What do these strange allies have in common?
The four members of this group are all autocracies, but they don’t share an official ideology. China is a one-party communist party state with capitalist characteristics. Russia is a conservative, nationalist oligarchy. Iran is a Shiite Islamic theocracy, and North Korea is a hybrid of state communism, radical self-reliance, and racial supremacism.
What’s behind their cooperation?
According to Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the four countries "are united in their opposition to the prevailing world order and its US leadership." What Western countries see as the "rules-based international order" established out of the ashes of World War II, these countries see as a cloak for American power.
There are other commonalities. They share a belief in state-based political rights rather than individual rights or human rights. They share a vision of spheres of influence. In other words, it’s countries’ interests on the world stage that have to be respected, not those of their citizens.
What’s the scope of their cooperation?
The four countries have been increasing their cooperation in various areas, including military cooperation. Just a few days after Putin and his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, signed a 20-year strategic partnership agreement, pledging a wide range of military cooperation. North Korea is also pledging to send more troops to Russia, where they have been fighting alongside Russian forces against Ukraine since last October, taking shockingly high losses.
What’s the US’s response?
The cooperation between the four is hard to deny, and while some of these countries have been erstwhile friends since the Cold War, the relationship has certainly deepened since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But what does this "axis" actually stand for? Is it just an alliance of convenience or something deeper? And how will a new US administration, one that takes a much more transactional approach to foreign policy and is far less invested in promoting democracy abroad, deal with the quartet?
Will the US be able to divide the axis?
Some of Trump’s advisers are inherently skeptical of taking on all four of these countries at once. They argue that the US needs to extract itself from conflicts with Russia in Europe and Iran in the Middle East to focus on the real threat: China. Others, like Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, have advocated for dividing the axis by offering incentives to individual countries to separate themselves from the others.
Conclusion
The axis of upheaval is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that poses a significant challenge to the US and the world. The cooperation between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea is not limited to a single issue or region, but rather is a broad and deepening alliance that threatens the existing global order. The US must develop a comprehensive strategy to counter this challenge, including diplomatic, economic, and military measures.
FAQs
Q: What is the axis of upheaval?
A: The axis of upheaval refers to the cooperation between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, which is characterized by their opposition to the prevailing world order and their shared values of state-based political rights and spheres of influence.
Q: What are the commonalities between these countries?
A: These countries share a belief in state-based political rights, a vision of spheres of influence, and a belief in the importance of state power.
Q: What is the scope of their cooperation?
A: The four countries have been increasing their cooperation in various areas, including military cooperation, economic cooperation, and political coordination.
Q: What is the US’s response to this axis?
A: The US has been criticized for its response to the axis, with some arguing that it has been too slow to address the threat posed by these countries and others arguing that it has been too focused on individual issues rather than developing a comprehensive strategy to counter the axis.
Q: Can the US divide the axis?
A: Some argue that the US can divide the axis by offering incentives to individual countries to separate themselves from the others, while others argue that this is unlikely to be successful and that the US should instead focus on developing a comprehensive strategy to counter the axis.