Lessons from ‘Ukraine’ for South Asia

UKRAINE as a war is not big, but its impact is one of the widest, affecting most parts of the world. It exposes the weakness of the older model of global ‘governance’ based on force that has basically been the history of the world so far.

However, this model has survived this long because the warring powers were a very few — two — and, therefore, damage control was easier. This situation has changed significantly in the past few decades not just with the rise of China as the third and very robust but that of regional powers as well. These are large, militarily significant local states that have tended to strengthen themselves at the expense of smaller, weaker states in the region.

Unresolved conflicts

THE weakness of the superpowers is on display when they find it increasingly difficult to overwhelm a smaller foe as Russia’s attack on Ukraine shows. The result is a world of unresolved conflicts that impact economically, if not militarily, and push the once unquestioned powers into muscle flexing even with much smaller and insignificant powers such as Bangladesh is seeing or has recently seen.

While no one has ever said that the world is a global level-playing field for all states, the current scenario asks if this is at all a playing field, let alone level. Global big power anxiety is at its peak and scientific development, particularly the use of artificial intelligence in the military sector, has made the world far more uncertain for everyone than ever before. That the skin of global security stretched over everyone is torn is not a question any more. The blood inside the body is boiling beyond the tolerance level for all as the Israeli-Hamas conflict has so quickly produced Syria-Yemen contingent conflicts that have drawn superpower involvement.

Europe: reluctant region

EUROPE is now being promoted as a ‘regional cluster’ because Ukraine has sent it some hard questions and lessons. Americans are particularly nervous as ‘my country first’ sentiment is sweeping across Europe. That basically means a loss of a united front against Russia.

Judy Dempsey of the Carnegie Institute worries that the ‘future security of the old continent is at stake.’ And it is not just Ukraine but Hamas and the Houthis as well who are putting Europe into hazard. The establishment wants voters to think ‘security’ of the borders, but voters, much to their irritation, care more about the security of bread and butter.

‘After creating a post-1945 European architecture staunchly encouraged by the United States, the European house is in danger of fraying.’

European leaders are also not interested in being regional, let alone global, while the US think tanks insist that they might lose control of the future world if they do. And with the United States unable to provide security cover for all, the European Union needs to gather around to be strong enough to counter the new challenges whether Russia, Hamas or the Houthis, not to mention China and the rest. The answer suggested strengthening NATO by the European Union. The west has never seemed so vulnerable and felt as anxious as one hears the 9 o’clock News.

Lessons for South Asia and Bangladesh

THE United States is an overwhelming presence in the west and Europe knows that it is unable to handle its own security vis-à-vis Russia with the United States. Hence, the rise of NATO and now calls to make it more relevant again. Security is regional as the argument goes, but does the equation apply to the region as well is the issue?

Unlike the west, there are no two rival power systems in Asia. China alone qualifies as a superpower and at this point challenges the west globally. It is also Russia’s friend of convenience and has had joint projects as in Afghanistan where it helped the west to leave more rapidly than it had planned to.

China has, thus, far less worries and military projects to follow up on. India would love to be considered an equal of sorts, but most probably India also does not take such public sentiments seriously. However, when it comes to South Asia, that is another matter.

Like it or not, India is way ahead of all of its neighbours and the relationship with other states in the region is not always positive. India emerges as the leader of South Asia by default, but what stands in the way of it being a proper superpower in the region is the fact that South Asia, too, has changed. The Ukraine model shows that pre-dominant power is possible, but that does not lead to an absolute domination.

If South Asia wants the region to be European-free including from the United States, China and India has to figure things out on how to share the region properly. As the Bangladesh scenario shows, both have a stake in Bangladesh, but both are also at war across its borders. That issue does not have any significance except pride and mobilising internal public opinion politically.

Whether they can transfer all their hostile energy into economic projects and rule over Asia without a ‘Ukraine’ is up to them, but the current set of rulers seem slightly out of date at this point in the wait-and-see game.

Afsan Chowdhury is a researcher and journalist.