Global Polarity
Global South challenges world order, UNSC unfit for task, Kyiv cannot achieve its goals, EU-Lat-Am split on Ukraine, China FDI strength, China advances Micro-LED standards
UPDATE: The Global South network has explored the challenges that Global South countries face in the current world order, deconstructed the concepts of rules-based order and polarity, and explored avenues for Global South actors, from civic movements to state leaders, to foster change.
The world’s institutions are ill-prepared and poorly designed to effectively address global challenges such as major power conflicts, pandemics, the climate catastrophe, refugee crises, violent extremism, illicit profiteering from natural resources, and the regulation of artificial intelligence systems.
Diplomacy is more important than ever as Kyiv simply doesn’t have the human resources or physical infrastructure to achieve its goals. Only last March, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said the Ukrainian military’s spring offensive had “a very good chance for success.”
European Union and Latin American leaders concluded a summit that was supposed to be a love-in after eight years of separation, but instead ended Tuesday with aggravation over the failure to support even a bland statement on Ukraine.
Foreign investment in China remained stable in the first half of this year, and the country saw rapid growth in the number of newly established overseas enterprises, China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) said on Wednesday, as executives from multinational corporations have been visiting China to seek new opportunities for investment cooperation opportunities.
Chinese display screen manufacturers are getting ready to mass produce micro light-emitting-diode displays, which are the next generation of screens and will be mainly used on large devices as well as in-car and wearable equipment, so as to help reduce its exorbitant cost.
The Global South Needs its Own Vision and Vocabulary of “World Order”
By Amitav Acharya
The Global South is diverse, but in general, most nations of the Global South believe that the current world order—created by the West and still dominated by the United States—is unpeaceful, unjust, undemocratic, and unfriendly to their economic and ecological interests. And it is failing.
Hence, the Global South should not be mimicking or adopting concepts and ideas originally developed in the West such as multipolar, bipolar, or unipolar. These concepts have not been kind to the Global South. When the world was multipolar, most of today’s Global South was under colonial rule. When the world was bipolar, as during the Cold War, only Europe had peace; the Global South was rife with war, intervention, and exploitation. When the world was briefly unipolar, in the 1990s, the United States promoted the idea of a “Liberal World Order” or “Rules-Based World Order.” But who made these rules? Whose interests do they serve? The liberal world order was essentially a privileged club of the West in which the Global South was largely marginalized.
Now we are said to be in a multipolar world, but it does not bode well for the Global South. On the contrary, the war over Ukraine has deeply harmed the Global South with food and energy shortages, discriminatory treatment of refugees, and threats of primary or secondary sanctions from the United States and The European Union.
Hence, the Global South needs a new way of thinking about the world order and a new plan of action to realize it. To this end, I have proposed the idea of a “Multiplex World Order.” The ideal of such an order:
has no hegemony by any single power or bloc;
is developed by multiple actors, not just big powers or corporations but also non-governmental actors and social movements;
respects cultural diversity, multiculturalism and rejects the clash of civilizations idea;
is connected by economic and other exchanges that are not led by the West, but by the Rest; and
features a multi-level governance system in which regionalism plays a central role.
The Multiplex World Order is the better concept and vocabulary for the Global South than “Multipolar World Order,” “Liberal World Order” or “Rules-Based World Order.”
How to achieve a Multiplex World Order? I suggest the following steps, among others.
First, the Global South should call for a new Bandung Conference. I would call it Bandung Plus. The original Bandung Conference of 1955 did not include much of sub-Saharan Africa, which was still under colonial rule. South Africa was under the Apartheid regime. Bandung did not include Latin American and Caribbean countries. Bandung Plus should include those previously excluded states and devise a new set of rules—similar to the ten principles of the 1955 meeting, but with a more updated set of aspirations and demands of the Global South. These would include the renegotiation of the UN Charter to encompass norms of racial equality and more voice and leadership opportunities for the Global South in international institutions.
Second, the Global South should revive and reinvigorate the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). NAM served the interests of the Global South well during the Cold War’s US-Soviet competition and will be a good way to frame the Global South’s response to the US/NATO/EU-Russia rivalry or the US-China rivalry.
Third, the Global South should strengthen existing regional organizations through which it can articulate its demands and bargain with the major powers.
Finally, the Global South should undertake its own diplomatic initiatives, either through NAM or through regional or interregional groups, on important issues challenging world peace and stability. The recent African Union peace mission to Ukraine and Russia is a good example. Similar missions covering war, economic crises, climate stress, and refugee movements, for example, should be sent to the United Nations, and centers of major powers such as Washington, Brussels, and Beijing, to ease great power tensions, advance solutions, and press Global South demands for a more just and inclusive world order.
Requiem for the United Nations Security Council: Towards a UN Charter Review Conference
By Tim Murithi
The world’s institutions are ill-prepared and poorly designed to effectively address global challenges such as major power conflicts, pandemics, the climate catastrophe, refugee crises, violent extremism, illicit profiteering from natural resources, and the regulation of artificial intelligence systems. In particular, the United Nations (UN), which was created to address the problems of the world in 1945, is no longer fit for purpose. The multilateral organization has outlived its usefulness; there is an urgent need to design a global institution that is reflective of the twenty-first century.
The UN was created with a recognition of the limitations of the League of Nations in mind. In particular, the League was unable to prevent the conquest of Europe by Nazi Germany and the Japanese invasion of China. History is repeating itself in the form of the powerful Permanent Five (P5) members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) repeatedly ignoring the legal provisions of the UN Charter and weakening the legitimacy of this international institution, by invading countries in contravention of international law. The dysfunctionality of the UNSC was exposed once more on February 24, 2022, when Russia was simultaneously chairing the Presidency of the Council and launching an illegal invasion of Ukraine. This war is impeding global stability. Ukrainians suffer the most from this conflict, which also inflicts great damage to Global South countries’ economies and human security. Yet, other major conflicts are also looming, for example between the United States and China over Taiwan, and it is unlikely that the planet can endure another full-blown major-power war. A confrontation between two nuclear weapons-bearing permanent members of the UNSC would leave us all in an extremely precarious state of affairs, but there are currently no effective mechanisms to constrain the UNSC’s permanent members’ actions.
The founders of the UN recognized that the moment would arrive when it became imperative to transform the organization, and they included a practical mechanism to review the body’s Charter. According to Article 109 (1), a UN Charter Review Conference should have been convened 10 years after the signing of the document. Today, it could be initiated by a majority vote of the members of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and by a vote of any seven members of the UNSC, according to Article 109 (3). This provision means that the P5 members cannot veto any proposed UN Charter Review Conference. In practice, a dozen or more UN member states drawn from different continents would need to create a “Coalition of the Willing” within the UNGA, which would have to draft a Resolution to trigger and launch a UN Charter Review Conference. Such a Review Conference could, through the collective decision of the members of the UNGA, identify the key issues that need to be addressed, including reform of the UNSC. The Review Conference could also adopt a recommendation to substantially alter the UN Charter and introduce completely new provisions, including even a change in the name of the institution.
More than 60 percent of the issues discussed by the UNSC are focused on Africa, yet the continent does not have any representation among the P5 members of the Council. Given the fact that the P5 can veto all manner of decisions before the Council, it is a travesty of justice at its most basic level that African countries can only participate in key deliberations and decision-making processes as non-permanent members of the Council. UNSC negotiations and decision-making processes are, in effect, the highest manifestation of unfairness in the international system. If achieving fairness in negotiations among states is the preferred route to global legitimacy, then a fundamental transformation of the UNSC and the elimination of the veto for the P5 is a necessary pre-requisite action.
Read more here.
Why Ukraine’s counter-offensive is failing
By Daniel L. Davis (edited)
Diplomacy is more important than ever as Kyiv simply doesn’t have the human resources or physical infrastructure to achieve its goals. Last March, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that as a result of significant Western support, the Ukrainian military’s spring offensive had “a very good chance for success.” Former Chief of the British General Staff, General Richard Dannatt, went so far as to suggest that Ukraine’s offensive would be so successful that Putin “may be swept out of the Kremlin” as a result.
Combat reality, however, has now swept away those optimistic claims and exposed the harsh truth: Ukraine is unlikely to militarily evict Russia out of its territory, no matter how many men they feed into battle.
As unpalatable as it is for all supporters of Ukraine, the most prudent course for Zelensky may now be to seek a negotiated settlement that preserves as much freedom and territory as possible for Kyiv. Ending the war now would end the deaths and injuries for tens of thousands of Ukraine’s brave and heroic fighters — men and women whom Kyiv will need to rebuild their country once the war ends.
The same month that Austin was claiming Ukraine had “a very good chance” to defeat Russia in Kyiv’s spring offensive, I wrote that embracing the concept “that Russia is going to lose the war could leave the West to be caught off guard if the Ukrainian offensive fails to materially degrade Russian positions.”
To succeed in its operation to cut the Russian land bridge to Crimea, I wrote that Ukrainian troops would have to attack through multiple belts of elaborate Russian defenses “with limited offensive air power, limited air defense, insufficient quantities of artillery shells, and a force that is equipped with a hodgepodge of modern and antiquated armor — staffed by a mix of conscripts with no combat experience and some officers and men with basic training by NATO instructors.”
All of those factors have now predictably conspired to blunt Kyiv’s offensive, failing after six weeks of effort to even penetrate the first belt of the main Russian defensive lines. Starting on about June 5, the UAF launched a major attack in the Zaporizhia region, with the intent to break through the Russian security zone immediately opposite the line of contact, then penetrate the first belt of Russia’s main defensive line, capture Tokmak about 15 miles behind the lines, on the way to taking Melitopol on the Azov Sea coast, cutting the Russian forces in half. The Ukrainian command spearheaded the attack with two mechanised brigades — the 47th and 33rd Mechanised Brigades— that had received the most NATO training and NATO equipment, featuring German Leopard 2 tanks and American Bradley Fighting Vehicles.
These two brigades suffered crushing defeats right from the beginning, failing to advance more than a few kilometers, losing a large number of their modern armored vehicles in the first four days. In the first two weeks, Ukraine overall lost a staggering 20 percent of the Western armor it had amassed for the offensive and over 30 percent of its striking force. The reasons for the loss were wholly understandable given the conditions known to exist: Russia had spent over six months building elaborate and powerful defensive belts, had a significant advantage in air power, air defense, and artillery, and significant capacity in minefields, anti-tank guided missiles, rocket artillery, electronic warfare (to defeat Ukrainian drones and precision guided missiles), and attack drones.
The problem for Kyiv is that this “approach” is virtually certain to fail. The military geography of this entire region of Ukraine is characterized by open, flat terrain, interspersed with thin forest strips. Because Russia owns the skies and has considerable drone capacity, any time the Ukrainian soldiers move in the open, they are immediately subjected to artillery or mortar fire. If any armored vehicles move in the open, they are likewise quickly destroyed. The best the UAF can do is infiltrate small numbers of infantrymen into trenches where Russian forces are located.
It’s not that Zelensky’s forces are “going slowly” forward, it’s that they aren’t attaining any of their initial tactical objectives on the way to the Azov coast and it’s precisely because the combat fundamentals necessary to win are largely (and in some cases entirely) absent. They flatly don’t have the human resources or physical infrastructure necessary to succeed.
Now, it is always possible that Russia could suffer sudden political collapse, such as what happened in 1917, and Ukraine could still emerge successful. That, however, is extremely unlikely and Kyiv would be unwise to base their future hopes upon such an event.
To continue trying will tragically result in yet more UAF troops being killed, Ukrainian cities destroyed, and push prospects for peace ever further away.
On Monday, Pentagon Deputy Press
Secretary Sabrina Singh said that Ukraine has “the combat power to be successful on the battlefield. They have what it needs to be successful in the counteroffensive.” Such optimism is grossly out of kilter with combat realities. The United States should stop making such plainly inaccurate statements and instead start to put real diplomatic efforts into ending this war.
I understand everyone wants Ukraine to win and Russia to lose. But continuing to persist in pursuing that aspiration won’t change the ground truth realities. The course of action that holds out the best hope for Zelensky to emerge from this war with Ukraine retaining its political viability is to agree to a ceasefire so that negotiations can begin.
Even that’s not a guarantee of success, but the longer Ukraine delays in seeking such an outcome, the greater the chances that Russia continues building strength to launch an offensive of its own this summer or fall, possibly capturing even Kharkiv or Odessa. In other words, a stalemate might not be the worst-case scenario for Kyiv. Now is the time to develop the diplomatic track to end the war.
Read more here.
EU-Latin America split on Ukraine
By Raf Caret (edited)
European Union and Latin American leaders concluded a summit that was supposed to be a love-in after eight years of separation, but instead ended Tuesday with aggravation over the failure to support even a bland statement on Ukraine.
Instead of a clear condemnation that the EU wanted, the statement endorsed by all countries except Nicaragua would merely have expressed “deep concern on the ongoing war against Ukraine.”
Europe’s fervent support of Ukraine clashed with the more distant or neutral approach pervasive in the 33-nation Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. What should have been a mere detail in a landmark summit celebrating economic ties and fresh investment became its encompassing theme.
In the end, it was a standoff over an issue that a vast majority of the 60 nations attending had already expressed common views in several votes at the United Nations and other international institutions.
Even beyond the war in Ukraine, some divergences stood out. While the 27-nation EU focused on new economic initiatives and closer cooperation to stave off surging Chinese influence in the region, several CELAC leaders brought century-old recriminations over colonialism and slavery to the table.
With such distractions, long-stalled trade agreements — such as a huge EU-Mercosur deal — made little to no palpable progress, beyond promises that they could be wrapped up within months.
If something were on show, it was Central and South America’s increased confidence, boosted by a huge injection of funds from China and the knowledge that their critical raw materials will become ever more vital as the EU seeks to end an excessive reliance on Beijing’s rare mineral resources.
Their last such encounter was in 2015, and since then the COVID-19 pandemic and Brazil’s three-year departure from CELAC had made the Atlantic Ocean separating the two sides seem wider.
Now the next summit is set for 2025 already, in Colombia.
Read more here.
China H1 FDI 703.7 billion yuan
By Global Times (edited)
Foreign investment in China remained stable in the first half of this year, and the country saw rapid growth in the number of newly established overseas enterprises, China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) said on Wednesday, as executives from multinational corporations have been visiting China to seek new opportunities for investment cooperation opportunities.
Vice Minister of Commerce Guo Tingting said that from January to June, the country saw 24,000 newly established foreign invested firms, an increase of 35.7 percent. The actual use of foreign direct investment (FDI) amounted to 703.7 billion yuan ($97.6 billion), down 2.7 percent year-on-year.
Capital investment in China from developed countries continued to grow, with investment from France surging 173.3 percent and that from the UK growing 135.3 percent. Japan's investment in China grew 53 percent and that from Germany was up 14.2 percent, according to Guo.
In 2022, against the backdrop of a 12 percent decline in global cross-border investment, China's FDI rose 6.3 percent, with the actual use of FDI reaching 1.2 trillion yuan, an increase of 8 percent, Zhu Bing, a MOFCOM official, said.
"In the second half of the year, a number of executives of multinational companies plan to visit China, and we will provide maximum convenience for them to come to China to inspect the investment environment, buttress their development strategies and discuss cooperation projects. We welcome multinational companies to continue to invest in China and share the dividends of China's huge market and open development," Zhu said.
Read more here.
China dominates Next-Gen Micro-LED
Editors: Liao Shumin, Kim Taylor
Chinese display screen manufacturers are getting ready to mass produce micro light-emitting-diode displays, which are the next generation of screens and will be mainly used on large devices as well as in-car and wearable equipment, so as to help reduce its exorbitant cost.
Giant television sets with backlit mini-LED displays are considered to be a new growth point in the industry, Yicai Global learned at the Universal Semiconductor & Display Expo that ended in Shenzhen yesterday.
Display panel makers are moving into the mass production of micro-LEDs so as to make it cheaper, said Gao Jinlong, general manager of micro-LED testing company Alphabetter. They have all started to buy more equipment and to build production lines.
HKC, whose production base for micro-LED displays is in Yichang, central Hubei province, plans to slash the cost of a 3.5-meter direct-view mini-LED screen to CNY100,000 (USD13,916), so as to help open up the market.
Tianma New Display Technology Research Institute has invested CNY1.1 billion (USD153.1 million) in micro-LED production lines which will start operation next year, said Xi Kerui, vice president and technology director of the Xiamen-based research institute.
Investment in the micro-LED display global industrial chain has soared since 2018 and this segment is expected to surge after 2025, Xi said.
Despite the fact that micro-LED products are still in their embryonic period, the China Video Industry Association has already begun setting standards for in-car micro-LED displays.
Read more here.