The Muslim world is facing two geopolitical cross-currents
Since the turn of the century, the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims have been buffeted by two geopolitical cross-currents — the global war on terror and the Arab Spring. Now, both these movements have come a full circle. The global war on terror that began two decades ago reached a tipping point with the United States (US) exiting Afghanistan and the Taliban’s return. The Arab Spring, too, has come a full circle with Tunisia suspending its constitution last July. And so, now is an opportune moment to analyse them and project their future courses.
Both these movements are rooted in the unrealised aspirations of the Muslim youth that encourage them to rebel against the establishment — be it national hierarchy or the global order. While Islamists got radicalised, the “Springers” had their dreams of civic freedoms blocked, which was followed by protests. Although the two tendencies tend to be mutually exclusive, they have made common cause against the “system”.
While they both are suspicious of perceived Western conspiracies, their reactions to these are often poles apart. The radicals want to take up arms to punish the West and its local surrogates. The Springers draw inspiration from the same source to push for a semi-secular and equitable socio-political order.
Despite some success, their intrinsic weaknesses inhibit their emergence as a viable alternative polity. The Springers mostly failed at creating an alternative order. The resultant political vacuum enabled the baton to be grabbed by the radicals. While their slogan, “Islam is the solution”, appeared catchy, it has often become a Trojan horse to justify abominations such as Daesh’s Caliphate and the Taliban’s Emirate 1.0. Indeed, the antics of other disruptors such as Boko Haram and al-shabab cannot paper over the contradictions between their medieval theocracy and the statecraft required in the 21st century. Even when moderate Islamists came to power after the Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia, their governance was unedifying.
Further, the race to the bottom between the radicals and the Springers confused several stakeholders, resulting in chaos. Thus, President Barack Obama, while unrelenting in his country’s war against Daesh, also supported the Sunni radicals in Syria. Against this backdrop, the current winding down of the radicals and the Springers is welcome. However, new polarisers are beginning to disrupt the Islamic world and southwest Asia. The US exit from West Asia and its near-energy selfsufficiency has upended eight decades of Pax Americana in the region. Besides, the Us-iran brinkmanship over the nuclear issue and the Abraham Accords have reinforced regional tensions. The existing hotspots such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya continue to fester.
As the curtains slowly fall, one is left wondering about their likely sequels. Conjuring up their future mutations given the evolving context leads to two extreme scenarios.
Pessimistically, too many Afghan war stakeholders consider the return to the status quo ante asa prelude to a more virulent sequel. Similarly, a legacy of mistrust and the “mutazaidaat” (overbidding) go against a peaceful resolution of the Iran nuclear conundrum. These two drivers could push southwest Asia towards an unpredictable Armageddon — with possibilities ranging from perennial brinkmanship to a serious bloodletting.
A more optimistic scenario would evolve around de-escalation. According to a Bloomberg projection in August, the global oil consumption for transportation is to peak in 2027, making the commodity a buyer’s market. If realised, the region would soon begin losing its cause célèbre status leading to lesser outside interference. Then, the affected youth and the region’s regimes would be able to find their modus vivendi without externalisation.
There is a huge play between the two scenarios, and India needs to consider several steps to minimise its risk exposure. Internally, a more inclusive polity should be pursued, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. Externally, India can consciously reduce its dependence on West Asia till the future looks more secure. As the world’s largest democracy, we should play a constructive role in promoting stability and pluralism.
Mahesh Sachdev is a former ambassador The views expressed are personal