First published on Terminal X
In 1991, when the Afghan Taliban defeated the former Soviet Union and a good part of the world was celebrating the end of the Cold War, it was beyond imagination that the US would replace the defeated Great Bear as a global superpower within a decade. At the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was hard to imagine that this sole superpower could be stuck knee-deep in financial crises, thus changing its course of action.
The geopolitical dynamics are constantly changing but it takes a great amount of risk-oriented instinct to realize this pattern. Nation states today are governed by institutions, not humans. Institututions in particular and nations by and large have little or no regard for feelings, emotions and moral values. They are derived by their respective interests. At times they are perceived ruthless, at others brutal. As William Clay aptly puts it: "Politics is quite a game. There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests".
The US cannot afford endless wars politically, rather than financially.The political situation is more grave than the financial situation. The latter is certainly among the reasons for intolerance towards war but the decisive factor is local politics. Creating a balance of power in different regions is the new global strategy of US policy makers. By establishing an equilibrium among various regional powers, it can retain its hegemony much more effectively and efficiently.
We can see, or expect to see, some patterns emerging. The Muslim world is engaging in Shia-Sunni conflicts, in which Saudi Arabia and Iran are fostering conflicts among Muslim states. Russia too is not shying away using its leverage on Eastern Europe. Unrest in Ukraine is a good example. Interest of Germany may serve well with Russia than a US-backed European Union, considering the current EU crisis.
Pakistan, marred with conflicts on every axis, is facing a complicated situation. It must expect the unexpected, having policies that facilitate in the event of any significant change in global geopolitics. Put simply, Pakistan must not consider any friend or enemy as permanent. And by enemy here, I certainly do not mean India. I am always amazed at the peace advocated between Pakistan and India. In a zero-sum game, you cannot have a win-win solution. It is a symptom of brainlessness. This is the same as expecting peaceful relations between the Soviet Union and the US, North Korea and South Korea, East Germany and West Germany or Sudan and South Sudan. Two countries created with an ideological difference can never live in peace, they just cannot. The conflict always ends up by either one overpowering the other.
The problem in South Asia is that its future is dependent largely on India and China. One concern is that Pakistan must not handover all of its strategic cards to China. It is not known when China could itself be hit with a sizable domestic crisis anytime. Keeping in view the large population of this Communist People's Republic, it is a serious threat indeed.
China enjoys a far deeper strategic relation with Russia. The latter will keep backing Iran for a foreseeable future, at least until it is not at risk. Ties between Iran and India are significant. India considers Iran as its strategic partner in the Middle East. The rapprochement between China and India would be devastating for Pakistan. It is too weak to survive without a patron.
Considering India's foreign policy, it varies in giving US any leverage on its expense. So far, India has kept a balance between Russia and the US. The latter is withdrawing itself from the self-assumed role of a global policeman whereas Russia's increasing interest lies in international affairs. Here, India might observe the gap widening.
In such a case, Pakistan will have to choose another patron to follow, Turkey perhaps. If Turkey survives the current turmoil, it is destined to become a great regional power courtesy of its strategic geography. In the Middle East, what seems impossible today may manifest into reality in a decade. Hezbollah in Lebanon may ally (covertly) with Israel to form a legitimate government and fight the growing jihadist threat together.
Pakistan will find itself in the American camp if the situation plays out this way. I write this because Pakistan can never be an independent power in its own right. Taking into account the weak institutions, diverse and large illiterate population, it is hard to imagine any different outcome.
These small power-brokers will continue to unite and divide. A global conflict will be looming as soon as the concentration of these widely dispersed powers will start. The US will still be a global power but the same cannot be said of Russia. Other regional powers will rise too. But the collations among them would be decisive in shaping the global geopolitical environment of the coming decade.
In 1991, when the Afghan Taliban defeated the former Soviet Union and a good part of the world was celebrating the end of the Cold War, it was beyond imagination that the US would replace the defeated Great Bear as a global superpower within a decade. At the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was hard to imagine that this sole superpower could be stuck knee-deep in financial crises, thus changing its course of action.
The geopolitical dynamics are constantly changing but it takes a great amount of risk-oriented instinct to realize this pattern. Nation states today are governed by institutions, not humans. Institututions in particular and nations by and large have little or no regard for feelings, emotions and moral values. They are derived by their respective interests. At times they are perceived ruthless, at others brutal. As William Clay aptly puts it: "Politics is quite a game. There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests".
The US cannot afford endless wars politically, rather than financially.The political situation is more grave than the financial situation. The latter is certainly among the reasons for intolerance towards war but the decisive factor is local politics. Creating a balance of power in different regions is the new global strategy of US policy makers. By establishing an equilibrium among various regional powers, it can retain its hegemony much more effectively and efficiently.
We can see, or expect to see, some patterns emerging. The Muslim world is engaging in Shia-Sunni conflicts, in which Saudi Arabia and Iran are fostering conflicts among Muslim states. Russia too is not shying away using its leverage on Eastern Europe. Unrest in Ukraine is a good example. Interest of Germany may serve well with Russia than a US-backed European Union, considering the current EU crisis.
Pakistan, marred with conflicts on every axis, is facing a complicated situation. It must expect the unexpected, having policies that facilitate in the event of any significant change in global geopolitics. Put simply, Pakistan must not consider any friend or enemy as permanent. And by enemy here, I certainly do not mean India. I am always amazed at the peace advocated between Pakistan and India. In a zero-sum game, you cannot have a win-win solution. It is a symptom of brainlessness. This is the same as expecting peaceful relations between the Soviet Union and the US, North Korea and South Korea, East Germany and West Germany or Sudan and South Sudan. Two countries created with an ideological difference can never live in peace, they just cannot. The conflict always ends up by either one overpowering the other.
The problem in South Asia is that its future is dependent largely on India and China. One concern is that Pakistan must not handover all of its strategic cards to China. It is not known when China could itself be hit with a sizable domestic crisis anytime. Keeping in view the large population of this Communist People's Republic, it is a serious threat indeed.
China enjoys a far deeper strategic relation with Russia. The latter will keep backing Iran for a foreseeable future, at least until it is not at risk. Ties between Iran and India are significant. India considers Iran as its strategic partner in the Middle East. The rapprochement between China and India would be devastating for Pakistan. It is too weak to survive without a patron.
Considering India's foreign policy, it varies in giving US any leverage on its expense. So far, India has kept a balance between Russia and the US. The latter is withdrawing itself from the self-assumed role of a global policeman whereas Russia's increasing interest lies in international affairs. Here, India might observe the gap widening.
In such a case, Pakistan will have to choose another patron to follow, Turkey perhaps. If Turkey survives the current turmoil, it is destined to become a great regional power courtesy of its strategic geography. In the Middle East, what seems impossible today may manifest into reality in a decade. Hezbollah in Lebanon may ally (covertly) with Israel to form a legitimate government and fight the growing jihadist threat together.
Pakistan will find itself in the American camp if the situation plays out this way. I write this because Pakistan can never be an independent power in its own right. Taking into account the weak institutions, diverse and large illiterate population, it is hard to imagine any different outcome.
These small power-brokers will continue to unite and divide. A global conflict will be looming as soon as the concentration of these widely dispersed powers will start. The US will still be a global power but the same cannot be said of Russia. Other regional powers will rise too. But the collations among them would be decisive in shaping the global geopolitical environment of the coming decade.
No comments:
Post a Comment