Sketch of the World Political - Security Picture in 2013

(Baonghean) - In the last days of 2013 and the beginning of 2014, no one is able to draw a complete picture of the world's political and security situation in 2013. Everything is only in sketch form. Depending on political viewpoints, approaches and the ability to collect and process information, each "artist" will create a sketch that bears his or her own mark. That means there will be many different ways of identifying and assessing the world's political and security situation in 2013.

The author of the article chooses to identify and evaluate the world political and security situation in 2013 at two levels: 1. Global; 2. Regional issues.

Panorama of Earth from space

1. global level

Due to the law of uneven development, each historical period (short or long) has one or several developing countries with great and powerful national aggregate strength and the ability to have a decisive impact on the development process of the world. Therefore, people have generalized (maybe not entirely accurately):

The 13th century was the century of the Mongols.

The 15th century was the century of the Renaissance.

The 16th century was the century of the Spaniards.

The 17th century was the century of the Dutch.

The 18th and 19th centuries were the British centuries.

The 20th century was the American century.

What century is the 21st century and whose century is it?

Some Chinese scholars such as Song Taiqing and Liu Mingfu believe that the 21st century is the century of the Chinese people.

French economist Erik Izraelewicz and famous geopolitical researcher Jean-Francois Suslielle (French) also predicted that China will dominate the world after removing the US from its superpower position in the middle of the 21st century.

Of course, the above predictions are difficult for Americans to accept, and the international community is somewhat confused and worried.

The world situation is changing very rapidly and always contains many sudden, unexpected and unpredictable changes. Therefore, no scholar dares to make a prediction for the next five or seven decades, let alone two or three decades.

Please note: In 1986, no Marxist scholar predicted that 5 years later (1991) the Soviet Union would collapse, leading to the collapse of the socialist system. By the end of 1996, no economist predicted the economic crisis that would occur in East Asia 7 months later (starting on July 3, 1997 in Thailand and then spreading to other East Asian countries). At the end of 1998, no one predicted that 4 months later (March 1999), the US and its Western European allies would launch a devastating military attack on the Republic of Serbia (Russia's only ally in the Balkan Peninsula). No one predicted the terrorist attack by Al-Quaeda on September 11, 2001 on the US superpower (creating a turning point in the world situation). The elite in the White House (USA) completely failed to predict that they would get bogged down and fail miserably in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…

Back to the question of who is the "leader" of the world in the 21st century? America? China? Russia?...

As stated above, it is completely impossible to know what the world will be like by the end of the 21st century, and even 2050 is very vague and uncertain. One can only make general predictions (strokes) of the world until 2025, at most 2030.

From now until 2025 - 2030, the political landscape will shift (slowly) from unipolar to multipolar with many power centers, in which the US, Russia, and China play a leading role and the relationship between the world's three leading powers will shape the world's political and security situation.

Therefore, when assessing the world political and security situation, first and foremost we need to look at how the US-China, US-Russia, and Russia-China relations took place in 2013.

- On Russia - China relations.

The Russia-China relationship plays a particularly important role in maintaining peace and stability in the world. As two permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, they have the second largest economic and military power in the world, and a population of about 18% of the total population on the planet, with a continuous living space from the Asian continent to Europe - the Mediterranean. When Russia and China cooperate closely, these two powers have the ability to prevent any unilateral aggressive actions and maintain the trend of peace, stability, cooperation and development in the world.

In 2013, Russia-China relations had a new qualitative development. Chinese President Xi Jinping's official visit to Russia in early March 2013 marked a new historical development in Russia-China relations. Russia and China signed many economic contracts worth tens of billions of dollars. More importantly, Russia and China made a breakthrough in tightening political-security relations between the world's two leading powers. For the first time, Russia agreed to supply China with the three most modern strategic weapons in the world today: 24 SU.35 aircraft; 4 LADA submarines and S.400 missiles.

To understand more about the historical significance of the agreement between Russia and China to supply modern weapons signed in March 2013, here is some information about the trio of weapons mentioned above. The SU.35 is the most modern fighter jet in the world today (its basic features are much better than the US F.22 stealth aircraft). The SU.35 has a large engine with an acceleration thrust of up to 14,500kg, allowing the SU.35 to quickly reach supersonic speed. The SU.35 is equipped with the IRBIS.E radar system with an operating range 4 times greater than the radar of the SU.30 MKR of the current Chinese Air Force. The SU.35 is capable of simultaneously tracking 30 targets and simultaneously attacking 8 targets.

LADA class submarines (supplied by Russia to China) have a number of superior features compared to Japanese SORYU submarines: 1. Stealth, silence and low noise - 8 times smaller than Kilo class submarines; 2. Great attack capability with strong firepower; 3. Can operate continuously underwater (without surfacing) for up to 2 - 3 weeks, twice as large as Japanese SORYU submarines.

The S.400 missile is the most modern medium-range missile in the world today. This is a modern surface-to-air missile (SAM) with the function of fighting aircraft and low-altitude missiles, ballistic missiles of the enemy. The S.400 is the next generation of the S.300 missile and is more modern than the S.300. Please note that the S.300 radar can track 100 targets at the same time and can simultaneously target up to 12 targets. The S.300 can be deployed (from normal state to launch) in just 5 minutes. The S.300 missile is housed in a sealed box and does not require maintenance throughout its life (other missiles require periodic maintenance).

With the trio of weapons Russia provides to China, the military power in Northeast Asia is tilted towards China. Is this a joint action between Russia and China to respond to the US shifting its strategic focus from Europe-Atlantic to Asia-Pacific?

- On US-China relations in 2013.

The US-China relationship is one of the most important in the world. In the Asia-Pacific region, the US-China relationship is the main axis relationship, meaning that if the US-China relationship is stable, the Pacific Ocean will be "calm and peaceful". On the contrary, if the US-China relationship is tense and confrontational, the Pacific Ocean will have storms.

The highlight of the US-China relationship in 2013 was the informal meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President B. Obama in early June 2013 in Annenberg (California, USA). Although it was informal, at this meeting, China and the US agreed to build a new type of major power relationship between China and the US based on the principles of avoiding conflict, avoiding confrontation, mutual respect and mutually beneficial cooperation. This is the framework for the development of China-US relations from now until 2020, possibly until 2030 and beyond. Public opinion in the US, China and the world believes that the US-China agreement in June 2013 is of historical significance.

Mr. Douglas Paal, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, assessed the China-US agreement on June 7, 2013 as "a historic decision by both leaders to seize an important strategic opportunity to create the premise for strengthening bilateral relations in the short and medium term".

Through a series of high-level meetings and dialogues taking place in the last 6 months of 2013, the US and China have gradually realized the high-level agreement of June 7, 2013.

In July 2013, in Beijing (China), Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang and State Councilor Yang Jiechi, together with Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and Secretary of State John Kerry, held the fifth round of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). In September 2013, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited the United States and negotiated with his counterpart John Kerry on bilateral and multilateral issues on which the two sides had different perceptions. In November 2013, Chinese Vice Premier Liu Yandong traveled to Washington with US Vice President Joe Biden to chair the US-China High-Level Consultation on Personnel Exchanges (CPE).

Economic exchanges between the US and China are important, but more important and meaningful is the military cooperation between the superpower and the rising power with the ambition to become the number one superpower. In 2013, China and the US strengthened military diplomacy towards building a new model of military relations between the US and China within the framework of the June 7, 2013 Annenberg Summit Agreement.

In November and December 2013, there were two events that caused waves in Sino-US relations: 1. On November 23, 2013, China established an air defense identification zone that violated the sovereignty of Japan and South Korea's airspace and violated international law and practice; 2. In December 2013, Chinese warships blocked US warships while they were operating in international waters (according to international law, China has no right to block or cause trouble). But overall, the two events (both caused by China) did not greatly affect the picture of Sino-US relations in 2013, which was stable, had new positive developments, and created a framework for US-China relations in the next 10 years.

Of course, one should not be too optimistic about Sino-US relations. Between these two powers lies an abyss of suspicion and mistrust. At the negotiating table, they exchanged many beautiful words such as “constructive cooperation partners”, “mutual respect”, “mutual benefit”, “win-win” between China and the US… In the Oval Office (Washington) and Zhongnanhai (Beijing), they secretly plotted to deal with each other as enemies.

- US-Russia relations in 2013.

This is a particularly important relationship and plays a huge role in ensuring the trend of peace, stability, cooperation and development in the world.

In terms of overall strength, Russia is not as strong as the US, especially economically. But Russia is a leading military power in the world (in some respects it is inferior to the US but far surpasses China). In the world, only Russia has the ability to destroy the US, China does not (if China aggressively goes to war with the US, it will be destroyed by the US and its dream of becoming a superpower will vanish like soap bubbles!).

Russia needs to stabilize relations with the US and through the US stabilize relations with Western Europe to focus on economic development and quickly improve the competitiveness of Russian goods and services in the international market.

In the political and security field, Russia is determined not to let the US overtake and oppress it (like the Ensin era from 1991 to 1999). President V. Putin always puts Russia's national security interests in the highest position and wholeheartedly works for Russia's revival. Without provoking the US, Putin is always tough, decisive and ready to use all measures, including military measures, to protect Russia's interests. Among the US elite, including in the House of Representatives and the Senate, many people do not like Putin, and many people always hate the Kremlin boss. But none of them dare to "joke" with Putin. Moreover, in most of the world's major issues and resolving disputes and regional hotspots, the US needs Russia more than it needs China. The major issues that the US prioritizes are non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, fighting international terrorism... Russia always plays a bigger role than China.

In resolving regional disputes and hotspots, except for the Northeast Asian hotspot (China plays a bigger role than Russia), resolving the bloody conflict in Syria, Iran's suspected nuclear program, Israel-Palestine relations, the war in Afghanistan..., the US always needs Russia more than China.

- Without Russia's cooperation and support, the US cannot confront and resolve the above-mentioned hot spots.

In 2013, Russia-US relations were hot and cold, but basically stable, with positive progress at the end of the year.

On August 1, 2013, President V. Putin decided to grant Edward Snowden - a defected CIA agent - political asylum for 1 year on the condition that he would not disclose any further information that would affect the national security interests of the United States. Washington strongly protested against Moscow and President B. Obama decided to cancel the official summit meeting with President V. Putin in September 2013.

The cancellation of the annual summit planned for the major powers is extremely serious. In August 2013, US-Russia relations fell to their lowest point in the 5 years of President B. Obama's administration (2009-2013).

As stated above, Russia needs the US and the US also needs Russia, how can they “divorce” or confront each other! And national security interests have been the driving force behind Washington and Moscow’s cooperation in resolving the conflict in Syria and Iran’s suspected nuclear program – the two hottest and most important issues in the Middle East.

On August 21, 2013, rebel forces accused President Bashar al-Assad's government of using chemical weapons in the suburbs of the capital Damascus. This was the pretext for the US and its allies to launch a military attack on Syria. During the last days of August and the first half of September 2013, the war machine of the US and its Western European and Middle Eastern allies operated at full speed, waiting for the G hour to fire. The whole world was anxious and worried about the storm of war.

When the situation reached its peak, close to war, Russian President V. Putin proposed the initiative of "exchanging chemical weapons for peace" with the principle that the Bashar al Assad government must hand over all chemical weapons, in exchange for the US and its allies not launching a military attack on Syria.

President B. Obama and his advisers at the White House quickly voiced their support for Russia's initiative. Russia and the United States joined hands to agree on a peaceful and political path to resolving the longest and bloodiest conflict in the first 13 years of the 21st century. The Russia-US agreement led to Resolution No. 2118 of the 68th United Nations General Assembly on September 26, 2013 on disarming Syria of chemical weapons and opening up a political solution to the conflict in this Middle Eastern country. This was a turning point and a historical breakthrough, and Russia, directly President V. Putin, was the initiator and played a decisive role.

Russia and the United States played a pivotal role in the negotiations between the P5+1 (US, Russia, China, France, UK, Germany) and Iran, and reached a provisional agreement between the P5+1 group and Iran to resolve the dispute over Iran's suspected nuclear program on November 24, 2013. For 34 years (1979 - 2013), under the same sky, the US and Iran always considered each other as enemies and never had direct dialogue at a high level. Therefore, international public opinion believes that the provisional agreement between the P5+1 and Iran on November 24, 2013 is a breakthrough and has historical significance.

Similar to the US-China relationship, the US-Russia relationship is also full of difficulties and storms because there is still a deep gap of distrust between them. But Russia needs the US and the US also needs Russia. In 2013, especially in the last 4 months of the year, the US and Russia cooperated to create a breakthrough development with historical significance for two hot spots in the Middle East: Syria and Iran.

In short, at the global level, in 2013, the Russia-China, US-China and US-Russia relations were basically stable and had positive developments, which promoted the trend of peace, stability, cooperation and development in the world.

2. regional level

While the global level is quite stable, the political and security situation at the regional level is patchy with complex bright and dark patches, with some very hot spots close to conflict and war.

Can be summarized as follows:

- The Korean Peninsula in particular and Northeast Asia in general are the hottest regions in 2013.

Let me remind you of the “earth-shattering” events in this region. On December 12, 2012, the DPRK launched a satellite. On February 12, 2013, the DPRK tested its third atomic bomb.

On March 7, 2013, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 2094 with a high consensus (100%) of 15 members deciding to impose additional sanctions on the DPRK and on a number of senior officials and DPRK businesses involved in the development of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, including: 1. Freezing all financial relations if these transactions are related to the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles; 2. Conducting mandatory inspections of suspected cargo transportation activities to or from the DPRK; 3. Adding a list of individuals and businesses whose assets are frozen and prohibited from traveling…

On March 11, 2013, the DPRK announced the cancellation of the 1953 Armistice Agreement (signed by China, the United States, the DPRK and the United Nations) and the agreement on reconciliation, non-aggression, exchanges and cooperation signed by the North and South in 1991, including the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone on the Korean peninsula.

On March 17, 2013, the DPRK called on the army and people of North Korea to prepare for "all-out war to destroy the enemy" (referring to the US and South Korea).

On March 26, 2013, the DPRK cut the hotline connecting Seoul with Pyongyang (established in 1972).

On March 28, 2013, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea declared a state of war with South Korea.

Faced with the threat from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the United States, South Korea and Japan coordinated to implement strong countermeasures. In the first four months of 2013, the security situation on the Korean peninsula in particular and the Northeast Asia region in general was as tense as a bowstring and close to a total war at the regional level.

Please note, nowhere on the planet is like Northeast Asia. Here, there exist four major contradictions of the contemporary world: 1. The contradiction between the US superpower (in decline) which is shifting its strategic focus from Europe - Atlantic to Asia - Pacific with a strong rising power (China) which is challenging the role of the US in the East Asia region in particular, and in the world in general; 2. Ideological contradictions (directly between North and South Korea); 3. Contradictions between countries in disputes over sovereignty of islands; 4. Contradictions between countries in the past but have not been completely resolved to this day, and the ghost of hatred in the past (China with Japan, North and South Korea with Japan, DPRK and China with the US...) still haunt and strongly impact the political and security situation in the Northeast Asia region.

The four contradictions above exist simultaneously and impact each other, "resonating" with each other, making Northeast Asia the most complex, persistent, and difficult-to-resolve political-security hotspot in the world.

- The North African region in particular and Africa in general in 2013 developed in a worse direction than in 2012, more accurately a step backward in history.

The following events illustrate the above statement.

In early 2013, Mali was in a bloody conflict and if France did not intervene and support, it would certainly collapse completely.

The military coup on July 3, 2013, which overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood government led by Mr. Morsi after one year and three days in power, has pushed Egypt, the largest country in the Arab world and America's number one ally in Africa, into a political crisis with no clear way out.

After nearly three years of overthrowing the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia and M. Gaddafi in Libya, these two North African countries are immersed in political crisis, even chaos at times.

2013 was also a rather dark year in terms of politics and security in the Central African Republic - a country with an important geopolitical position in Africa.

In the final months of 2013, a bloody conflict broke out in the young nation of South Sudan, killing nearly 10,000 people and forcing nearly a hundred thousand to leave their homeland and place of residence.

Thus, the political and security picture of North Africa in particular and Africa in general in 2013 is dominated by dark areas.

- The two hot spots of Syria and Iran in the Middle East in 2013 had positive breakthrough developments.

Resolution 2118 of the United Nations Security Council on September 26, 2013, realized Russia's initiative of "exchanging chemical weapons for peace" and the interim agreement between P5+1 and Iran on November 24, 2013, created a turning point in the situation and opened up the possibility of a political solution to resolve the two hottest spots in the Middle East.

The Syria and Iran files in 2013 demonstrate that if countries, especially major powers, respect international law and have goodwill to cooperate with each other, they can resolve regional hot spots through dialogue and find political solutions.

- Political crisis in Thailand and Ukraine.

These are two new hot spots that arose in 2013. It should be understood that in these two countries, conflicts between interest groups and political forces have been simmering for decades. In 2013, the limit was exceeded and what had to happen has happened.

It is also necessary to distinguish the difference between Thailand and Ukraine. In Thailand, the conflict between two basic interest groups in society is reflected in the conflict between two political parties representing interest groups: the conflict between the ruling Pro-Thai Party implementing populist policies and the opposition Democratic Party representing the middle class, urbanites, and intellectuals.

In Thailand, it is mainly an internal political crisis.

On the contrary, in Ukraine, the conflict between domestic interest groups “resonates” with the competition between Brussels and Moscow for Ukraine - a country with a particularly important geopolitical and geostrategic position for both the East and the West. Therefore, from a geopolitical perspective, the political crisis in Ukraine is more complicated, more persistent and more difficult to resolve than the crisis in Thailand.

In the Western Hemisphere, the passing of Hugo Chavez left a void in the leftist movement in Latin America. In 2013, Latin America was largely stable. The United States took advantage of the “void” left by Chavez to increase its influence in its own backyard.

In summary, 2013 was quite stable globally and somewhat brighter than 2012; at the regional level, the political and security situation seemed more unstable than 2012, but there was a breakthrough in the two hot spots of Syria and Iran.

3. What about 2014?

Here are some preliminary highlights:

- Economic:

The three centers of the US, Japan, EU and emerging countries BRICS have basically overcome the bottom of the recession and begun to develop with different scales and speeds.

- On politics and security on a global scaleu:

The US-Russia, US-China, and China-Russia relations continue to be stable, contributing to promoting the trend of peace, stability, cooperation, and development in the world.

- Disputes and hot spots in the regions.

The most unpredictable and unusual is the Korean peninsula in particular and Northeast Asia in general.

The Korean Peninsula is still under control. That is, there is no war, but there is always a state of tension, diplomatic war, and even minor conflicts (similar to March 2010 and November 2010) are not excluded.

Sino-Japanese relations are fraught with uncertainty in 2014. It is not impossible that there will be a limited military clash (in terms of space and time) between China and Japan in the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands area. At the end of this limited war, China may gain control of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. But that does not mean China has won, in some ways it has even lost and the “Dream of Chinese Rejuvenation” will be pushed further away.

North Africa in particular and Africa in general will escape the bottom of crisis and conflict, but the political crisis will continue.

Syria and Iran are slow, bumpy, and moving backwards on the political roadmap outlined in 2013.

Israeli-Palestinian relations will be slightly better than in 2013.

By the end of 2014, the US and its allies will withdraw their direct combat forces from Afghanistan. Conflicts and suicide bombings occur daily, pushing this South Asian country into a spiral of violence with no end in sight. Afghanistan will be the hottest spot in South Asia in 2014.

In all aspects, both globally and regionally, 2014 is a year with many advantages for Vietnam. Vietnam needs to take advantage of it to accelerate its development in order to quickly shorten the gap with the average developed countries in the region. The period 2014 - 2020 is the last opportunity and if it is not taken advantage of to accelerate its development, after 2020 Vietnam will exist in the last carriage of the historical train, national sovereignty will be violated by foreign countries, independence is just a formality.

Hanoi, December 31, 2013

Major General, Associate Professor, PhD:

Le Van Cuong

(Former Director of the Institute of Strategy and Science - Ministry of Public Security)