Sunday, May 27, 2018

UK MP says Russia should be under control of global oligarchy: We thought "we were moving the Russians into a rules-based international system," but it may not happen. "Rules-based international system" led by US has been in place since WWII. Danger today is "questioning of US global leadership has opened the space for other countries," 2015, Chatham House...(Who knew that Russia 'threat' turns out to be merely saying 'no thanks' to being ruled by US)

"Conservative MP Dominic Grieve, who chairs the House of Commons Intelligence and Security select committee, said he did not wish to speculate as to the precise reasons for Sir Richard's departure....
He said, "After the heady days of post-Cold War and the belief that we were moving the Russians into a rules-based international system, we seem to be going very rapidly in the opposite direction."...

"Economic and political upheavals are emboldening challengers to the rules-based international system, and to the liberal Western values it embodies....

The danger today is that this questioning of US global leadership has opened the space for other countries to pursue a ‘might is right’ approach to their own policy priorities....

The longevity of the current international system may have led to the assumption that it was in some way the natural order of things, requiring only occasional repair and defence against particular challengers. This has bred complacency.

Many aspects of the [US led international] order are in fact revolutionary, disruptive and disorderly. They provoke violent and understandable resistance from those who see themselves as champions of their own established order, based on different rules....

These fears do not provide a case for the West changing its approach, withdrawing or accepting cultural relativism

However-the West must recognize how radical its agenda can be, realize the depth of the opposition it may provoke, and sometimes tailor its policies accordingly....

Just as the current order was constructed with the clear aim of avoiding a repeat of the nationalism, totalitarianism and conflict of the 1930s and 1940s, a modernization effort should reflect a reforming agenda intended to tackle the problems of the 2000s and 2010s. Who decides this agenda, and what it should contain, remain open questions.

The West has the opportunity to take the initiative, to decide now what sort of revised rules it would like to establish, and how far it is willing to take into account the interests of its rivals or alternatively to fight for its own priorities. If the leading Western powers do not take this opportunity--and at the moment there is little sign that they will--there are now plenty of others who might."

London Conference 2015 - Background Paper - Session One.pdf


Two UK sources for above in 2016 and 2015:

12/17/2016, "Cambridge spy seminars hit by whispers of Russian links as three intelligence experts resign," UK Telegraph, Willgress and Heighton

2015, "Challenges to the Rules-Based International Order,"

Chatham House is UK's Royal Institute in International Affairs. Queen Elizabeth is its patron.

"Chatham House delivers independent, policy-relevant analysis and new ideas to decision-makers around the world, much of it achieved through government briefings, high-level roundtables and conferences, testimony to parliamentary committees and dissemination of the institute's research."


Added: More on US led "rules-based international order:" US oligarchs exempt powerful Communist China from rules but insist Russia submit to US approved "norms," "regional security" and institutions, accuse Russia of "undermining" global order for merely saying, no thanks, to being ruled by US-Rand study, May 2017, paid for by Office of Net Assessment, Dept. of Defense

May 2017 report "sponsored [paid for] by the U.S. Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment." Americans have never voted on nor agreed to be ruled by self-appointed US defense/intel oligarchs who, seizing US taxpayer dollars, have declared themselves in charge of an "international order." Such an "order" is sick and criminal.

May 18, 2017, "Russia Perceives U.S.-Led International Order as a Threat to Its Security and Interests, but Also Seeks Cooperation,", Andrew Radin, lead author

"Russia seeks to undermine elements of the current international order because its leaders and analysts see the current international order as dominated by the United States and a threat to their country's security and interests, according to a new RAND report.

U.S. officials have repeatedly described the development of a U.S.-led “rules-based international order,” composed of international economic institutions, bilateral and regional security organizations and liberal political norms, as a core national interest. 

The report draws from analysis of Russian interests and views of the history of the post-Cold War period, during which Russia's underlying foreign policy interests have remained relatively consistent, including preservation of the regime and of the country's territorial integrity.

Though Russia sought integration into Western institutions in the 1990s, this effort to more closely join the U.S.-led order was not successful in their view because the West would not sufficiently recognize Russia's interests. Russia began to perceive the U.S.-led order as increasingly threatening following Western military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Iraq, and due to perceived U.S. facilitation of “color” revolutions such as that which occurred in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, the researchers found.

“They [correctly] see expanding U.S. control as having been achieved through regime change and disingenuous support for 'liberal democracy,'” said Andrew Radin, lead author of the report and an associate political scientist at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. “From a Russian perspective, the United States no longer has the power to back up this unilateral approach, and hence the current international order is not sustainable.”

At the same time, Russia sees the potential for cooperation and collaboration in some areas, such as support for the United Nations system, which it believes bolsters Russia's position as a great power, active participation in major international economic institutions, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, and cooperation in counterterrorism efforts.

By contrast, where Russia sees elements of the U.S.-led order threatening its security, or undermining its influence in its neighborhood, Russia has pursued policies to undermine American influence by actively opposing European Union and NATO enlargement into the former Soviet world, and has increasingly sought to undermine these organizations.

“Russian views of order are [correctly] in clear opposition to U.S. global leadership and efforts to expand Western institutions,” said Clinton Reach, co-author of the report and a policy analyst at RAND. “Still, there are areas where cooperation with Russia is possible under the right conditions.”

The authors find that the optimal U.S. approach to Russia with respect to the international order depends chiefly on two factors: the importance of enabling former Soviet republics to freely join Western institutions, and whether Russia will limit its aggression in Europe if its interests are recognized.

Depending on how U.S. policymakers evaluate these factors, the United States could recognize Russia's sphere of influence or double down on the existing approach of promoting democracy [ie, regime change] and supporting the EU and NATO. In practice, U.S. policy toward the European political and security order will likely involve some elements of both.

The report,Russian Views of the International Order, is one of several works on regional great power views of order for a project entitled “Force, Diplomacy, and the Emerging International Order,” which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense's Office of Net Assessment. The research was sponsored [paid for] by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and conducted within the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institution, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community."



No comments: