Diplomacy & Crisis News

Rather than seeking to return to an imagined past in which the United States molded the world in its image, Washington should limit its efforts to ensuring sufficient order abroad and concentrate on reconstructing a viable liberal democracy at home.

In too many places, governments are failing to invest in their populations. This is a problem because neglecting investments in human capital can dramatically weaken a country’s competitiveness in a rapidly changing world.

Marx’s theory remains one of the most perceptive critiques of capitalism ever offered. Far from being outdated, Marxism is crucial for making sense of the world today.

The Marshall Plan worked because its designers had clear objectives and were willing to accept tradeoffs, such as a Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

The world is at the dawn of a second Industrial Revolution, this time, a digital revolution. And its impact will be, if anything, even greater than that of the first.

Many observers of contemporary Russia focus on the state’s grip on society. What they miss is that society itself has a grip on the state.

The disruption to the earth’s climate will ultimately command more attention and resources and have a greater influence on the global economy and international relations than any other force.

The abil­ity of major countries and international organizations to convince separatists that good behavior leads to success may be eroding. And if secessionists conclude that abiding by the rules generates few rewards, the consequences could be ugly.

An excessive focus on counterterrorism disfigures American politics, distorts U.S. policies, and in the long run will undermine national security.

Today, as ever, great-power politics will drive world events. That means the course of the coming century will largely be determined by the relationship between China and the United States.

Chrystia Freeland said Trump was putting his thumb on the scales with tariffs.

The secretary of state now has to deal with the fallout of the rushed agreement with North Korea.

The firms profiting from China's rights abuses are often backed by Western investors.

Koreans deserve the credit for peace on the peninsula, not Trump.

Quelque deux ans après le démembrement de l'Union soviétique, l'Ukraine se prépare à élire son nouveau Parlement. Mais les illusions des premiers temps de l'indépendance se sont évanouies sous le coup des difficultés économiques. Les mouvements sociaux se multiplient, notamment dans l'Est, dans le (...) / Ukraine - 1994/03

The G-7 and Singapore summits have put on display breathtaking strategic incoherence and appalling moral vacuity on the part of the Trump administration.

Mari Stull’s arrival at the State Department’s International Organization Bureau is triggering an exodus of top career staffers.

The new Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir, has indicated that he will reverse significant gains made by China under the outgoing Prime Minister, Najib Razak. In response, China has called on Dr. Mahathir to honour bilateral agreements and investments. How might the change in government impact these agreements, Chinese investments, and bilateral ties between China and Malaysia?

A political earthquake shook Malaysia after the general elections earlier this month when over 60 years of Barisan Nasional (BN) – the longest ruling political coalition in history – rule finally came to an end. Galvanised by the presence and support of Dr. Mahathir, the erstwhile leader of BN and former mentor to the incumbent Prime Minister Najib Razak, Malaysia’s opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan (PH) stormed to a resounding victory in the national elections.

The election results also served as an indictment of BN’s stewardship under Najib Razak’s tenure. The 1Malaysia Development Board (1MBD) scandal was particularly harmful to BN, and revealed that Najib Razak and his wife had embezzled over USD1 billion from an economic development fund. Likewise, BN did a poor job allaying public concerns over unusually high levels of Chinese investment in the country.

Malaysia’s concerns about China

These concerns included fears that the government would not be able to repay Chinese loans that it had been guaranteed by the Malaysian government. Malaysians were well aware that Sri Lanka had to surrender control of a major port to Chinese state-owned enterprises after the island nation was unable to repay the debts incurred in the port’s construction. With China similarly involved in important national infrastructure projects such as the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) and several other ports to the tune of USD100 billion, Dr. Mahathir spoke for the average Malaysian when he remarked that the country was being “sold” piecemeal to China.

Additionally, the average Malaysian has been sidelined by China in such projects. China has opted to export its own resources and labour instead of subcontracting out such requirements to local companies. With China having already acquired a reputation in places as far afield as the Philippines and Ghana for such behaviour, Malaysian companies justifiably fear that it would presage future competition with the Chinese – and that they will not be competing on an equal footing, as the Chinese complete projects better and faster than them.

The East Coast Rail Line. When complete, this rail infrastructure would allow a large amount of freight to bypass Singapore and the Straights of Malacca (Map source: Malaysia’s Land Public Transport Comission).

Flip side of the Chinese coin

While Dr. Mahathir was able to play on such fears in order to win the elections, it would be incorrect to say that Chinese involvement has entirely been to Malaysia’s detriment. Chinese investments in these projects have indisputably contributed to Malaysia’s national development, and helped shore up a flagging economy that would have otherwise taken a battering from falling oil prices and the 1MDB scandal.

As such, these infrastructure projects may be necessary in order to future-proof Malaysia’s economy. Malaysia is touted as an invaluable link in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – at the expense of Malaysia’s long-time neighbour, Singapore. While Singapore’s diplomatic run-ins with China have been speculated to underpin this decision, the fact remains that critical shipping routes bound for China have to pass by Singapore, located at the tip of the West Malaysian peninsula. Through infrastructure projects such as the ECRL, the Kuantan port and the Kuala Linggi port, China therefore aims to shorten and secure shipping routes headed its way.

For Malaysia, the combined effect of the three projects would provide a portage route for nearly 53 million tonnes of cargo instead of taking the long way around the West Malaysian peninsula via ship. 80,000 jobs from the ECRL alone would be created for Malaysians. Further – and contrary to what voters may have thought – local firms are expected to play a part in the ECRL’s construction as well. The icing on the cake is an industrial training programme for Malaysian students that is designed to tie in with the ongoing construction work.

What the future will hold

Dr. Mahathir’s election rhetoric may therefore prove to be nothing more than the ordinary course of business in politics, as he recently promised to uphold Malaysia’s end of its various bargains with China. With that said, however, ties are unlikely to be affected even as Dr. Mahathir attempts to “renegotiate” their terms. Under Najib Razak’s tenure, bilateral ties with China reached an all-time high. The sheer volume of Chinese investment in Malaysia appears to have secured ties for the time being.

With political and economic ties with China locked in for the foreseeable future, it is up to Dr. Mahathir to do better than Najib Razak by going back on his words – and convincing an uneasy Malaysia that it will be to their benefit.

This article was first published on Global Risk Insights and was written by Nicholas Leong.

The post Chinese-Malaysian ties after the election appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Matteo Salvini is Italy's new hard-line anti-migrant interior minister. But his bark may end up worse than his bite.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’été de Politique étrangère (n° 2/2018). Corentin Sellin propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de George Hawley, Making Sense of the Alt-Right (Columbia University Press, 2017, 232 pages).

Nulle expression n’a eu plus de succès pendant la campagne présidentielle 2016 aux États-Unis que l’alt-right, concept fourre-tout désignant la droite nationaliste blanche
(« suprémaciste ») qui semblait faire un retour en force derrière la candidature Trump. La première qualité du livre vif et bien écrit de George Hawley, professeur de science politique de l’université d’Alabama, est d’en donner une définition beaucoup plus rigoureuse. L’alt-right désigne ces groupes d’anonymes à faible coordination pullulant sur internet depuis 2015, sur les réseaux sociaux comme Twitter et Facebook, ainsi que sur les blogs et forums. Ils y défendent une doctrine centrée sur la création d’États peuplés exclusivement de Blancs sur le territoire actuel des États-Unis, y compris par la déportation des populations non blanches. Mais Hawley démontre que l’alt-right a bouleversé les méthodes et le recrutement du suprémacisme blanc par rapport au Ku Klux Klan ou aux néo-nazis.

D’une part, l’alt-right emploie sur internet l’ironie nihiliste (par exemple l’usage des
« mêmes » tel Pepe la Grenouille) et l’humour agressif caractérisant la pratique du trolling. George Hawley remarque que l’alt-right est difficile à connaître du fait de cette dérision permanente envers le politiquement correct que ses membres retournent contre la presse en diffusant des fausses informations sur leur cause. Le trolling produit aussi des campagnes massives de dénigrement sur internet de personnes jugées hostiles à l’alt-right. Durant la campagne 2016, l’alt-right a harcelé en ligne le stratège républicain Rick Wilson et l’animateur conservateur de radio Erick Erikson car ils avaient pris parti contre elle. D’autre part, l’auteur démonte l’idée reçue d’une alt-right avatar nationaliste du conservatisme traditionnel, qui serait née, par exemple, des campagnes présidentielles d’un Pat Buchanan en 1992 et 1996. Son livre montre que l’alt-right recrute d’abord des jeunes hommes blancs de moins de 35 ans, sans aucune culture politique avant leur insertion dans les réseaux de socialisation nationaliste et identitaire sur internet. Ils sont le plus souvent diplômés d’université mais privés de la mobilité sociale escomptée, et le reprochent aux conservateurs, « traîtres » à la cause économique et sociale de leur identité blanche.

George Hawley établit enfin une distinction nette entre Donald Trump et l’alt-right qui ne le considère pas comme un des siens. Trump fut pensé par cette nouvelle extrême droite identitaire en outil de « disruption » de la scène politique, renversant le conservatisme traditionnel et sa position dominante à droite. Et il a diffusé dans le grand public des idées compatibles avec l’alt-right (comme le Muslim ban), préparant la conquête culturelle de celle-ci, à l’image de ce que Hawley appelle « l’alt-lite », c’est-à-dire les figures publiques non affiliées quoique popularisant ses thèmes (Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos). On comprend mieux, à lire George Hawley, la joie exprimée après l’élection de Trump par Richard Spencer, figure centrale mais non dirigeante de l’alt-right, dont il a forgé le nom en 2008. Cette joie fut énoncée en ces mots terrifiants et vite reniés par le président :
« Hail Trump. Hail our people. Hail victory. »

Corentin Sellin

S’abonner à Politique étrangère