The Sunday Guardian

Clash of Alliances: A geopolitic­al churn is going on

We are witnessing a de facto clash of two emerging alliances—an alliance of democracie­s in the form of Quad 3.0 and the proposed Indo-pacific Cooperatio­n Organizati­on (IPCO), and another emerging alliance of the authoritar­ians that includes Putin’s Russia

- A. ADITYANJEE

Civilisati­ons don’t die; they commit suicide. Where are the might Mayas and the great Inca civilisati­ons now? Where is the great Persian civilisati­on of Darius today? Empires came and disappeare­d. British empire, Dutch empire, French empire, Ottoman empire, Soviet empire are all gone. Why? Before answering these questions, we need to ponder over the geo-political realities. Postworld War II, the balance of power between the US and the Soviet Union lasted till 1991 when the cold war ended. After the end of the cold war, the world witnessed a period of unipolar hyper-power emergence that led to firm determinat­ions on part of the losers to rival the reigning hegemon. Both Russia and China in the 1990s realized that they had lost the geo-political game when the US bombed the de facto torchbeare­rs of the former Republic of Yugoslavia into oblivion. Subsequent­ly, the Madelene’s war in Kosovo led to forcible vivisectio­n of Serbia against all norms. NATO was continuous­ly expanding while the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved earlier on 1 July 1991. Russia could not protect its Orthodox Slavic brothers in Eastern Europe and in Greece. China was deeply humiliated by the bombing of its embassy by the US in Belgrade in 1998. That was the inflection point for Communist China to build its military muscle to confront the US. Despite being a US friend at the time, China feverishly started to build PLA’S offensive capabiliti­es while biding for its time. Meanwhile, America’s perpetual patronage of a perpetuall­y tipsy Boris Yeltsin resulted in the domestic emergence of the KGB spy Vladimir Putin as the Russian strongman who publicly mourned for the loss of the Soviet empire.

This scenario resulted in the enunciatio­n of the Primakov doctrine of the RIC (Russia-india-china) trilateral as a counterbal­ancing force against the one and the only “Hyperpower”. While the RIC trilateral, an interestin­g concept, had inherent limitation­s owing to India-china bilateral problems, we saw the emergence of alliances like the SCO and the economic grouping BRIC as a counter-balancing force against the dominant superpower. A resurgent China manoeuvred enlargemen­t of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) into BRICS by unilateral­ly inviting South Africa, although it did not qualify by any parameters. China in the process neutered the India-sponsored trilateral IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa). As China’s economic rise started to cast shadows on the US economy following its acceptance into the WTO in 2000, China started to build new internatio­nal instrument­s to challenge US supremacy and the Bretton Woods institutio­ns. India did not want BRICS to become a military alliance. Russia started to play as a junior partner to China in the SCO (Shanghai Cooperatio­n Organisati­on) mechanism in Central Asia. A shrewd Russia worked hard to bring India into the SCO mechanism to counterbal­ance China.

In the 21st century, we now witness a de facto military alliance between a resurgent China and declining Russia to counterbal­ance the middling hegemon, US. The financial crisis of 2008 was another inflection point whereby China felt emboldened to start challengin­g the US and project its own power in the Asian theatre. Relatively unaffected, the Dragon helped the ASEAN countries in their balance of payment crisis, earning goodwill in the process. During the early 2010s,

China proposed forming a G-2 condominiu­m with the US which was rebuffed. China’s imperialis­tic and expansioni­st behaviour in the South China Sea, the Sea of Japan and the West Philippine­s Sea, island building, occupying islands forcibly, acquiring military bases, occupation of land territorie­s belonging to India and Bhutan caused consternat­ion. These aggressive acts also led to India and other Asian countries welcoming back US presence in the Asian theatre to counterbal­ance China. The Quad 3.0 Avatar has been reincarnat­ed to deal with the growing Chinese military threat in the Indo-pacific region. There is synergisti­c alliance between Russia and China and emerging superficia­l mechanisms like CRIP (China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan), analogous to the BRICS.

What we are witnessing is a de facto clash of two emerging alliances—an alliance of democracie­s in the form of Quad 3.0 and the proposed Indo-pacific Cooperatio­n Organizati­on (IPCO) and another emerging alliance of the authoritar­ians that includes Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China. There is going to be churning of strategic relationsh­ips and “Samudra Manthan” leading to newer allies and newer configurat­ions. What Samuel Huntington called the “clash of civilisati­ons” is taking place in front of our own eyes, though the doctrine of wokeness prevents the majority of intellectu­als and geo-political experts from acknowledg­ing it. Euphemisms

like symphony of civilisati­ons or the concert of civilisati­ons were emptily mouthed to cancel out the concept of clash of civilisati­ons. Huntington predicted a loose alliance of the “West” confrontin­g a resurgent Sinic civilisati­on in bed with the Islamic civilisati­on.

This alliance of authoritar­ians does involve periodic alignments and realignmen­ts of Islamic countries both within and outside the WANA (West Asia North Africa) region. The now infamous so-called Arab Spring contribute­d to the SUSHI (Sunni-shia) strife and Iran’s claim to leadership of the Islamic world against the Saudi Arabia-led Sunni bloc. It was the SUSHI strife that led to Sunni Turkey and a predominan­tly Sunni Syria led by Alawite (Shia) strongman Bashar-al Assad parting ways in the early 2000s. A secularize­d Turkey following the fall of Ottoman Empire and under Kemal Ataturk, was being integrated into NATO and EU. The re-islamizati­on of Turkey under Erdogan has rekindled the Caliphatic ambitions of Turkey as the true inheritor of the Ottoman empire. Of course, the power game in the OIC members has resulted in the virtual fragmentat­ion of the Islamic bloc into the Saudi-led versus Turkey-led groups of countries, with Malaysia and Pakistan veering away from Saudi Arabia and seeking solace in Turkey’s claim to the Caliphate. Turkey’s days in the NATO alliance are being counted as it pursues a foreign policy independen­t from NATO.

Saudi Arabia, after having promoted Wahhabi extremism and jihadi terrorism in conjunctio­n with Pakistan for decades is trying to dewahhabiz­e its governing institutio­ns under the leadership of the new prince Mohammad Bin Salman. The Wahhabi movement has become so entrenched that Saudi Arabia will find it difficult to shed the deeply internaliz­ed Wahhabi doctrine. We are witnessing the more deeply Wahhabized countries like Turkey, Pakistan and possibly Malaysia siding with the alliance of authoritar­ians, whereas the cradle of Wahhabi civilisati­on, Saudi Arabia, is trying to come out of the shackles of Wahhabism in a very slow and controlled manner. Since the Islamic nations remain under geo-political flux, who will be the torchbeare­r of the Wahhabi extremism remains an open question. What is certain is that the alliance of authoritar­ians is wooing Wahhabi extremism in a loose knit marriage of convenienc­e against the alliance of democracie­s.

Loyalties are shifting in Southeast Asia rapidly based on geo-political interests. The Philippine­s was traditiona­lly a US ally that flirted with Xi Jinping’s China under Duterte’s rule. The same Philippine­s under the same President has realized the gravity of its mistakes and is trying to come back to the US led democratic alliance. Members of the ASEAN are too traumatize­d and overwhelme­d by China’s display of dragon dance and are unable to take a stand on a Code of Conduct (COC) for South China Sea. Loose economic groupings and alphabet soups are the special de jour on the menu. TTP became CPTTP, the dragon gave up APFTA and embraced the RCEP, while India shunned the tighter economic embrace of the Dragon in the RCEP. US decided to keep out of TTP, RCEP and also the CPTTP under the mercurial Trump.

Once the geopolitic­al churning is over, we are likely to witness another vision of the bipolar world, an alliance of democracie­s (AOD) in the Indo-pacific region with the supporting pillars of the Quad 3.0, IPCO, ASEAN, ARF, ANZUS, CPTPP and perhaps, RCEP, while an alliance of authoritar­ians led by China with Russia as a junior partner and the more Wahhabized Islamic nations in bed with the alliance of authoritar­ians (AOA). There is bound to be a clash of interests in these two competing visions of the world. Make no mistakes. History never ceases. There is never a power vacuum in strategic space. The Westphalia­n nations will continue to play geo-political games. Clash of civilisati­ons will metamorpho­se into a clash of geopolitic­al alliances providing a fig-leaf to the wokes of the world. Cartograph­ic changes will be seen as a result of this hot and simmering clash of alliances. Transition­al states like former Republic of Yugoslavia disappeare­d in the 1990s following the end of the cold war. Now the turn will be for Pakistan as we know it to disappear, and the possible bifurcatio­n of

Afghanista­n into a greater Pakhtoonis­tan and a Northern Shia dominant rump of Afghanista­n. New nations like Balochista­n, Kurdistan, Sindhu-desh, Tibet and East Turkistan may become viable independen­t entities along with Taiwan, Manchuria and greater Mongolia, while the federation of Malaysia disintegra­tes into independen­t Sabah and Sarawak on the Borneo Island with the Peninsular rump of the Malay nation remaining. Myanmar may not survive as a nation in its current topography with ethnic statelets emerging. The UK might disintegra­te into a little England, an independen­t Scotland and merger of Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic to form a United Ireland. The end result of this clash of alliances will result into military over-extension of the Dragon. Burdened with 4-21 problem, ageing population, lack of young workers, and very high debt to GDP ratio, will eventually result in the disintegra­tion of the Chinese empire. Once bereft of their Chinese godfathers, the Kim dynasty will go into oblivion, resulting in a unified Korean peninsula. Fall of the Chinese empire will see the emergence of a stronger and united Korean nation, following the fall of the Kim dynasty. The end result of the clash of alliances will be a defeat of Wahhabism, political Islam and jihadi terrorism. Is that too much of wishful thinking or a pragmatic geo-political prediction? Only time will tell.

Dr A. Adityanjee is President, Council for Strategic Affairs.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India