“To be determined by an end is to be determined by what ought to be”
On September 22, The New York Times published an opinion in the form of an interactive chart titled ‘The New World’. This article, authored by Frank Jacobs and Parag Khanna, presents what the future would entail for certain states. Basically, it argues that the existing international borders are not static and presents about 11 different places where they are likely to change. The surprising element is not about what is on the list but what is absent. Moreover, the arguments used to present the case are lopsided.
Yes, Balochistan and Pashtunistan are on the list. This is obviously not the first time someone has pointed this out, and, therefore, it should not come as a shock to anyone. Nearly all-major western publications have been presenting a dire outlook for Pakistan for close to two decades now, well before the present regional turmoil had presented itself ominously.
Countering a narrative, first of all, requires an examination of the premise being used to build an argument. These usually get validity by repeated assertions in the media, and after a certain point, most people start to accept them as a given fact as perceptions transform to perspectives.
For example, the study in question presents the reason behind the changing borders as an inevitability of geopolitics. It simply ignores the havoc and tensions that have consumed the world in the aftermath of the 9/11. The globetrotting drones, worsening worldwide recession, the struggle for energy resources, all are contributing factors. These causes have resulted in the resurgence of tribalism and nationalism, which are threatening not just a few states but the whole concept of nation-state around the world.
One of the important projections articulates that Gulf States are likely to form a union in the future. It is true that Saudi Arabia is especially interested in such a prospect, and a number of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) meetings have focused on this. However, none of these have produced any results. Considering the tribal orientation of the Gulf monarchs this is perhaps the last place on earth that may take a shape of a merger. Nonetheless, the element of fear can extract results that are otherwise unimaginable.
Moreover, the blowback from what is occurring in Syria, and the role of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and western powers in arming the rebels there can be extremely perilous for the Gulf countries and the region. Consider the example of support for Afghan jihadist and Salafist in the 80s that ultimately resulted in the creation of Al-Qaeda. If anything, when the Arab Spring has run its course and the dust settles on the hoopla about Iran’s nuclear program, we may see some crude League of Nation style European mandates in the Arab world again. Past is after all, the best predictor of the future.
How the independence of Kurdistan is presented on the interactive map is also intriguing. It appears not only to hurt the territorial borders of Iran and Iraq to a large extent but also minimally NATO member Turkey’s borders. This is surprising given the insurgency presented by Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), now supported by Syria, is increasingly becoming lethal for Turkey. Could this be because of Turkey’s support for NATO in Syria? Irrespective of that, the situation of Turkey is beginning to resemble that of FATA, with its military routinely coming under attack and taking causalities.
Equally critical is what is missing from the forecast: for example, the issue of Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Argentina has now received the backing of Latin American countries for its claim of sovereignty over the remote islands of Malvinas, which was occupied by Britain in 1833. Argentina seized the island in a 74-day war in 1980s. However, the UK was able to retake the islands. The eight-member countries of the Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA) recently agreed to bar any ships flying the flag of Falkland Islands, from docking in their ports. Diplomatic wrangling escalated between Argentina and Britain when the UK ordered oil explorations in the waters near the islands in 2010.
Another glaring omission from the projection is the Maoist insurgency in India, and the sectarian tension surrounding Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar. Myanmar is quickly emerging as another hotspot where the shifts in the balance of power between the West, China and India are playing out. As a result, the Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar and Bangladesh corridor is likely to become active in the future.
In short, such interpretations that are routinely published are based on a western worldview and interests, and mostly carry consequences for emerging competitors such as Russia and China. For example, China absorbing Siberia, as the forecast states, insinuates anxiety in the Sino-Russian ties. Similarly, the coming together of North and South Korea is perhaps more threatening to other pacific powers such as China and Japan. From the vantage point of South Asia, an interesting prospect to consider would have been the possible fusion of Pakistan and India.
The western powers are proficient at envisioning the outlook and what it means for them. That their future planning is connected to risks that their policies are creating for the world, deliberately or unintentionally, is a different matter all together. Lack of alternative and indigenous narrative regarding what the world may look like, gives further credence to the scenarios that are propagated. As Dr Iqbal put it philosophically:
“The past, no doubt, abides and operates in the present, but this operation of the past in the present is not the whole of consciousness. The element of purpose discloses a kind of forward look in consciousness. Purposes not only color our present states of consciousness, but also reveal its future direction. In fact, they constitute the forward push of our life, and thus in a way anticipate and influence the states that are yet to be. To be determined by an end is to be determined by what ought to be.”
However, its critical to visualize what that end is, as it may be different for different stakeholders.
The writer is the chief analyst for PoliTact (www.PoliTact.com and http:twitter.com/politact) and can be reached at [email protected]
If the American analysts (Indian bias notwithstanding)were so good at visualizing things, then how come they failed so miserably in Iraq and are on the verge of losing the Afghan war by a rag tag group of Taliban?
Their instigation of Syrian rebels, which some suspect is yet once again orchestrated by Israel as was the war in Iraq, has backfired badly. US assumption that they could run Assad outof Syria as they did Gaddafi out of Libya, shows their naïveté and lack of comprehension of grand realities.
Such articles like the one in NY Times will be written from time to time, but do not deserve a serious attention. US is indebted to China to the tune of $1 trillion, a hole it dug itself due to Iraq war, not to speak of $14trillion deficit are major issues this nation needs to grapple with. They need to stop being delusional about determining the future of the world.
@Ajaz-Haque – Stop living in day-dreaming – USA is unquestionable a super-power – just take a look of money they have for one-war only. – forget about the deficits, loans or borrowing of USA.
FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[5][6]
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[7]
FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[8]
FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
I can also provide you details of investments USA banks in other countries as well – but this space is limited to explain everything here – PPL like you are those who give wrong directions to this poor country.
Comments are closed.