The Non Aligned Movement, Iran and the Arab Spring: Implications of the Iranian President's Invite to Mohammad Morsi

The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, has invited the Mohammad Morsi, the democratically elected president of Egypt to Iran. The ostensible rationale /premise of the invite is to attend the ‘Non Aligned’ movement’s meet in Iran. However, the real reasons may be Iran’s attempt to reach out to Egypt and tap into the changing balance of power in the Arab Muslim world. Iran had snapped its tied with Egypt after Anwar Sadat’s opening up to Israel in the late seventies. It bears mention here that the Non Aligned movement, pioneered by the troika of Nehru, Nasser and Kwame Nkruma of Ghana, was incubated in the milieu of decolonization and the Cold War. Newly independent nations emerging out of the colonial yoke tried to assert their independence and attempted to maintain distance from the major power blocs. In the final analysis, the Non Aligned movement was more or less a rhetorical device.  It was an ineffective, irrelevant and a bombastic talk shop. So what explains the Iranian President’s invite to Mohammad Morsi?

The invite can be put into perspective by the changing balance of power and forces that the Arab Spring has brought forth in the Arab Muslim world. This change has brought Islamists of various hues and colorations into power, aligning state society relations and in the process impacting the alliance equations and dynamics of the region. Iran, more or less, an outlier in the region on account of its Persian origins and the massive following of Shi’ism by its Iranians appears to be sensing that the changed power dynamics and equations may redound to its favor. Given that it is a powerful nation with aspirations of regional hegemony, Iran may want to reach out to Islamists and assert its leadership role in the region.  While this may or may not be a legitimate aspiration, it has huge implications for the politics of the region. Iran may be aiming for a force multiplier that enables it to both project its power and influence and change the political equations of the Arab Muslim world. This will naturally have implications on its alleged nuclear program , the Palestinian Israeli dispute and the regions alliance systems with the United States. It may not even be a stretch to posit maturation and crystallization of even a de facto alliance between Iran and Islamists of the region may spark a clash of civilizations.

The question is: Is the alliance possible? Will it have critical mass? Will it lead to a more peaceful Middle East and Arab Muslim world? Or will it be a region at odds with the world? What are the alternatives?

The alliance is possible. However, it is more likely to be a tactical than a durable and a bonding one. This is because of the historical, deep and pervasive sunn-shi’te schism that defines the Muslim world. Philosophically and theosophically at odds with each other, the Sunni and the Shiite world cannot be in the same bed together.  Second, the centre of gravity of Islam is and will continue to be Saudi Arabia given its custodianship of Islam’s holiest places-the Ka’aba and Medina. Egypt may be populous and large but this matters little when it comes to sacrality. Here, Saudi Arabia holds the trump cards. The putative or potential alliance will then be ephemeral and transient.

Hypothetically speaking, even if it does come to pass, the potential alliance between Islamists and Iran will not augur well for a peaceful region. This is because, it may induce hubris amongst the alliance partners and this may lead them to misadventures- a war against Israel, for instance, or Iran cocking a snook at the international community over its alleged nuclear program. This will , in turn, throw a spanner into the works and lead to hostile blocs glowering at each other. The tension this will create may lead to unfortunate accidents even sparking war in the region.

How can this scenario be pre empted? Prudence, wisdom and statesmanship should be the by words in dealing with this situation/scenario. In this schema, it is perhaps incumbent on the United States to reach out to both the Islamists and Iran. In other words, it is diplomacy that should be taken recourse to. The former should be assuaged that the United States is not hostile toward Islam and will respect a democratic, plural and tolerant Middle East and the latter should be offered security guarantees in exchange of giving up its nuclear program. The Islamists, on their part, should reciprocate and reassure the United States that they will not take recourse to aggression of any sorts and that they would attempt a synthesis of modernity and Islam. The peace process between the Palestinians and Israeli’s should become a critical benchmark for these confidence building measures. The peace process should be revived and a just solution arrived at.

 It is then sagacious diplomacy that could bring the region to equilibrium point. Hasty and impulsive overtures and moves by any party could potentially lead to a denouement that redounds negatively to all.  Peace within the region and without warrants and dictates that prudence and wisdom dictate the drift and tenor of equations in the Arab Muslim world; not posturing or playing hardball. The Arab Muslim world is going through a historical transition of tremendous import. Let not politics or geo political maneuvering stop this in its tracks.

Does Norman Angell's Have a Resonance in the Subcontinent?

Norman Angell’s prediction or surmise that commerce and war were antithetical to each other was unfortunately dashed by both the First World War and then the Second Great War. The prelude to the First World War, held to be some as the second wave of globalization was almost idyllic. Trade, capital and people flows were at an historical high and it s held by some that the current Information and Communications Technology(ICT) driven globalization has not yet come near to these flows. However, the trajectory and evolution of Japan into what Richard Rosecrance termed the ‘trading state’ and the post war trajectory of Western Europe’s formation into first an economic and then a political bloc or regime suggests that Angell’s surmise may have something to it.

Informed by the desire to be a normal state, Japanese state under the tutelage of the American alliance focused on sublimating its negative energies and dedicated national energy to commerce and trade.( It has been held by some economists that Japan never conformed to the spirit of free trade but this is besides the point here). This Japanese orientation was informed by what was termed as the Yoshida doctrine. In a similar vein , but under a different permutation and combination, political entrepreneurs and leaders in Europe decided to enmesh their economies into trading patterns that made the respective economies of these state tied and interlocked into each other. The aim was to forestall the orgy of war and conflict that Europe descended into. This approach was informed by the theoretical rubric and paradigm of functionalism, neo functionalism and spill over.

In the late seventies, path breaking and pioneering work done by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane posited that world politics and economics corresponded to what they termed as ‘complex interdependence’. This went against the gravamen of established international relations like realism and neo realism. Nye and Keohane did not challenge the core premises of these two established theories but propounded that complex interdependence implied that the conventional reasons that states go to war for may not hold. This was because most nations were enmeshed into a complex interdependence paradigm and disturbing this paradigm would be detrimental to the national interests of these states.

Cumulatively or in combination, these developments could be held to be informed by liberalism or the liberal theory of politics. While world politics does not exactly correspond to the tenets of liberalism , aspects of politics in the advanced security communities of the west can be said to conform to its tenets. The state continues to be important actor in world politics and power is the ultima ratio of politics but important developments especially globalization have led to novel features and structural trends in world politics. All in all ,world politics, it would appear , corresponds to a theoretical paradigm that Joseph Nye calls Liberal Realism. That is , both realism and liberalism are inadequate to explain world politics and it is their synthesis that may best explain it.

This formulation may now be holding true in the region that appeared to resist liberal prognostications. That is, the Indian subcontinent. The region defined by the structural rivalry between India and Pakistan-two nuclear armed nation states- has been on the boil since its partition. India and Pakistan have fought three major wars, a mini war that almost became nuclear and a proxy war over Kashmir that continues to linger on.  The security, survival and fortunes of a vast swathe of people in the subcontinent have been held hostage to this rivalry. The rivalry has been so intense that any hopes of peace between the two arch rivals have been held to be ethereal and impossible. However, given the developments since the past week, especially after President Zardari’s visit to India, it would appear that both countries are on the cusp of historical change. The structural rivalry between the two countries appears to be losing its bite to the forces of change imbued by the spirit of commerce and trade.

The decision to allow Pakistan originating FDI in India, allow more trade to take place and above all the Indian decision to talk to Pakistan over Kashmir is an indication of this. All this is to be welcomed. Nothing could be more salubrious for both peace within the region and the wider world than normalization of relations between the two arch rivals. The question is how can this forward momentum be sustained?

First and foremost, the measures mooted by the respective governments should not be allowed to fall victim to either a terrorist outrage or popular moods. They should be crystallized and set in stone. This could be followed by deepening and widening of these reforms and other sectors brought into their ambit. What could be hoped from this is the spill over of economic integration onto the political domain. While hoping this spill over to be along the likes of the EU would be stretch, it would by no means be silly to hope for these conditions to have a salubrious effect on the conlictual relations between India and Pakistan. Enmeshed into deeper, wider and broader patterns of trade , the two countries would develop a stake in each other’s welfare. This could be a potential antidote to war and conflict between the two countries.

The next step would be to open up people to people contacts between the two countries. The hegemonic culture in India shares more than is believed with the hegemonic culture of Pakistan. These intense people to people contacts could potentially make people across the divide realize the commonalities between them and help get rid of mutual stereotypes.

Last but not the least, the two countries should reach a consensual solution over the vexed dispute over Kashmir and again take recourse to the spirit of trade and commerce. One possible solution could be to turn Kashmir into a global city.

  Cumulatively, concerted action on these fronts could lead to a new dawn in the subcontinent. Trade, commerce and business could enmesh the arch rivals and other small states in the region into a pattern of complex interdependence wriggling out of which would redound negatively for these states. Given the depth of animus between India and Pakistan, negative reactions to these initiatives, perhaps in the form of a terrorist outrage can be expected. However, state power and state Will can be more powerful and enduring than the actions of disaffected non state actors. The need of the hour then, on part of strategists and powers that be, across the divide, is to hold firm and tight. Their actions are on the right side of history and a lot is at stake here. These people may not only be making history but also potentially easing the hardships of millions of people.  If these developments attain fruition and efflorescence, it may be that changes pioneered in the advanced democracies may be percolating to this part of the world. And that, Norman Angell, may after all have been ahead of his times and in the final analysis right.

Is Globalization Good?

Globalization- a contested term and concept-has been happening since centuries. The impetus and impulse propelling globalization is perhaps what the doyen and father of the dismal science, economics, Adam Smith called,’ the desire to truck, barter and exchange. Essentially entailing the compression of time and space and the ‘death of distance’, globalization in its contemporary form and shape means deep and profound interdependence and integration between peoples of the world. It has economic, political and cultural components. Economic globalization is the increasing interdependence between and interpenetration of national economies leading to what has been termed as the global economy. In its cultural avatar, globalization refers to the isomorphism and spread of certain cultural paradigms and meanings across the world. And politically, globalization potentially means the spread of Enlightenment values such as democracy, human rights and the reduced salience of the nation state. In essence, globalization then is project modernity writ large. This much is known and widely acknowledged.

Embracing globalization is now almost a must for nations and peoples aspiring for the ‘good life’. Evidence from the ‘real world’ indicates that globalization has and is welfare enhancing. Whether it be the transformation of fishing villages in China to bustling and modern entrepots ,the morphing of primitive entities like Dubai into modern city states,  the expansion of the middle class in India or the rapid and revolutionary transformation of the cluster of countries called the  newly industrialized countries NIC’s (or Asian Tigers) into dynamic economies and polities, it is the embrace of globalization that explains their mutation and success.

 If globalization is an unalloyed good, then it should be widely embraced and its tenets vigorously grasped. However, this is not the case. Globalization, historically, has been resisted, fought over, contested and its trajectory is fraught with tension and conflict. This raises a host of questions: why is globalization resisted and contested? Is it because it essentially is a western concept and a form of ‘neo imperialism’? Is globalization an apolitical concept propelled by economic forces and markets? What accounts for what has been called the third phase/wave of globalization? What accounts for resistance in both the ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ of the world? Is globalization an ineluctable, inexorable and unstoppable force? Who should take the onus of propelling and infusing force into globalization?

The answers to these sets of questions are interrelated and cannot be dealt and grappled with in isolation. Globalization is project modernity at large. And even though globalization has been happening since centuries through trade, cultural contacts and imperialism, in its contemporary garb and avatar, its origins are western. It is the spread, prevalence and dominance of western ideas about the individual, society, economics, government and governance. Its embrace entails displacement of paradigms-cultural, political, and economic-of non western societies and cultures. By virtue of this, it also displaces and threatens vested interests and other accretions/sediments that comprise the cultural, political and economic firmament of other peoples. This explains the resistance to globalization.

Given the western genesis of contemporary globalization, resistance to it takes place in the idiom of ‘neo imperialism’. This is, in the final analysis, mere sloganeering employed by non western elites whose interests and entrenched privileges are threatened by globalization.  The power of globalization rests on the power of ideas pioneered in the west. These ideas pertaining to the nature of man, society, economics and government are powerful. This is corroborated by the isomorphism, prevalence and acceptance (willing or grumpy) of these ideas across the world. And this is true of every civilization at its zenith. Classical Islam, at its apogee, for instance, constitutes a classic example of Islamic globalization which led to the formation of what has been called the Islamicate- vast swathes of the globe with an outlook informed by the principles and philosophy of Islam. Contemporarily, it is the west, defined not as a region but as a set of ideas about man, society and economy, that is ascendant. As such, it is western ideas that inform the contemporary wave of globalization.

This wave of globalization has been preceded by the forces of imperialism wherein the imperial scramble between western nations led to the crystallization of globalization. Punctuated by the Great Depression and the World Wars, globalization was then revived by the overt leaning of the United States on the processes and trajectory of globalization. This was achieved by the formation of institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization formerly known as the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). Underpinning these organizations was the power and might of the United States. Globalization then is a very political phenomenon. Should this detract from its salubrious nature? The answer is no. Why? The reasons are axiomatic and bear repetition: globalization is welfare enhancing and is premised on the principles of modernity which can only lead to the improvement of the human condition.

Why then is there resistance to globalization in both the ‘core’ and the ‘periphery’? The core in political economic parlance constitutes the advanced west. Resistance here accrues from an admixture of fear, paranoia and genuine concerns. Immigration into the west may constitute a classic example of this. Non western immigration into the west brings peoples with alien mores, cultural practices, religions and ethics into the western firmament. This potentially creates friction leading to a jaundiced view of globalization in the minds of the citizens of these countries. Another example is the so called ‘Sinification’ of advanced economies wherein jobs-both skilled and unskilled are lost to non western countries such as China on account of globalization. These fears get conflated and leads to resentment against globalization. The resistance in the ‘periphery’ has already been dwelt upon.

This resistance is alarming. It can create both bottoms up and top down pressures for curbing globalization. Globalization perhaps from a long duree view is unstoppable. It has certain logic. However, its momentum has and can get stalled. History is replete with instances of globalization’ getting derailed. The retreat by a hegemon or a power patron, wars, economic crises have been the usual suspects in breaking the momentum of globalization. Given that power underpins its trajectory and momentum, it is imperative that globalization enjoys the support of a powerful patron. This role given axiomatically falls on the United States on account of its nature and power.

Globalization is good. It can improve the human condition. It is the amplification of modernity. And its spread can lead to enlightenment, progress and emancipation for mankind. It is incumbent on all to take a sober view of this phenomenon and help in  deepening, crystallizing  and spreading it. It is not globalization that is the danger but ‘uneven globalization’ that is. The world is not flat but it potentially can be. Let us make haste slowly and embrace globalization –lock, stock and barrel.

Will China Rule the World?

It has become fashionable to posit and assert that the world of the 21st century is in flux and that a new world order is likely to emerge in the near future. This world order, it is held, will be defined by a new system polarity wherein new powers will challenge the primacy and hegemony of the United States.  In prosaic terms, the world will become multipolar. Leading this pack of powers will be China- a power in its own league and a civilization state whose time may have come. It is asserted that China’s encounter and tryst with modernity has been unique and unlike other non western powers, its tryst and encounter with modernity has followed a unique path.  An essential unity spanning centuries defines China. It’s economic growth and  increasing military prowess are held as specific and concrete examples of China’s inevitable great power status. Some go to the extent of positing that the rules of international relations and politics will be turned upside down and gradually and inexorably the rest of the world will gyrate to a Sino centric world view.

The implications of these assertions are stupendous. Given their enormity, a whole set of questions arise: to what extent are these assertions correct? Is there merit to these assertions and prognostications? What are they premised upon? Has the Westphalian state system reached maturation and is thus is decline? Is this decline related to the overall decline of the west?  If the west is in decline, how should the lodestar of the west, the United States react to China’s rise? And last but not least, will war be the arbiter of this somewhat civilizational clash?

First, let us discuss the probity of these assertions. It would appear that much of the commentary and analysis that presents China as either the threat to existing world order or the ideational and material hegemony of the west is self serving. That is to say, that the post Cold war world has left the west without familiar anchors and moorings. This has led to a degree of strategic drift and engendered fractiousness within the west. The most effective antidote to this is to manufacture and create an enemy that serves to be the west’s ‘Other’. China, given its unique and distinct approach, its authoritarian political system and its abysmal human rights record then becomes a picture perfect foil against which the west can define itself. This then energizes the western strategic community and imbues it with a sense of purpose and direction. Hence, the China bogey and presentation of the country as a threat to international order, system and structure.

Does this mean that the China ‘threat’ is a pure intellectual construct and thus chimerical?  The answer is a clear cut ‘no’. Undoubtedly, China’s rise will have consequences and implications on world politics and economics? Its economic rise is already rendering China into a growth pole and hence an important and significant player in the global economy. And as the history of international relations and politics reminds us, economic power can become the premise or foundation of other forms of power. This, in turn, has implications on system polarity and the nature of world order or disorder. The question here however is what kind of power China will morph into?  Teasing out an answer to this important question necessarily takes us into the nature of the international system pioneered in and created by the west.

The strength, durability and resilience of this Westphalian order and framework is such it gradually and inexorably socializes even the most recalcitrant and truculent into its animating principles and structural conditions. And whosoever or whatsoever challenges this order and framework is doomed. The decimation of fascism and Nazism, in some senses reactions to this order and capitalism, may constitute classic examples of this. As such, this order is a bulwark against forces of reaction and regression.

 It stretches reason and credibility to even conceive that China or more accurately modern China, which has been the beneficiary of this system, will challenge and overturn it. A more prudent approach for China would be to work within this system and then aspire for a status that is coeval with its aspirations. This essentially means getting drawn into the vortex of the system and the regimes that this system has spawned.  And China’s political and strategic approach – accession to the WTO, working within the constraints and opportunities of the system- suggests that China is precisely doing this. This approach means getting drawn into the web of complex interdependence wherein China’s welfare and its trajectory gets inextricably tied to the trajectory and developments of the rest of the world. In the final analysis, it can only mean openness, or to take recourse to cold war clichés and twist them, glasnost and perestroika with Chinese characteristics. Or in other words, it means modernization of China’s political system and gradual evolution towards democracy and political pluralism.

This then validates and vindicates western ideas and principles. Isomorphism of these ideas and principles reflects the vitality and vigor of these ideas and axiomatically gives short shrift to the idea of western decline. The reference here is to the west as an idea not a geographical zone or entity. The beauty of this lies perhaps in the fact that this spread and acceptance of ideas-modernity, human rights, democracy and political pluralism- takes place not by mimesis but through osmosis- a more durable and profound process. The question now is what should the approach and orientation of the sole superpower and lodestar of the west, the United State’s, be?

 The dominant strands of International Relations theory and history tell us that rising powers  regardless of their coloration inevitably strive for power and superiority and rising powers clash. And that this conflict which can take the form of war has systemic implications. Will China’s rise lead to such friction? The answer is a qualified ‘no’. The confidence in this assertion is premised on a confluence of structural trends: complex interdependence and those eternal laws governing geo politics since the time of Thucydides. The former, to repeat enmeshes China into tangled webs of interdependence which are the foundation of China’s economic power. Throwing these into a tizzy will be irrational and detrimental to China’s interests. Prudence then dictates that China play by the rules and not throw a spanner into the works, so to speak. Concomitantly, geopolitics of the region constitute an important structural constraint on Chinese hegemony of its immediate region. The security dilemma’s generated by China’s increase in its hard power, the mutual suspicions that define the regions states, historical memory and the desire to maintain sovereignty and not be vassals of a dominant regional power will ensure that China will, even it becomes militarized, be a truncated power.

  

All in all then, the balance sheet suggests that the alleged threat that is inherent in China’s is more or less a bogey. However , this does not mean complacence on part of the United States. Reactionary, irrational forces in China may take recourse to a militarized, expansionist and aggressive foreign policy. Even though their actions will be doomed like fascists and Nazi’s, the consequences for the immediate region will ne insalubrious. For this reason, eternal vigilance along with a policy mix that fosters caution and prudence among China’s elite, have to be taken recourse to. This policy mix must rest on two prongs: drawing China further into the webs of complex interdependence and simultaneously containing it. This role naturally falls on the United States and its partners. The forces of history and progress will then work their magic inexorably and China will morph into a normal state with prosaic and quotidian concerns. All sound and fury about the imminence of the ‘China threat’ will then turn out to be just that.

Is the 21st Century Going to be an Asian Century?

Much ink has been spilt on pronouncing the 21st century as an Asian century. Pundits from Kishore Mahbubani to the eminent Jacques Martin have asserted with confidence that Asia will leave an indelible imprimatur on world politics, culture and economics.  And that western pre-eminence or predominance over these domains will gradually but inexorably come to an end. The grist to the mill of these assertions is provided by the stupendous economic growth achieved by the so called ‘Asian Tigers’ or NIC’S such as Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea in the eighties and the nineties and now China and perhaps India. Itis extrapolated from this that Asia has either rediscovered itself and will inevitably strut on the world stage in an idiom that is informed by its own ethos and creativity.

Or in other words, ‘Asian modernity’ will or is emerging and this is premised on confidence which, in turn, is predicated on the achievement of economic growth. That this took these countries only a few decades to achieve, in contrast to the west, is held to be testimony to Asian vigor and vitality. The inevitable conclusion that is drawn is that there is something new and different about this. While the frame work and template for this success is set by the west, what will emerge out of this will be purely Asian. And that nothing works like success: the example set by Asia will then be imitated by others and a new world order-economic, political and cultural –will emerge. The tone for this will beset by Asia and Asians.

The question is: Is there merit to these assertions? Or do these stem from the western side from insecurity or a feverish imagination? And from the Asian side from ephemeral euphoria and the attendant hubris?

 First, the Asian-Western dichotomy is from the long duree scheme of things and the larger historical perspective a false one. Both are constructs. The west essentially is a set of ideas about the individual, society, economics and the philosophies undergirding these. Asia, to the contrary is a disaggregated mass of peoples, contending and competing philosophies, cultures and world views.  There is no real coherence to Asia: the nomenclature ‘Asia’ attributed to it implying homogeneity is false. So the question of competing paradigms flowing from different cultures or civilizations does not arise. What may be true for the current historical period is that the set of ideas that owes its genesis to philosophies pioneered in the west are paramount and powerful. Such is their power that other cultures axiomatically and inevitably are compelled to articulate their aspirations and mode of life in the western inspired idiom. The classic example of this is the widespread acceptance and prevalence of western modernity which for all intents and purposes is universal.

The current or the contemporary fad of a civilizational or more accurately a cultural clash in which competing paradigms jostle and compete with each other is false. Modernity and ‘progress’ are correlated and one cannot be disentangled from the other. And modernity- essentially an attitude and the temper flowing from it- is western. This attitude, to repeat the cliché, calls for control and mastery over the forces of nature. Questioning, curiosity and innovation are inherent to it. The stage and premise for it was set in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and has since then inexorably percolating to other societies and cultures in different permutations and combinations. Other societies and cultures have no real choice but to accept these premises of modernity and adapt. The choice is rather stark: adapt or perish and languish in a mode of thinking that militates even against survival.

What then explains the current fad of deeming the coming era as an Asian one? Two factors account for this. One is the tectonic economic shift taking place contemporarily to Asia, especially China. And the other is the insecurity generated by the shift in the west and the concomitant hubris generated by this among ‘Asians’. The former, if a foray maybe made into the domain of economics, accrues from the nature of economics itself and free(r) trade and the attendant economic globalization wherein economic activities are naturally getting dispersed. The west has nothing to fear from this rather natural trend: the core of these economic activities especially leading and cutting edge innovation still and naturally will take place in the west. It is in the west where the scientific temper accruing from modernity has been fully internalized. The rest of the world can only imitate and take cues from the west.

However, this shift in, to use an outsourcing metaphor, ‘back end’ activities is generating a curious insecurity in the west. Inferences made from economic growth and the hot air (or rhetoric) flowing from Asian leaders and intellectuals validate this insecurity and then attempts are made to rationalize this as the‘re-entry’ and predominance of Asia. On the other end of the spectrum, economic growth has generated wild and naturally ephemeral hubris among ‘Asian’ intellectuals and leaders. This hollow pride stems from historical memory and these intellectuals collate economic growth with unshackling of western modernity and hence Asia coming of age.

In sum then, while the rise of what is called Asia is welcome, given that it means liberation and liberty-economic, cultural and political-potentially for millions, it in no way represents or reflects a challenge to the core premises of western modernity. The rhythms, direction, tone and tenor of history has been and is set by the western idea. To think otherwise is short sightedness, hubris ethereal.

What Next for Pakistan?

The United State’s secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has said ‘sorry’ to Pakistan over the infamous Salala incident. The incident in contention where NATO forces attacked a Pakistani border check posts led to the deaths of twenty four Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan responded by closing NATO supply routes. This added significantly to the costs of war. The issue stood as a metaphor for poor relations between Pakistan and the United States. The issue now stands apparently resolved and Pakistan is re-opening the NATO supply routes. Incidentally, a few days ago, Taliban, in act of ire and retribution against the Pakistani state murdered and beheaded seventeen Pakistani soldiers. This gory and ghastly incident received some press attention. And that was the end of it.

The question is why did Pakistan make an issue out of the Salala incident? What explains Pakistan’s truculence? What explains the stance toward the United States and the muted reaction at the murder of Pakistani soldiers by the Taliban? Does this dichotomous stance reflect the nature of the Pakistani state-a schizophrenic entity tugged at by contradictory pulls and pressures? What does the future bode?

Pakistan’s stance, after the Salala incident, can be explained by a host of inter related reasons. The country had to register a protest and harden its stance against the United States to assuage the widespread and deep anti Americanism prevalent in Pakistan. It could not be seen as ‘cravenly caving’ into alleged infringement of its sovereignty.  Second, as cynical as it may sound, the incident was heaven sent to Pakistan. It allowed the country to play hard ball in negotiations over America’s or the west’s exit from Pakistan and extort monies in the process. Pakistan’s economy is in doldrums and given the diminishing value and utility of the ‘global war on terror’, monies for this would dry up. Pakistan had to seek an alternate source of income. Third, playing hard ball may also have been meant to demonstrate Pakistan’s value (albeit a nuisance value) to the United States. This is rendered poignant because the United States is exiting Afghanistan and Pakistan may have feared that the sole superpower would abandon Pakistan in an eerie echo of the end of the Cold war. These clusters of reasons may help explain Pakistan’s attendant truculence.

This is worrisome and sad. Why? Because it reflects the entity that Pakistan has morphed into. Essentially, the country touts its value to the United States and the world as a potential rogue and plays up its nuisance value to eke out benefits which it deems to constitute its national interest. Roughly speaking, the components of this national interest are some form of influence and control in Afghanistan also known as ‘strategic depth’, attempts to wrest Kashmir from India, forging a security paradigm built around nuclear weapons and also nurturing the global jihad nursery. This meant  a proxy war in Kashmir, and encouraging and helping the Taliban to control Afghanistan and the employment of nukes as a shield under which to pursue these objectives.

This , in turn , mean encouraging the forces of extremism in Pakistan and the instrumentalization of Pakistan’s youth bulge to pursue these ends. Post September II, Pakistan, had to perforce review some these policies and paradigms and make the famous ‘U turn’. This entailed offending and taking the forces of extremism head on. Pakistan played a bit of a double game and eked out geopolitical space for itself in the cracks of these policies. To be convincing, it had to tackle some of these forces it had nurtured and incubated and alienated them. This double game had a price. The Pakistani state became Janus faced: it ostensibly pretended to be on the United State’s side in the ‘war on terror’ and at the same time used these forces as trump cards. The attendant schizophrenia alienated all and Pakistan essentially came to at war with itself. The murder of seventeen soldiers by the Taliban is explained by this Janus faced posture.

The question now is what should the Pakistani state do now? Should the United State’s ‘soft apology’ be the end of the matter? The answer is a clear cut no. It is or should be time for serious introspection by the Pakistani state. The grist and mill of this introspection should be how Pakistan can become a normal, healthy entity and a fully functioning member of the international system and community. It should also mean reviewing its alliance with the United States. This alliance in the nature of a transactional alliance should be accorded depth and vigor. While it can never be an alliance of equals, it can potentially be a salubrious one. It bears mention here that Pakistan needs the United States more than the United States needs it. As such, Pakistan should present itself in an idiom and form that is not predatory. The boundaries of the alliance should be clear cut and Pakistan should seek assistance from Pakistan that enables the country to morph into a normal entity- at peace with itself and the world. Ancillary aspects of this review should be a rejigging  of Pakistan’s posture towards India and Pakistan. Normal relations with India could release Pakistan’s energies and sublimate these towards salubrious ends.

Continuing on the same old trodden path is laden with risk and danger. Pakistan can potentially implode. This will be besides being axiomatically bad for the country be bad for the subcontinent and the world at large. It behooves the Pakistani establishment to stock take, review and revamp. The stakes are too high. The status quo is insalubrious and negative for all. Let Pakistan digest the apology and move on.

World Disorder(s): Is Kant or Hobbes Relevant? Notes on the Human Condition and Implications on American Foreign Policy

World Disorder(s): Is Kant or Hobbes Relevant? Notes on the Human Condition and Implications on American Foreign Policy

The continuing and persisting travails-economic and political- of the European Union, the structural dead end that the Arab Spring appears to have met, the massacres in Syria at/on a quotidian level, the roller coaster relationship between the United States and Pakistan, the morass that is Africa all convey and connote a portrait of the human condition that is bleak and dismal. It, among other things, appears to validate the insights and prognostications of that great political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes’ famous dictum,’ life is nasty , short and brutish’ and that competition for survival defines the human species appears to describe aptly the contemporary human condition.  Kant, the philosopher who posited a contra philosophy to Hobbes then appears to be wildly optimistic Cassandra whose prognostications and assessment of the human condition may sound intuitively right but impractical and bizarre.

 However, things may not be as clear cut as the surface and superficial reading of the human condition suggests. Humanity, collectively, has made great strides and a certain underlying theme toward(s) progress may be discerned in the trajectory of humankind. One need only peer back a few centuries down the lane of time and get an idea of the progress that human kind has made. This historical era-preceding the Enlightenment and the Renaissance- was defined by darkness, regression and torpor. Take any indicator and contrast it with the time and historical juncture then and now and immediately the conclusion that can be drawn validates the theory of progress that human kind has made.

Gradually and inexorably, progress or indicators of what constitutes progress, has percolated from the torchbearer and doyen of progress, the West, to humanity. Whether it be democracy, economic growth, mortality rates, the stupendous and almost sci fi like strides that science has made, the mastery over nature and natural calamities, the scorecard is positive. Perhaps this trajectory of progress boils down to  the principles and premises of modernity which, in turn , was inspired by the combination of the Enlightenment, Renaissance and Capitalism. These set the tone for what is contemporarily called globalization. The end result is progress and emancipation for human kind punctuated by violent chasms and spasms. That this process initiated and pioneered in the west is ‘good’ and salubrious maybe indubitable. The question is how to accelerate this process and bring the entire mass of human kind into its ambit. Can this is done? And who can potentially do it?

First and fore most, it bears iteration that modernity is a good thing and that bringing the entire humankind under its ambit would improve the human condition. The question, to repeat, is how this can be done? It is probably globalization- project modernity writ large- that can potentially carry both the seeds of modernity to all corners of the globe. And globalization, as we all know, has been happening since centuries. In its latest avatar, of intensive and extensive globalization, it has been propelled and pushed by the doyen of the west, the United States. Whether it be through crafting post war institutions that crystallized economic   growth, or the Marshall plan, or opening up of the world’s economies, it is the United States that has pioneered and crystallized the contemporary phase of globalization. And it is upon the United States that the onus of maintaining the tempo and momentum of globalization falls. Why?

Simply because the United States encapsulates and stands as the metaphor for modernity and its principles. Other centers, like Europe have regressed and are in no position to either conceptualize modernity and its concomitant, globalization or promote it. And second, because the United States, on account of the power and prestige it has, can. What needs to be done is to integrate vigorously promotion of globalization into the foreign policy of the United States.

Specifically, it means bringing non western powers like India, Brazil and South Africa into its orbit, rejuvenating the institutions of global governance, infusing life into free(r) trade and maintaining a more open world. What could and should buttress this should be the exercise of benign hegemony by the United States. There really is no other choice or option. Retreating into itself and resisting globalization is not an option for the United States. It is indeed the shining city on the hill and it has to correspond to this formulation. It, in the final analysis is not an altruistic exercise. In fact, it may even constitute America’s national interest. Forging and crystallizing a world that corresponds to modernity and is in the image of the United States can only be an unalloyed good for both the United States and the world. It will axiomatically and inevitably lead to a more peaceful and prosperous world and this can only be beneficial for all.

Project modernity has worked and is working.  It needs spurring, prodding and pushing. Its conduit is globalization. The spreading and crystallization of modernity has salubrious effects-politically, economically, socially and culturally. Kant , in the final analysis, was far head of his times and prescient. The intuitive appeal of Hobbes perhaps rests on his accurate analysis and portrait of the times he lived in and its projection politically. It then behooves the sole superpower to throw its weight around Kant’s philosophy and vigorously work to improve and ameliorate the human condition. Human kind needs it and it is only the United States that can bring about the world that corresponds to the tenets and principles of modernity. Let the country gird itself for this role.