Context

The election of Donald Trump in 2017, and unveiling of the ‘America First’ Doctrine, signified a marked departure from the political, economic, and security framework set in place in the aftermath of WWII. This vision championed by the US and premised on economic interdependence and free trade, also known as Globalization, was presented as the best hope for preventing wars and preserving peace. The institutions such as the UN, WTO, World Bank, and IMF have all facilitated and regulated the spread of Globalization and free trade – while NATO provided the security apparatus for the victors of WWII.

However, under the America First doctrine, free trade is shifting towards protectionism and nationalism – and the noble ideals such as promoting democracy and upholding human rights are taking the back seat. President Trump’s recent speech at the UN further elaborated on the contours of the doctrine that propagates the demise of Globalization.

This obviously is a gargantuan shift and is coming about in the absence of any ‘world war’ magnitude conflict. However, the Great Recession of 2008 is termed as the second worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Trump stated in his speech at the 74^th UN session:

“Globalization exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests. Those days are over.”

He went on to add, “ Around the world our message is clear, America’s goal is lasting, America’s goal is harmony, and America’s goal is not to go with these endless wars, wars that never end.”

While on the political and economic front he declared:

“If you want freedom, hold on to your sovereignty, and if you want peace, love your nation. The future does not belong to Globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to strong, independent nations,”

Trump phenomenon is part of an anti-establishment wave that has popped up in various places around the globe, including Pakistan, in the form of Imran Khan. At one level, there is the question of what led to this, and will this drive sustain itself. And secondly, what does it mean for the rest of the world and the multilateral institutions that were set up to promote Globalization. PoliTact, will be examining these aspects in a series of articles.

What Led to America First?

Economic Sense of Exploitation

Perhaps the most important reason for this shift is the perceived sense of being exploited at the hands of emerging global powers that are getting ahead economically and technologically. And they are doing so by not being necessarily democratic or upholding human rights. In fact, a case can be made that in these times of chaos and polarization, democratic systems are reflecting mounting paralysis – whereas centralized and hierarchical systems are being able to better navigate the social turbulence.

Moreover, as the sources of Western economic wherewithal dwindle, they have started to challenge the very basis of their strength, such as multiculturalism and diversity. And again, historical precedence would suggest similar outcomes in such circumstances. When the going gets tough, immigrants and minorities are usually the first to be blamed for the predicament, and this also explains the rise of right wing elements in the US and Europe.

On the other hand, Europe that has acted as the bedrock of American global power projection is more and more looking unable or unwilling to play this role, as the seismic events in the form of Brexit play out. Additionally, the emerging powers of Russian and China are also acting as centrifugal forces when it comes to the future of Europe. This was also recently visible when US warned European allies not to adopt Chinese 5G next generation mobile networks due to security risks.

From the American perspective, it has gone out of its way and at the cost of tremendous resources for the preservation and sustenance of the present system. The US has often acted for the common good and the mutual benefit of its allies. When it comes to global crises, other powers seldom act in the absence of American leadership. Obviously, American allies have their own perspective on the evolving American role.

This sentiment has also crept over into the economic realm, and led to the quick dissolution of trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) that America had itself crafted with tremendous efforts, while questioning how North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is benefiting the US. At the core of this belief is a feeling that US is being unfairly treated within the very system it helped create, and that Paris agreement on climate change would have likely further strangulated American economic growth under the burden of strenuous regulations. Under America First, Trump prefers bilateral format as opposed to the complexities involved in multilateral deals.

And if this is the case, with its emerging policies under Trump, US is telling the world that they need the present system more than it does. Moreover, it can help in maintaining the present order – but the allies would have to take the lead and the responsibility wherever applicable, and to establish fairness.

While there is an element of truth to how other nations have exploited the US, but one cannot underestimate the role played by multinational corporations. These companies have benefited tremendously from globalization by outsourcing work to other nations to maximize their profits while the American job markets and industrial capabilities suffered. The argument that technology and robotics are to blame for this is only a part of the explanation. And even if it is due to these reasons, it should have been a cause for alarm. A large unemployed workforce is in itself cause for instability, ethnic tensions, and hike in crimes.

Surprisingly, even the political representatives have failed to take notice of this combustible mixture, while overlooking the interests of their constituents. In one way, they are not to blame because Globalization conflicts with the concept of nation-state, and often puts the citizen of their own country in a second place. Globalization works best when there are minimal hindrances in the way of cross border trade, and the free market dynamics are allowed to play out.

Modern Warfare and Endless Conflicts 

Since 9/11 US has found itself at the forefront of many theaters of the campaign against extremism. In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, the involvement includes the GCC, Libya, Syria, Horn of Africa, and the nations of Islamic Maghrib. While it has the support of Western and regional Muslim allies, however, most of the financial and security heavy lifting for this campaign has been undertaken by the US. Even NATO partners have been reluctant to increase their defense contributions to the organization. And this is despite the fact that American role brings security benefits for its regional and Western allies.

And because of this, resentment has gradually been building, which ultimately led to the election of Donald Trump and the mantra of ‘America First’.

The prolonged war against extremism has played a pivotal role towards this dilemma as well. While the wars of the past were direct inter-state conflicts, the emerging conflicts have so far avoided the conventional theater, and have relied more on non-state actor acting as proxies and on hybrid warfare. Irrespective, the economic drains of these modern formats are mostly invisible to the pubic but incrementally drain the treasury. These formats convey a false sense of stability and are good for market and public confidence in the short term. Moreover, the hybrid warfare configuration has played havoc with the state sovereignty concept.

Conclusion

Thus, because of the imbalance of global power, and due to the apparent unwillingness of the US to maintain the present order, we are entering a dangerous phase. The key challenge for the other state actors has now become how to manage and maintain tranquility? Additionally, how to preserve their interests and sovereignty as the present order crumbles, while the shape of emerging system remains unclear.

At the heart of the misalignment between the US and the allies is a concern that who benefits more. The combination of America First doctrine and American Exceptionalism, will likely produce dangerous consequences, confuse allies, and hasten new global and regional realignments.

If American First policy does not produce economic dividends for common Americans in the short and long term, it will further complicate its domestic politics and confusion regarding America’s global role and future direction, and this in turn will further weaken the present order. Moreover, the America First principle is likely to unnerve the multinational corporations and this can add to the challenges confronted by President Trump in altering the status quo.

One of the key challenges for the West, and the US, is that after an era of complete economic and military dominance, will it be able to adjust to the new global realities and multipolarity.

The post ‘America First’ And Future Of Globalization appeared first on Politact.

Context

President Obama delivered an overarching speech at the 68th session of the UN General Assembly session on September 24. The focus of the speech and the session at large remained on Iran and Syria, as was expected. However, Obama also laid out the broad contours for the future of American policy in the Middle East and North Africa. He had been criticized earlier for not doing so. Ironically, his UN speech sounded more like the State of the Union address, with one segment focused on addressing the war weary American audiences, and the other part on the on international concerns regarding American unilateralism and exceptionalism.

The speech hinted towards the emerging American posture, including areas where the US and Pakistan have disagreements. One of them is obviously the interrelated factor of drone attacks and state sovereignty, the other element being how to deal with the non-state actors and the role of International law and UN.
American Interests in Middle East

Countering Putin’s article in the New York Times on September 11, Obama stated America is indeed exceptional, and it will act when there are justifiable moral and greater reasons to do so.

“But I believe America is exceptional. In part because we have shown a willingness through the sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our own narrow self interest, but for the interest of all.”

Analysis

Putin had written in his piece:

“It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

Obama went on to spell out the core American interests at stake in the Middle East: the free flow of energy; focus on dismantling the terrorist networks; building the capacity of its partners to fight the extremists; and preventing the development and use of weapons of mass destruction.

For this purpose, Obama stated: “The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests in the region,” he asserted.

Emerging Threats and Growing Concerns

Obama cited the Church massacre in Peshawar and the recent attack carried out by Al Shabab in Kenya, to demonstrate how Al Qaeda core has diminished but many splinter affiliates have emerged which continue to pose a threat to the US and its allies. He added how drone has proved to be the best weapon against terrorists that are exploiting state sovereignty. “But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter,” Obama stated.

At the same time, he clarified how US has addressed the international concerns regarding the widespread used of drones: “we have limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible, and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.”

It is this point that has persisted against the argument Pakistan has presented, claiming the strikes to be against International law. This difference will likely remain a sticking point now that Pakistan is contemplating on negotiating with TTP.

Why, What, and Who to Negotiate to

With who to negotiate, why, and what, has remained a convoluted dilemma, along with the appropriateness of when to use and cease applying force. Pakistan has quoted the example of US negotiating with the Afghan Taliban as an example of why it should talk with TTP. Another reason most cited is that force alone cannot work and ultimately talks will be required. However, others have made the case that Afghan Taliban and TTP are not comparable; the former is fighting against foreign occupation while in Pakistan there is no such cause.

On the other hand, TTP has over the years presented a number of reasons for why it carries out attacks. One of them being they did not want Pakistan to support and supply NATO forces in Afghanistan. The second, they have wanted to impose an Islamic system in Pakistan. Thirdly, they are reacting to the drone strikes targeting them; since Pakistan does not obstruct the drone attacks, it believes the state is complicit.

The formula US has evolved on which extremist groups to negotiate with depend on its affiliation with AQ. If a group starts to distance itself from AQ, US has been more opt to negotiating. The Afghan Taliban has shown this attitude in their recent statements. Nevertheless, the talking appears to be at a preliminary stage and much still remains to be seen on how the negotiated solution evolves. The dramatic US-Iran thaw is now a new factor, and how it would impact Afghanistan reconciliation will also be closely watched.

In case of TTP and other jihadist groups operating in Pakistan, they are widely believed to have ties with AQ. The example of LeT linked Mumbai attack and TTP connected suicide bombing at the US base in Khost in 2009, is a case in point. So talking to TTP is not as simple as assumed and carries international repercussions.

These concerns were apparent when Monmohan Singh met President Obama, and when he stated that Pakistan is still the epicenter of terrorism. While Pakistan seems to have delinked TTP from India oriented jihadist groups, Afghan Taliban, and AQ, others do not perceive this to be the case. Moreover, TTP is on the roll and has made no renouncements of the sorts Afghan Taliban are at least gesturing.

The success of negotiating is also far from ensured at this point. One of the reasons for this is that the extremist groups in the AfPak context, and Syria, may indeed have the upper hand. And in the absence of a clear winner, talks become even more complex.

Judging from Obama’s speech, to deal with the challenges of the future, the role of allies like Pakistan, and perhaps Iran, including Saudi Arabia, will be key to reigning in different brands of extremists. Meanwhile, US will withdraw to the background, while upgrading the capabilities of its partners to take on the charge against the irreconcilables. In his speech, Obama challenged the UN on how it would rise to the occasion and deal with the emerging threats it was not designed to deal with; emanating from with in states and where the state is too ‘fragile or failing’ to deal with them. It appears Pakistan’s war on terror, and that of the US, is far from over.

The post Deciphering Obama’s UN Speech; Non-State Actors, State Sovereignty, And Future Of UN appeared first on Politact.

By Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi

United Nations (UN) is a creation of American diplomacy and a legalistic approach to dictate world order. It was President Woodrow Wilson that created the League of Nations after the First World War but it could not survive the power struggle between its member states. The idea was rechristened by President FDR after the Second World War with help from allied powers France, Britain, and Russia. These powers protected their interests through a special vehicle UN Security Council (UNSC) where they were granted veto powers to block any resolution that was not in their interest. China was too big to ignore even when it was an underdeveloped country so it was added to the group of five permanent members of UNSC.

In this historic perspective it is ironic that America is the country that by-passes UN when it suits its strategic purpose. Whether it is war in Iraq, drone strikes in Pakistan, sanctions against Iran or no fly zone over Libya, America is increasingly acting alone or beyond the mandate granted to her by UN. These actions are contributing towards the break down of international order that is leading the world towards anarchy. This unilateralism is creating precedence for stronger states to act against their weaker neighbors without fear of retaliation from international community. Russian military action against Georgia to support secession of South Ossetia and Republic of Abkhazia was a result of this approach.

Analysis

America usually presents humanitarian motives when it engages in these acts of aggression. But even American humanitarianism is selective. When a military coup leaders kill over 2000 civilians in Egypt no action is taken rather the regime is granted with a financial aid through one of the allies in the region. When Israel defies UN resolutions and expand illegal settlements on Palestinian land no action is taken. When India commits human right atrocities in Kashmir, America closes its eyes and looks the other way. Bahraini government’s use of force against political protests does not cause a stir in American sensitivities. But Syrian government’s actions, without any proof presented to the world community, justifies military strike.

To uphold the rule of law and maintain a stable world order it is important that issues should be brought to UN for negotiations and resolutions. Russian President Putin has demanded that America should present evidence in the UN before taking unilateral action against Syria. This is an important first step to prevent expansion of war in the Middle East.

Any strike against Syria will severely test the credibility and resolve of the Russian and Chinese governments. Their failure to protect a key ally in Middle East will send a negative signal around the world. It would undermine their ability to create security pacts with allies in South America, Central Asia, South Asia and South East Asia.

Prolonged Syrian crisis has already severely damaged the reputation and credibility of key American ally Turkey and her charismatic Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey has made a grave error of supporting an armed intervention in the internal affairs of a neighboring country. This could have significant social, economic and security consequences for Turkey. As a NATO member state and second largest contributor of forces to the alliance, a US strike on Syria will make it a legitimate target of retaliation. European and American hesitation to come to the aid of Turkey has the potential to unravel the NATO alliance.

Saudi Arabia has been playing a negative role in the Muslim world for last few decades. First it was the funding and support of extremist Wahhabi movements in the Muslim world. Her armed intervention in Bahrain to suppress a peaceful civilian uprising that demanded political change angered majority of Muslims. She is one of the main opponents of Arab Spring and one of the first countries to come forward to provide financial aid to the military regime in Egypt. Saudi Arabia has been a supporter and financier of military dictators of Pakistan throughout its history. These actions have created an anti-Saudi sentiment in large parts of the Muslim world. Muslims expect Saudi Arabia to unite Muslim ummah but it has acted otherwise

Similar to Saudi Arabia, Iran has been an exporter of her revolution to the other parts of the Muslim world especially Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain. These actions have contributed to the division of Muslim world on sectarian lines. The power struggle between these two key Muslims countries has encouraged others to intervene.

The new government in Pakistan has stated that it wants to improve its ties with all her neighbors and Muslim countries around the world. The Syrian crisis offers an opportunity to Pakistan to bring the Muslim countries together to form a consensus position. Pakistan should request a special session of Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to discuss the crisis in Syria and Egypt to move towards a political solution. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will be speaking at the UN General Assembly in September. He should include Syria and Egypt in his speech to create an international platform to solve these issues.

Pakistan should propose to Russia and China to convene a meeting of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to discuss crisis in Syria as Eurasian region will be most affected by an armed intervention. First, Central Asian countries rely on export of energy to support their countries. Any disruption in energy supplies could create economic crisis that could lead to social unrest. Secondly, most of the Central Asian countries are Muslim majority countries. Prolonged military operation against a Muslim country could produce extremism and mass protests on the streets which will destabilize the whole region.

Political theorists say war is another means of diplomacy. Syrian crisis seems to be an effort by America to push Russia to the wall. We hope that pragmatism will prevail over my-way-or-highway approach to solving international problems.

The writer is a former President of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce-USA and member advisory committee of Pakistan Tehrike Insaf (PTI). He has authored three books titled Freedom by Choice, Lessons from Quran and Islamic Social Contract. The opinion expressed here are personal and not the official position of PTI.

The post The Past And Future Of UN Security Council appeared first on Politact.