US- Iran Agreement: Is the United States on the decline?

 

 

Pentagon chief, Chuck Hagel, has stated that the interim deal with deal to roll back its nuclear program was  a risk worth taking but that Western diplomacy must not be misinterpreted.  He added that, ‘diplomacy cannot operate in a vacuum and that the Pentagon will not make any adjustments to its military forces in the region or to its military planning as a result of its interim agreement with Iran. A senior defence official, in support of Hagel’s assertions, said that ‘Hagel had sent a message of solidarity to the Gulf allies  and that ‘any sort of mythology of American retreat was wrong headed’.

 

Both Hagel’s and the defence official’s remarks are meant as reassurance to the jittery allies of the United States in the wake of the deal with Iran over scaling back its nuclear ambition. The fear, for the mini Gulf statelets and Saudi Arabia is that this deal may signal the drawdown of US forces from the region and leave them vulnerable to Iranian hegemony. This could potentially have a ripple effect on nuclear proliferation in the region, impact its security structures and the end of extended deterrence in the region. In turn, this development could  alter the balance of power in the region in Iran’s or Shi’ite favour.

 

Some analysts have also taken the US-Iran deal to mean and imply the retreat and waning of US hegemony as a reaction to putative developments in the global system polarity and the attendant decline of American power. Hagel has debunked all the myths and rightly so.

American power, especially in the domain of hard power , remains pre-eminent and paramount. Yes: its prestige and soft power may have taken a bit of a hit after the second Gulf War ,the war in Afghanistan and the 2008 economic crisis but the fact remains that America is the uncontested hegemon of the world. The reserves of power it has and holds have no real challengers. The China bogey , used at times, to suggest either as an alternative to American power or as a competitor is a bit of a myth. Yes: China has made stupendous strides-economically and militarily- over the years but it is a stretch to believe that the country can match the United States either in terms of capability or influence as far as the eye can see. American hegemony and provision of security for the world has been good and salutary. Consider the Middle East. Without the American security umbrella, the region would have been in anarchy and potentially a war zone with constituent states of the region at each others’ throats. Or consider South Asia. American interventions or to use a more politically correct term, interest, may have kept peace in the region to a large extent. Similarly, American security guarantees to its allies in Southeast Asia have kept peace in this region too. In Western Europe, it is well known how peace was maintained and how the European Union was incubated and formed under the American security umbrella.

 

This peacekeeping( a term and practice usually associated with the United Nations but whose performance in this domain has been found wanting) role of the US is underwritten by American power, influence and capability. And , it is not in decline. American primacy is as strong as ever and no country or power can really supplant it.

 

Now consider Chuck Hagel’s remarks and the entente between Iran and the United States. The ‘deal’ between the two countries is a victory for diplomacy over war. In this sense, it reflects prudent and sagacious statecraft. War, hich means bad politics, has been shunted aside in favour of a diplomatic resolution of Iran’s vexing nuclear ambition. This has been made possible by the backdrop of America’s hard power combined with diplomatic overtures. Hagel’s remarks that diplomacy does not operate in a vacuum becomes pertinent here. A US troop drawdown from the region is not part of the deal. If this were the case, it would be a coup for Iran for who the field would then be open for pursuing its long held dreams of Persian and Shi’ite hegemony of the region. All in all then, the interim agreement while dealing with the nuclear issue maintains the balance of  power in the region with the United States holding the balance.

 

This naturally maintains the security situation and condition of the Gulf region; prevents nuclear proliferation; assuages the worries of America’s Gulf partners and maintains peace and stability in the region. Status quo ante is maintained and preserved but with the new development of roping or drawing in Iran towards normal politics. This is sanguine and , to repeat, a  tribute to diplomacy. Not only has war been averted but also the perils and dangers  of nuclear proliferation and all that this would entail in the region thwarted. How this could be an indication of American decline and the attendant drawdown of its forces in the region is rather inexplicable.

 

The United States continues to and will be the world’s pre-eminent and paramount power. This condition will obtain and endure for as far as the eye can see. American power has underwritten global peace and development and has been , by and large , benign. The prudent option for other states and countries may be not to confront the United States but cooperate with it for the sake of a more benign and peaceful world order. This may be the lesson of the Iran-US deal. All the rest is pure blarney.

Iftikhar Choudhary's Judicial Activism and the Pakistani state: Time for a rethink?

 

 

Choudhary, the 18^th Chief Justice of Pakistan, has stepped down. Choudhary Iftikhar  became famous after he resisted Pervez Musharaf’s manoeuvres and manipulations with Pakistan’s constitution and for leading or becoming an iconic figure for the lawyers movement in Pakistan. The former Chief Justice of Pakistan also was known for what could be called ‘judicial activism’ and the frequent suo moto notices he issued. (One notable example of Choudhary’s judicial activism was the disqualification of Pakistan’s 16^th prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani. Gilani was forced to resign after he resisted calls to reopen corruption and graft charges Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari).

 

While Choudhary’s judicial activism did restore a degree of sanity to Pakistan, it came at the expense of other institutions and created an imbalance of power among the country’s institutions. This perhaps, along with the ideational and ideological confusion that defines Pakistan, goes to the heart of the country’s problems. Weak institutionalization has led to a situation wherein Pakistan can be termed as a weak state. Or more accurately a weak state with praetorian, patrimonial features. This institutional morass and torpor has affected almost every dimension of Pakistan’s polity and has led to dysfunctional governance, poverty and even its foreign and security policy which has come to be dominated by the Army and its allied intelligence agencies. Apparently and on the face of it, Iftikhar Choudhary’s judicial activism was mean to restore a semblance and patina of normalcy to the institutional fabric of Pakistan. This, besides being controversial , could only mean a short term palliative for Pakistan’s structural problems but , in the final analysis,  may have even reinforced the institutional imbalance of the Pakistani state. Pakistan, to become a normal state, at peace with itself and the world at large, may not need institutional tinkering but a wholesale rejigging of its institutional superstructure and substructure.

 

How can this be done? This is a billion dollar question. A good start may be to revisit the foundational premises of Pakistan and try to build a consensus over the nature and identity of Pakistan. Contemporarily, the pulls and pressures that bedevil the state and society of Pakistan perhaps emanate from an ideological confusion. Is Pakistan a theological state? Is it a secular state? Or is it a hybrid and synthesis between the two? Various quarters in Pakistan would perhaps offer different answers to these rather existential questions. However, a consensus answer would be that it is a Muslim state. This would be accurate and it would be almost impossible for Pakistan to be become a liberal democratic, secular state. Prudence then dictates that Pakistan conform and correspond to its Muslim identity but arrive at a consensus on the nature of this state. This may mean integrating modernity and Islam in both the state and society of Pakistan.(Hoping that Pakistan becomes a pure liberal state(if there is one in the world) is fantasy).

 

This may mean a distinct role for Islam in the state and society of Pakistan tempered and leavened by the ideas of modernity. If Pakistan succeeds in synthesizing Islam with modernity, it could serve as a model for the Islamic world and this would its very own idea and practice rather the imitating the so called Turkish model. This ideational and idealogical consensus over the nature and meaning of Pakistan wont be easy and will be challenged. But for the sake of becoming a normal state and perhaps even for existential reasons, Pakistan may have no other choice. The country is going through a painful churn  and an optimistic take on this may be that it is in transition and that these transition points need to be grasped by the political class in Pakistan to reorient and redirect the state to more salubrious directions.

 

This is a challenge that the Pakistani political class should not shy from. After arriving at a consensus on the nature and meaning of Pakistan, institutional rebuilding would be the next logical step. This would be rendered easy given that there would be a ideational consensus on the nature of Pakistan. Phoenix like Pakistan may emerge from the ashes and be a force for good at/on a range of levels- political, regional and security. The country would be doing favors to none but itself if it does embark on this exercise. If it continues with the drift that defines it contemporarily, then only gloom awaits the country. This can neither be good for the country nor for the region or the world at large given that a failed Pakistani state would pose insuperable dangers to all. It then behoves the thinking, sober  political class to rethink the nature of Pakistan and restore its institutional balance. The world and even India has a stake in this. Let Pakistan be encouraged to have and hold a dialogue with itself and last but not least redeem  itself in its own eyes. The consequences will only be benign- for the region, the world and above all Pakistan itself.