Global Intifada

Unfortunately, the talk of a return to the Cold War has become quite frequent among political analysts these days due to American and Russian competition in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. The term is misleading because, unlike the Cold War which was essentially characterized by the bipolar nature of international relations, the present conflict is not between the US and Russia as equals. Rather, it is characterized by overwhelming American dominance and emerging counter-hegemonic challengers (Russia, India, China, and Europe), a complex but predictable shifting of power that exhibits multipolarity rather than unipolarity or bipolarity. The general rule of international relations is that once a power becomes hegemonic (i.e. the king of the hill), its primary interests are to contain the rise of any challengers or the formation of a counter-hegemonic alliance between states to weak to directly challenge the dominant hegmeon. In spite of the secular liberal democratic capitalist nature of the US, the behavior that it has exhibited since its founding indicates that it rarely acts any different from other powers that seek power. Its actions have illustrated that its primary interest is preventing Russia from re-emerging in regions that it had influence during the Cold War while also stifling the expansion of India and China that might otherwise result in the global economy shifting beyond an Anglo-American locus (clarification: I do not mean simply England and America, but the economic and security system that was first established by England and later taken up by America). The current system has five major poles: (1) America, (2) Europe (predominantly Western Europe), (3) Russia, (4) India, and (5) China. Regions such as Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East are too weak economically and military to influence international relations beyond their respective regions. What is more likely is that the various  poles of power will exploit them for their own purposes, either to use them as economic peripheries that are dependent on the hegemonic cores or as political and military proxies to challenge the influence of the other powers. In order to understand the future of this system and how each of the respective states will behave, it is necessary to understand how the system is being structured at this very moment. The following observations can be made on the current structure of the international system:

1. The American strategy seems to be one of containment rather than engagement and does so by pitting the challengers against one another (Europe against Russia, Japan/India against China, Israel against the Arab states and both against Iran). However, its choice of allies is not based merely on expedience but seems to be influenced by the ideological nature of a particular power and its relationship with the US. Thus, states thatare democratic capitalist are more likely to be chosen as allies whereas those have ideologies that oppose it are more likely categorized as opponents. This makes sense since democratic capitalist states more likely to agree to the American security blanket which is necessary for the preservation of political power and economic growth.
2. Europe v. Russia. One of the indicators that the overarching principle behind American foreign policy is the drive to seek dominance rather than accidentally acquiring benign global influence is the expansion of its security forces throughout Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the construction of military bases in Central Asia. If American power was created for no other reason to contain fascism, communism, or other ideologies hell bent on world domination, then one would have witnessed a recession of American military influence. However, the complete opposite happened and America’s defense spending actually increased, rather dramatically, after the collapse of its supposed ideological nemesis. While Europe is not seen as an explicit challenge to American dominance, its clear that if the European Union movement were allowed to develop, it would have the economic, political, and eventually military means to operate independently of US involvement. By expanding NATO which is firmly in the hands of Anglo-American supervision to Eastern Europe through diplomacy and intimidation (such as the bombing of Yugoslavia which essentially expelled Russia from its historic region of influence) and using it as a security alliance to protect Europe, the need for Europe’s own military development has been rendered obsolete. America’s granting of membership to NATO nations to former Soviet States and cajoling them into a missile defense shield network is designed to prevent Russian influence from ever re-emerging in Europe. Russian anger can be fully explained by this dramatic loss of influence in a region that it determined to penetrate not too long ago.
3. India-Japan v. China. One of the strategies used by America during the Cold War was to capitalize on the falling out between the USSR and China, resulting in the latter allying with America during the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation and sending weapons to the Mujahideen. The rift between the USSR and China was so great that minor skirmishes broke out. During this period, the US warmed its relations with China which culminated in President Nixon’s historic visit to the country. Following the move away from Maoism, China entered the globalized world economy with its peculiar state capitalism (similar to Russia’s economic system with the election of Putin) in the 1980s and has proven itself to be a juggernaut while America has looked on with consternation as its military has developed as well. America’s strategy of using China as a counterweight to Soviet influence in southeast Asia has been rendered obsolete with the collapse of the USSR, Russia’s economic collapse following attempts at adopting to neoliberal capitalist programs, China’s exception economic growth, and the Korean movement towards unification embodied in the Sunshine policy. As a result, the balance of power in the region has once again shifted away from American dominance as an emergent China would undoubtedly lead to the restoration of Indo-Sinic dominance in global trade which seems to have been the historic norm for the reign of human existence. While the Chinese strategy in international relations seems to be one of reconciliation and accommodation, the American strategy is more conspicuous. It has encouraged Japan to develop its military prowess, infuriating the Asian states that were once victims of Japanese imperialism that was ended after World War II such as China, South Korea, et al. It has also waived an array of carrots to India such as promising it nuclear technology and military assistance. It is by developing Japan and India as regional powers that America seeks to contain the spread of Sinic influence in the region.
4. The Middle East. The Middle East, like Africa and Latin America, has been structured primarily by the clashes between hegemonic powers, the first being the Great Game of European colonizers and the second being the Cold War between the US and the USSR. The former resulted in the creation of the present day territorial boundaries whereas the latter resulted in the present security balance. It was fear of Soviet penetration that convinced America to give unflinching support for the state of Israel, rather than any Jewish conspiracy or the success of the Zionist movement which are unfortunately two popular theories within the Muslim world. It was only when Arab states that often flirted with socialism or Soviet military aid did America begin building the Israeli juggernaut which it used to not only subdue the Soviet-backed Arab states but also to help America do its dirty work when it could not do so itself, such as training the Shah of Iran’s state terror intelligence organization Savak and also serving as a conduit for the exchange of monies and weapons during the Iran-Contra affair. By simultaneously augmenting Israeli power, pressuring the Arabs to cease relying on the Soviet Union, and creating negative perceptions of the Soviet Union through various political crises such as the military intervention, the Arab states shifted to the US. Jordan, Egypt, the Emirates, and Saudi Arabia formally entered the US security blanket, especially after the OPEC oil embargo proved to be a complete disaster. Syria and Iraq remained within the Soviet sphere of influence while Iran underwent a dramatic transformation from being a US client state under the Shah of Iran into one that opposed American hegemony after Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power following the Islamic Revolution. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia and China began transfers of military technology to these states. Thus, Syria, Iraq, and Iran became problematic for American strategists for two reasons: (1) they were organized in opposition to the American security arrangement and (2) by receiving support from a former hegemon that was attempting to reassert its authority (Russia) and an upcoming hegemonic challenger (China). It is important to note that neither Syria nor Iraq had engaged in any direct deliberate military action against America nor did they have the capacity to evict American dominance from the region. By simply not conforming to the demands of American hegemony, they were viewed as a threat. Iraq was invaded on questionable grounds which resulted in an American military presence between the smaller triad (Syria, Iraq, and Iran,) of anti-American states and the larger triad (Russia, China, and the Middle East). The argument that America sought to fight terrorism, restrict the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or promote democracy are all rather insufficient explanations of why America went to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan to a lesser degree) whereas geostrategic powerplaying has far more explanatory power. It is important to note that in prosecuting the war on terror, the US has selectively targeted terrorist organizations and states that sponsor terrorism. Iraq was targetted, while Iran was left largely alone. The US has fought al-Qaeda and groups allied with it, but has left HAMAS and Hezbullah untouched. It has gone so far as to provide military protection to Mujahideen e Khalq based in Iraq in spite of it being listed on the State Department’s terror list and has also provided advise to Jundullah in Pakistan because both organizations seek to undermine the stability of the Islamic regime in Iran. It is not without irony that the US justified its invasion of Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban were intimately linked with al-Qaeda albeit of the lack of any evidence that the Taliban were involved in any way with the 9/11 attacks. If the principle behind the US invasion were to be established as a principle of international law, then Iran would be permitted to attack the US on similar grounds since it supports terrorist organizations that have killed Iranians within its borders and abroad. While the US has attacked the Taliban on the grounds of self-defense and human rights, it has turned the other cheek to Saudi Arabia whose fundamentalist government actually served as a model for the Taliban and whose private citizens have gone so far as to fund Sunni insurgent groups to offset the Shi’ite dominated Iraqi government, in spite of the fact that these Sunni insurgent groups were also attacking American soldiers. The argument that the US is primarily motivated to prosecute the war on terror also doesn’t explain why the US has built bases in Central Asia in former Soviet States in spite of a complete lack of terrorist activity in that area. The logic of the war on terror does not explain US behavior and how it chooses its allies and opponents in the region, but the logic of hegemony explains its behavior with reasonable clarity and predictability.What can be gleaned from the past decade and a half is that the US is obsessed with maintaining hegemony in the Middle East because of its energy reserves. While the US may not necessarily need this energy for its own use (it only gets 10% from this area),  its other allies, such as Europe (30%) and Japan (80%) are still dependent on it. Moreover, the two rising hegemons, India and China, are thirsty for oil due to their respective rapid industrialization programs. Given the global strategic value of the region, it seems that: (a) the US will not tolerate any counter-hegemonic alliances (such as Iran getting support from Russia and China), (b) the US will not tolerate any upsetting of the energy system in the region since it is needed for its security blanket in Europe and Japan that is used to contain Russia and China (such as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and Syrian pressures on Lebanon), (c) the US will not tolerate any non-governmental organizations undermining its hegemonic scheme (such as HAMAS, Hezbullah, al-Qaeda, Ikhwan al Muslimeen, Hizb e Tehrir, et al) although it uses its own non-governmental organizations for its own purposes (such as the Awakening Council in Iraq, Mujahideen e Khalq, Jundullah in Pakistan, et al), (d) would seek a military presence in previous Soviet areas in Central Asia similar to what it has done in Europe with NATO and the missile defense shield program (such as the bases it now has in Afghanistan, Krygstan, and Uzbekistan).
5. Latin America and Africa. With all of Europe integrating deeper into the American security blanket, Japan and India slowly heading towards entente against China, and the Middle East acclimating to further American dominance, the remaining challengers, Russia and China, seem to be shifting their influence to Latin America and Africa respectively. Both countries have been sending arms and brokering trade deals on both continents towards this end (See Russian Relations with Venezuela and Cuba; also China in Africa) and . It is no surprise that the US government is planning to enter in these regions as well. To complete this objective, the US is reorganizing its military forces and organizing a special command solely for Africa that is set to launch within a year or so. In terms of Latin America, the US is also supporting various NGOs and governments to break up the wave of socialism that has spread in the region following the failure of the neo-liberal agenda dictated upon them by the US and the World Bank.

From this brief analysis, it can be concluded that the current international system is not bipolar or unipolar at all, but reorganizing itself along multipolar lines. The system is characterized predominantly by American hegemony and attempts at stifling the rise of hegemonic challengers or the formation of a counter-hegemonic alliance. With that said, it should be important to note that the international system is constrained by two new developments that are unlike previous epochs: the first being the formation of a truly global capitalist system that relies heavily on interdependence and will thus limit the actions of states from engaging too aggressively in the pursuit of power and the second being the creation of technologies that, while precipitating globalization, also create the proliferation of non-governmental organizations that challenge state power (and not just terrorists but organized crime) that require a certain degree of cooperation between the powers that be. These two new occurrences will moderate the intensity of the conflict and prevent the outbreak of a major conflagration between the great powers. Unfortunately for the remaining states, it is is far more likely that they will become proxies for the hegemonic competitors resulting in state fragmentation such as revolution, civil wars, or drawn out wars. State fragmentation may lead to regional fragmentation which will further provide challenges to American hegemony, most likely leading to its decline. Since much of the Muslim world falls within that category, it would be prudent for Muslim countries to band together and construct a geostrategy of their own to prevent becoming victims of the new Great Game.

Share This