthy essay, which ends with calls for a new Cold War against the axis.
To counter the allegedly highly dangerous challenge posed by the ‘axis’, the United States must view China, Russia, Iran and North Korea as a collective threat, not as isolated actors. ‘If the United States wants to combat an increasingly coordinated axis, it cannot treat each threat as an isolated phenomenon,’ emphasise Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Richard Fontaine in their essay in Foreign Affairs. Accordingly, US foreign policy must adapt its strategy to neutralise the destabilising effects of cooperation between these revisionist states.
To this end, the authors propose a centralised approach to Washington, which, however, sounds more like real-life satire than a serious strategy. Their approach is to win over so-called ‘global swing states’ such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey to the Western order. These countries have enough geopolitical weight to influence the future direction of the international order. ‘US politicians should make it a priority to deny advantages to the “axis of change” in these countries,’ the authors advise.
US and Western trade incentives, military engagement, development aid and diplomacy should be used to prevent these swing states from offering dangerous axis members access to military bases, technology or opportunities to circumvent Western sanctions. However, the authors seem to have failed to understand that this train has long since left the station for the US.
This example once again shows how deeply rooted the denial of reality is, even among US experts. They still seem to live in the cloud cuckoo land of the “indispensable” and almighty nation of the US. The two authors’ belief in the US superpower, which still dominates the globe unchallenged in its former greatness, shines through in every line of their subsequent proposals for solving the problem of the ‘axis of upheaval’.
First, Washington is advised to reaffirm its security commitments in regions such as the Western Pacific, the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula and NATO’s eastern flank. At the same time, however, direct conflicts with the axis members must be avoided. The authors warn, however, against opportunistic aggression by the axis members to exploit favourable opportunities: ‘If a Chinese invasion of Taiwan triggers US military intervention, Russia may be tempted to take action against another European country.’ To prevent such scenarios, the US and its allies must prepare for simultaneous conflicts and strengthen the capabilities of their partners to remain operational in multiple regions at the same time.
What is being proposed here is the scenario from the 1960s and 1970s, when the US still believed it had the capacity to wage and win two major wars and one minor war in different regions of the world at the same time. Today, they are not even able to impose their will on the Houthis in Yemen. And, incidentally, the US lost the one small war in Vietnam precisely during the period when it felt strongest. There has always been a wide gap between aspiration and reality in the US, but today more than ever.
But back to the authors, who, in a flash of realism, have at least recognised that combating the axis would require ‘considerable resources’. ‘Confronting the axis will be expensive,’ the authors make clear. The (almost bankrupt) US would have to increase its spending on defence, development aid, diplomacy and strategic communication. Support for countries such as Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine, which face direct threats from Axis members, would also be crucial. A comprehensive, bipartisan strategy in the US Congress would send a decisive signal that the US is determined to defend its global leadership role.
However, to their credit, the authors recognise that attempts to drive wedges between the Axis members are doomed to failure. Unlike in the 1970s, when the US was able to exploit the rift between China and the Soviet Union, there is no comparable ideological or geopolitical rivalry today that Washington could exploit. A rapprochement with Russia or China would probably require the US to recognise their spheres of influence – a price the US should not pay, according to the two Cold Warriors from the US.
At the end of their work comes the usual US self-adulation. Despite the alleged threat from the ‘axis of upheaval’, the authors emphasise the West’s self-confidence in Foreign Affairs: ‘The West has everything it needs to triumph in this competition.’
The combined economic power, military superiority, geographical advantages and attractiveness of Western values form a strong foundation, the authors write at a time when Europe’s decline can no longer be denied and civil war-like conditions threaten in a politically and socially polarised US. Nevertheless, the authors argue that a withdrawal of the US from its dominant position on the global stage and the loss of control over important regions of the world should be out of the question for Washington.
They warn that the growing cooperation of the axis has already contributed to conflicts such as Hamas’ attack on Israel and Azerbaijan’s takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh. The normalisation of alternative rules by the axis also encourages potential aggressors and weakens the fear of international isolation.
In order to preserve the existing order, the US and its allies must strengthen the current world order, forge new partnerships, disrupt the axis’s cooperation and take decisive action against those states that are most actively undermining the West’s rules-based order. In the words of the authors, ‘It is probably impossible to prevent the emergence of this new axis, but it is an achievable goal to prevent it from overthrowing the current system.’
