Geopolitics and Iran's Foreign Policy

Since the 1979 revolution and the fall of the Shah, Iran's leaders have faced the challenge of balancing their ideological and geopolitical approaches to foreign policy. Gradually, the Iranian leadership has come to focus on the geopolitical factor in the conduct of foreign policy. An overview of Iran's actions in the region shows how and why Iran has shifted its policies to preserve themselves from the outside world. Today, ideology is one factor among many other sources of Iran's power, and serves the aim of preserving Iran's national security and interests.

The geopolitical factors govern the post-1979 Iran’s relations with other regional states in particular and the world in general. There is little evidence to believe that this trend will discontinue in the foreseeable future. The main reason for this is the nature of the issues that Iran faces in its immediate political-security environment, which is marked by multiple sources of insecurity, especially the US military threats. These conditions require that Iran build strategic coalitions. The post-Shah regimes have been openly antagonist and challenging to the US. For example, in 1979-1981 the Iranians held captive Americans for 444 days. The US responded to this defiance by attempting to isolate Iran from 1979 onwards, for instance through sanctions that have been progressively tightened over time. The more recent round of sanctions and its nuclear 'crisis' pretext is widely seen and understood to be the latest of American attempts to put Iran ‘in its place’. Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by the mainstream media and in official statements by Western governments, there is no evidence that Iran is working on a military nuclear program today. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of evidence, available in a number of reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that Iran’s nuclear activities are peaceful.

The fact remains that all the geopolitics and foreign policy aspects of today’s Iran need to be seen in the right context. Iran is located in an unstable neighbourhood and this generalized condition of instability persists. There is sectarian conflict on Iran's western flank (Iraq). There are fragile states on Iran's eastern frontier (Afghanistan and Pakistan). There are states along Iran's northern border whose political, social, and economic transformations are unsteady and incomplete (Central Asia and the Caucasus). Such an insecure environment has the potential of fuelling regional rivalries, igniting crises or military conflicts, and inducing a larger presence or direct intervention of Western powers. A major portion of Iran's political and economic capital is being spent on tackling these varied threats. The Iranian leadership's determination to maintain a powerful army reflects the national security concerns stemming from them.

There is a direct relationship between the level and likelihood of Western (read US) military threats towards Iran and the implementation of the two elements of geopolitics and ideology in Iran's foreign policy. For example, during the Iraq crisis the Iranian government devoted its foreign policy to the Shi’a cause. As a result, the new Iraq is the place that Iran's ideological and pragmatic aspects of foreign policy have converged for the first time since the Islamic revolution. The greater the number of US threats made against Tehran and its overall political-security system, the more Iran asserted and employed the Shi'a ideological element in its foreign policy approach. Presumably, a diminution in foreign threats will lead Iran to remain focused on issues related to its immediate security perimeter, reducing the ideological element while emphasizing the economic and integrative aspects of its relations with regional states.

Another evidence to demonstrate the shift of Iranian foreign policy towards the geopolitical factor stems from the events in 2006 when Iran put the “oil weapon” card on the table in response to threats from the NATO that more stringent sanctions might be imposed on it for pursuing nuclear ambitions. Iran said it would cut its oil exports to the West if a U.S.-led coalition imposed sanctions on it in response to its alleged plans to develop nuclear weapons. In a much talked about speech, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in June 2006 warned the United States that “[Washington] should know that the slightest misbehavior on your part would endanger the entire region’s energy security…You are not capable of guaranteeing energy security in the region”.

Post-revolution Iran has proven time and again, that it is not ready to bog down to the threats by the US or by its hostile neighbours. The pattern, however, has clearly changed. During the

first decade of the revolution, Iran's regional foreign policy was defined principally in ideological terms. More recently, however, geopolitical factors have predominated. Today, ideology is placed in the service of Iran's national interests and security. Given the multitude of security challenges and opportunities facing Iran, one would expect the Iranian leadership to follow a pragmatic approach to relations with the regional states that reflects geopolitical realities.

Glimpse of the next 'Global War'

Famous author and political scientist, (Late) Dr. Samuel P. Huntington (of The Clash of Civilizations fame) had described one the possible scenarios that may lead to a global war in near future. This assumption is based on the ongoing Geopolitical trends across the globe. This text mentions the scenarios that may spark off a major war, developments that may convert it into a global war, alignments of the various nation-states and possible aftermaths.

Scenario: American troops are out of Korea, which has been re-unified and the US has greatly reduced military presence in Japan. Taiwan and Mainland China have reached an accommodation in which Taiwan continues to have most of its de facto independence but explicitly acknowledges Beijing’s suzerainty. The development of oil resources in South China Sea has proceeded apace, largely under Chinese auspices but with some areas under Vietnamese control being developed by American companies. Its confidence boosted by its new power projection capabilities, China announces that it will establish its full control of the entire sea, over all of which it has always claimed sovereignty. The Vietnamese resist and fighting occurs between Chinese and Vietnamese warships. China, eager to revenge their 1979 humiliation, invades Vietnam.

The War Begins: Vietnam appeals for American assistance and the Chinese warn the US to stay out of the war. Japan and other nations in Asia dither. US declares that it cannot accept Chinese invasion of Vietnam , calls for economic sanctions against the Chinese, and dispatches one of its few remaining carrier task forces to the South China Sea. The Chinese denounce this as a violation of Chinese territorial waters and launch air-strikes against the task force. Japan prohibits the use of US air bases in Japan for action against China and quarantines the bases by announcing its neutrality. Chinese submarines and land based aircraft operating from Taiwan impose heavy damage on the ships. Meanwhile Chinese troops enter Hanoi.

Development into a Global War: The war is having an impact on the major states of other civilizations. India seizes the opportunity offered by China’s being tied down in East Asia to launch a devastating attack on Pakistan with a view to degrading the country’s nuclear and conventional military capabilities. It is initially successful but the military alliance between Pakistan, Iran and China is activated and Iran comes to Pakistan aid. India becomes bogged down fighting both Iranian troops and Pakistani guerrillas. Both Pakistan and India appeal to Arab states for support-India warning of the danger of Iranian dominance of the Southwest Asia.-but the initial successes of China against the US have stimulated major anti-Western movement in Muslim societies. One by one the remaining pro-Western governments of Arab states and Turkey are brought down by Islamic fundamentalists. This surge of anti-Westernism provoked by Western weakness leads to a massive Arab attack on Israel, which the much-reduced US Sixth fleet is unable to stop.
As China scores military successes, Japan nervously begins to bandwagon with China, shifting its position to pro-Chinese neutrality and eventually becomes a cobelligerent. The United States declares a blockade of Japan, and Japanese and American ships engage in sporadic duels in Western Pacific. At the start of the war China proposed a mutual security pact with Russia (vaguely reminiscent of the Hitler-Stalin pact). But instead the prospects of Chinese victory and total dominance of China in East Asia terrifies Moscow. As Russia moves in an anti-China direction and begins to re-inforce its troops in Siberia, the numerous Chinese settlers in Siberia interfere with these movements. China then intervenes on pretext of protecting its countrymen.

As fighting occurs between China and Russia in Central Siberia, uprising occur in Mongolia, which China had earlier placed under a protectorate.
The control and access to oil is of central importance to all combatants. Despite its heavy investment in nuclear energy, Japan is heavily dependent on oil imports and this strengthens its inclination to accommodate China. During the course of the war, as Arab countries come under control of Islamic militants, Persian Gulf oil supplies to the west diminish to a trickle, and the West consequently becomes increasingly dependent upon Russian, Caucasian and Central Asian sources. This leads the West to intensify its efforts to enlist Russia on its side and to support Russia in extending its control over the oil-rich Muslim countries to its south.
The European allies of the US provide diplomatic and economic assistance but are reluctant to become involved militarily. China and Iran are fearful that European countries will eventually rally behind America, even as the US eventually came to support of Britain and France in the two World wars. To prevent this, they deploy intermediate range nuclear missiles to Bosnia and Algeria and warn that the European powers should stay out of the war. Serbia, wishing to reclaim its historic role as the defender of Christianity against the Turks, invades Bosnia. Croatia joins in and the two countries occupy and partition Bosnia, and capture the missiles. Albania and Turkey come to aid of Bosnia but Greece and Bulgaria launch invasions of the European Turkey. Meanwhile, a nuclear missile, launched from Algeria, explodes outside Marseilles (France). NATO retaliates with devastating air attacks against North African targets.

Possible Results:

-The United States, Europe, Russia and India have thus become engaged in a truly global struggle against China, Japan and most of Islam. Both sides have major nuclear capabilities which if brought into more than minimal play; the principal countries on both sides could be substantially destroyed.

-Mutual exhaustion might lead to a negotiated armistice, which would not, however, resolve the fundamental issue of Chinese hegemony in East Asia. Alternatively the West could try to defeat China through use of conventional military power. But alignment of Japan with China will prevent the West from using its naval power against Chinese centre of population and industry along the coast.

-The alternative is to approach china from the West. The fighting between Russia and China leads NATO to welcome Russia as its member and to cooperate with Russia in countering Chinese incursions in Serbia, maintaining Russian control over oil and gas in Central Asia. This can be achieved by promoting insurrections against Chinese rule by Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians.

Aftermath: Whatever the immediate outcome of this global civilizational war, the broader long -term result would be drastic decline in economic, demographic and military power of all major participants. The global power which had shifted from East to west and had again started shifting from West to East would now shift from North to South. The great beneficiaries of the war of civilization are those which abstained from it. With the West, Russia and China devastated to varying degrees, the way is open for India (if it escaped such devastation, as it was a secondary participant in the war) to reshape the World along its lines.
In America, large segment of public will blame the severe weakening of the US on the Western orientation of the elites hence Hispanic leaders could come to power. Africa will not have much to offer in order to rebuild Europe but it can prey on the remains. In the East, if China, Japan and Korea are devastated by the war, the power centre will move Indonesia which had remained neutral. In any scenario, the power will move south

Democracy, Human Rights and Erosion of Western Hegemony

The West has undoubtedly been the leading civilization for almost 400 years now and has been the sole policy maker of the world. Within West, the core shifted from Europe to the United states after the Second World War. But that doesn’t bother Europe or west as whole because all these nations have always been in sync about every major global policy and ideas.

During the 1970s and 1980s over thirty countries shifted from authoritarian to democratic political systems. Along with economic development, the policies and actions of the western powers and international institutions helped to bring democracy to Spain, Portugal, Latin America, Philippines, South Korea and Eastern Europe. Democratization was most successful in countries where Christian or Western influences were strong. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Communism completely lost its charm and by the 1990s, except for Cuba, democratic transitions had occured in most of the countries whose peoples espoused Western Christianity. This led to a strong belief within West that a global democratic revolution was underway and that soon Western concepts of human rights and Western forms of political democracy would prevail throughout the world. Promoting the spread of these ideas hence became a high priority goal for Western nations. In April 1990, U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker said ‘Beyond containment lies democracy’. Even during 1992 U.S. Presidential campaign, Bill Clinton repeatedly said that promotion of democracy would be top priority of Clinton administration. No stones were left unturned.

But the Post Cold-war world has been very different from post World-war world. This was demonstrated by the resistance to the American and European efforts by non-western civilizations, mainly Islamic and East-Asian civilizations. The failures of the West with respect to Asia stemmed primarily from the increasing economic wealth and self-confidence of Asian countries. Old age of dependence and subordination was past and western leverage over East and Southeast Asia was greatly reduced.

Western Ideas and Non-western responses

At the 1997 G-7 summit in Denver, President Clinton boasted about the success of the American economy as a model for others. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright has called the United States "the indispensable nation" and said that "we stand tall and hence see further than other nations". This statement is true in the narrow sense that the United States is an indispensable participant in any effort to tackle major global problems. It is false in also implying that other nations are dispensable. The United States needs the cooperation of some major countries in handling any issue and that American indispensability is the source of wisdom. In the unipolar moment at the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was often able to impose its will on other countries. That moment has passed. The two principal tools of coercion that the United States now attempts to use are economic sanctions and military intervention. Sanctions work, however, only when other countries also support them, and that is decreasingly the case. Hence, the United States either applies them unilaterally to the detriment of its economic interests and its relations with its allies, or it does not enforce them, in which case they become symbols of American weakness.

As argued by a Singaporean official ‘Efforts to promote human rights in Asia must also reckon with altered distribution of power in the post Cold war world’. This was unprecedented. The ability of Asian regimes to resist Western human rights pressure was reinforced by several factors. American and European businesses were desperately anxious to expand their trade and their investment in these rapidly growing countries and subjected their governments to intense pressure not to disrupt economic relations with them. Asian countries saw such pressure as infringement on their sovereignty and rushed to each other’s support whenever required. The growing economic strength of Asian countries render them increasingly immune to Western pressure concerning human rights and liberal democracy. As Richard Nixon observed in 1994, “Today China’s economic power makes U.S. lectures about human rights imprudent. Within a decade it will make them irrelevant. Within two decades it will make them laughable”. 15 years on, that’s exactly what we are seeing. Perhaps the biggest shock to U.S. came when the Japanese government distanced itself from American human rights policies not so long after the Tiananmen Square.

Several instances that followed proved the rejection of western ideas of democracy and human rights by Islamic and Asian countries. In 1990, Sweden submitted on behalf of 20 Western nations a resolution condemning the military regime in Myanmar, but opposition from Asian and other countries killed it. Resolutions condemning Iran for human rights abuses were voted down for 5 straight years. Same happened with China. One of the biggest surprises came when in 1994; Pakistan tabled a resolution in the U.N. condemning India for human rights abuses in Kashmir. Countries friendly to India rallied against it but so also did Pakistan’s closest friends China & Iran, who had been target of similar measures. The motive was not to help India or embarrass Pakistan but to defeat the Western policies.

End of Western hegemony ?

The differences over human rights between the West and the rest and decline of influence of western policies were clearly revealed at U.N. World Conferences on Human Rights in Vienna in June 1993. This was a clear clash between European and North American countries belonging to Western civilization and a bloc of 50 countries represented by Buddhist, Islamic, Latin American & Confucian civilizations. Major differences existed between Western and Asian-Islamic blocs. Unfortunately, Western nations were ill-prepared for Vienna conference and were outnumbered. During its proceedings they made more concessions than their opponents and hence the declaration approved by the conference was a minimal one. As observed by a human rights supporter it was a “flawed and contradictory” document, and clearly represented a victory for the Asian-Islamic bloc. This declaration was much weaker than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the U.N. had adopted in 1948. This transition clearly represented decline in Western hegemony.

The biggest winner at Vienna, of all nations, came out to be China. Beijing kept winning throughout by simply tossingits weight around. Infuriated by this, the West decided to avenge this insult by securing 2000 Summer Olympics for Sydney by outnumbering Beijing, which they knew was very important for the Chinese dignity. Lee Kuan Yew commented, “ America and Britain succeeded in cutting China down to size”. Little did they know that Beijing would go on to win the bid for 2008 Olympics and put every past Olympic host to shame by putting up a grand show. This came at a time when China is much more powerful economically, militarily and diplomatically than it was in 1994.

Recent invasion of Afghanistan followed by Iraq in the post 9/11 era has further demonstrated the U.S. desperation to remain on the top of the food chain. America can feel the difference because this time around they have been able to muster lesser support outside NATO as compared to last Gulf War. They are being openly condemned by Russia, Asian and Islamic countries. Also by invading Iraq on pretext of destroying WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction), which were never found, United States has brought the credibility of the U.N. under question.

These untimely invasions triggered by a feeling of insecurity within the West & deeply affected their economies in a very negative manner. This in turn affected economy of every nation in the world and ultimately gave rise to an Economic Crisis. This crisis was predicted long before the Afghan war in 2001 but finally materialized towards the end of 2007. Major business giants went bankrupt and unemployment rose at an unprecedented rate. U.S. has been worst affected by the crisis and have perhaps realized that the strategy has probably backfired and recent reports have suggested that U.S. now is in a hurry to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. Democracy or no Democracy, they want to be out of that part of the World.

The big winner in all this is again China. Though its economy did suffer because of the crisis but it is on a quick path to recovery by striking a decent balance between their imports and exports. Many predicted this crisis as the final blow to the U.S. (in particular) and Western (in general) hegemony and perhaps beginning of a Sinic dominated World. It happens or not, still remains to be seen but famous American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author and MIT professor Avram Noam Chomsky disagrees. In an interview given in Oct 2008, he says “….but it's [U.S.] also a very rich country with plenty of resources and it is homogeneous unlike Europe. Europe is roughly on the same scale economically but it is not homogeneous. You could see that in the reactions to the financial crises, in the United States they're uniform taken by the federal government and in Europe they are national and not consistent”.

The changing balance of power among civilizations is apparent. It can’t be brought to a stop by conventional strategies of the Western nations. It is becoming more difficult for the West to achieve their goals and promote its ideas. If it wants to retain the hegemony it will have to carefully use its resources and learn to tackle the issues more diplomatically than militarily because a lot of damage has already been done and even the West cannot afford another crisis.

Modernization vs Westernization: Universal Civilization?

Mankind, for centuries now, has been infatuated with the idea of a Universal Civilization. Several attempts have been made through methods such as wars, religious preaching & imperialism. But the primary question is what is meant by this term Universal Civilization? The idea basically implies the cultural coming together of humanity and an increased acceptance of common values, beliefs, practices, institutions and schools of thoughts by people all over the world.

To begin with, all the societies in the world do share certain common basic values and ideas with regards to good & evil, social structure and morality (just to quote a few). These values and ideas have existed in various human civilizations even when they were not in contact with each other. Is this the Universal Civilization we are talking about? If it is then what explains the differences and changes in the human behavior over the time with these values intact? This may explain some constants in the human behavior but it cannot explain the documented human history.

The reason for this unclear stand on this matter is that the humanity is divided into several subgroups - tribes, nations, continents and, more broadly, civilizations. There is no term beyond Civilization for the common culture of the humanity. Hence, we are indeed different.

Last few years have seen emergence of terms such as ‘global civilization’ and ‘world citizen’ further emphasizing the idea of a Universal Civilization. If we look at it more carefully we discover that the term Universal Civilization is used to refer to what the (already) civilized societies have in common. It contains elements that distinguish them from primitive societies and barbarians. Or more precisely, this term refers to the Western ideas and popular culture around the world. This is not uncommon. Transfer of skills, technologies and cultural fads amongst civilizations has been very regular throughout history. This can either have permanent effect (if imposed) or it can pass without altering the receptor civilizations (if received by will) and can help in value addition.

West has been the most dominant civilization in the world for almost 300 years. The ideas and concepts that are projected to be noble and ethical today may not have been so in the history. The dominant civilizations always end up imposing their ideas and schools of thoughts to the other civilizations – willingly or unwillingly. Universal Civilization is one such idea developed by the west and contrary to popular belief this idea is centuries old. In the late 19^th century the idea of “the white man’s burden” started and even justified the extension of Western powers’ military, political and economic domination. And by the end of 20^th century when this domination began to cease (at a superficial level) this concept of Universal Civilization helps justify Western cultural dominance (though the power shifted from Europe to America but it still remained with the West) of other countries and societies and the need for those societies to ape Western ideas, practices and institutions. Dominance of one particular civilization is not unprecedented. Hindu, Sinic and Islamic civilizations have seen their golden periods. But what is different or special about the dominance of Western civilization? Let’s analyze the facts and reasons.

First, there has been only one civilization in recent times that has been able to challenge the dominance of the West and that is the Soviet. The collapse of the Soviet communism, after 5 decades of the Cold War, meant the end of history and victory of liberalism and democracy (two of West’s most favorite ideas) throughout the world. But if we come to think of it, this argument has an inherent fallacy. This argument implies that the sole alternative to Communism is Liberal democracy which, principally, is not true. It would be unwise to assume that since the Soviet communism has been defeated, the other non-western civilizations (mainly Indian, Chinese and Islamic) will embrace the Western liberalism as the only alternative. The cold war division maybe over but (a much older) religious and ethnic divide still remains.

Second, never before in the history of mankind a dominant civilization has been able to spread its ideology as effectively as today. The reason – unprecedented increase in interaction among people via media, trade, tourism and electronic communication–generating a common world (western) culture and perhaps everyone is aware of this. What most people do not realize is that this increase in interaction among people of different societies and exchange of ideas and information may become the reason for the decline of the Western dominance. All of these (in modern times) are basically Western ideas and they have the taken the West where it is today. If this information is shared with other civilizations it can used to reverse the process. As we can see that today the terrorists across the world are using the western inventions like electronic devices and sophisticated weapons against the West itself. Anyhow, it is difficult to predict the result of this event.

Third, emergence of a Universal Civilization results from the process of modernization. The western definition of modernization has elements such as industrialization, literacy, wealth, urbanization and technology. The idea of modernization has indeed been revolutionary for all of mankind and since the West was the pioneer it further emphasizes its dominance. No other civilization in the history has been able to bring about such a paradigm shift.

Responses to Modernization

The West has always promoted the idea that Westernization and modernization enjoy a linear relationship. No part of the world has been untouched by this idea but there have been several forms of responses to the above mentioned idea. Embrace both, reject both or embrace the first and reject the second. The adjoining diagram explains the alternative responses to the impact of west.*

A: Refers to the rejectionist attitude. It was, in past, followed by the Japanese civilization. Only limited forms of modernizations were permitted especially those which added to its military strength. It came to an end by the forcible opening up of Japan to the west by Commodore Perry in 1854 followed by Meiji Restoration in 1868. Similar school of thought was followed by the Chinese before the Opium war of 1839. After improvement in the transportation and communication facilities in the early 20^th century it became increasingly difficult to reject westernization and yet modernize.

A ->B: This would refer to the response more commonly referred to by the historians as Kemalist, with reference to the Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of Turkey. He was a strong supporter of the western idea of westernization and modernization going hand in hand and that they reinforce each other. The idea talks of the western attitude of “if you want to modernize you have to be like us”. This was hardly racial, in fact it was genuine viewpoint of the western intellectuals that the religious and social structures of every non-western society is in some form hostile to industrialization and economic development and hence modernization. In fact this is the attitude we see in most of the modern world countries today. But how long will it last?

A->C: It points towards the reformist idea in which a civilization neither has to isolate itself nor does it have to destroy its own culture in order to modernize. This refers to the idea of modernization sans westernization. The perfect example of this would be modern day China and to some extent India. The fact that these are the two of World’s largest growing economies implies that this idea can be extremely successful in the future and can be adopted by other non-western societies. This, in short, points to the decline of western dominance in the future.

A->D: This is perhaps the most unfortunate process “westernization without modernization”. Modern day examples include mainly the African countries which were duly westernized during the imperialistic period but were never modernized post-independence, unlike Asian countries, owing to several internal political conflicts.

A->E: This curve mainly refers to the idea of absorbing westernization in order to modernize initially. In the later phases, modernization would promote de-westernization. There are no prominent examples for this response but this is the response which will be most famous and widespread in the future especially in the already modernized non-western societies (China, India, Japan and parts of South America).

In short, modernization does not necessarily mean Westernization. There have been examples of non-western societies modernizing without having to abandon their own culture. Modernization, in fact, strengthens these indigenous cultures and reduces the relative power of the west. If we look at the big picture, the world is becoming more modern and less western.

____________________________________________________________________
* Adopted from Samuel P. Huntington's The clash of civilzations and remaking of the world order.

Is China the New USSR ?

I am quite sure that I'm not the first one to ask this question (and for a fact I know that I will not be the last one). But the question that remains to be answered is that how true is this statement? Let us try to analyze it.

The Chinese dragon has been spitting and breathing fire for quite some time now and it is becoming increasingly difficult for the world to ignore it. China has added a very strong pole to the geo-politics of the world which has brought about a balance in the two different parts of the world, which has been dominated single handedly by the USA for almost two decades. China has quite frankly provided a platform for all the nations that want to challenge the monopoly of the USA.

Well, think of it again. Does this remind you of anything you heard or saw not so long ago? I won't blame you if your answer is the (former) Soviet Union. USSR played a similar role in the world geo-politics for almost 5 decades (prior to it's disintegration) after the Second world war. This role is now being taken up by China. I won't go as far as to say that China has already achieved a status (in the White house) that was enjoyed by the (former) Soviet Union, but if we look at the economic, military and political scenarios of today then we would be forced to agree to a fact that China is not very far behind.

Partners in Crime?

In the last few years America's military activities has seen a lot of action, and (sadly) more action is expected in the future. Be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia or occasional threats to Iran and N Korea, the US has been trying very hard to make it's presence felt in every corner of the world. Clearly they have been doing this with the help of their partners in Europe (mainly UK & France), Canada and Pacific (Australia) aka NATO for a simple reason that all these (developed) countries share a common future threat - China. From the pattern of the US advancement into the eastern world it is clear that their quest ends at China, hence they are busy looking for more allies in the region and a clear candidate is definitely India which co-dominates the South Asian region along with China. India certainly has it's security concerns which is why it wants to ally with the USA, especially with the ever growing relations between China and arch enemy- Pakistan. The recent Indo-US Nuclear deal is one of the first step in this regard. US, with India's help, is trying to establish more military bases in the Indian ocean and on both eastern and western coasts of India to keep check both on Pakistan and China - two of the 3 Nuclear powers in the region.

This scenario is actually ironical in many ways. During the Cold war we saw a similar situation developing. Nations were busy modifying their foreign policies in order to prove their alliance and loyalty to either USA or the USSR. At that time even though India had adopted a Non-aligned foreign policy but it was more biased in favor of the USSR than US (mostly because of Socialist attitude of Pt. Nehru), whereas Pakistan, at that time, became one of the strongest US ally (only to be abandoned later). For some countries Sides may have changed now, but China seems to be replacing (former) Soviet Union in this 'New Cold War'.

Role of Middle east

What could be the possible role of the Middle east in this whole equation?

Simply by looking at history of last two decades one can judge the magnitude of America's interest in the Middle east. I know most people would talk about Oil, energy resources & the US-Israel alliance as the reasons for the US interference in the Middle east. But what they fail to notice is the long term plan of the Pentagon. China enjoys very good diplomatic & trade relationship with almost all countries of the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference). Of all these nations China has best relationship with Pakistan, which being a Nuclear power, enjoys an extremely important position in the OIC. US is afraid of the growing Chinese dominance in the Islamic bloc of the world.

The only drawback China faces is that even though it has got world's largest Army, still it is militarily not at par with the US and hence cannot take the risk of a military confrontation with America, firstly because US has an Army comparable to China's with superior technology and secondly US will have tremendous support from Western Europe, Australia and India (which has world's third largest army). Also, China doesn't want to break the rhythm of development it currently enjoys. US knows this and they are busy making hay while the sun shines. They want to control Middle east to an extent that in future China is not able to interfere in this region.

New Cold War over Africa’s Oil Riches

I personally feel bad for the African nations. In event of any major war these nations have to suffer the most. This part of the world has some of world's most efficient labor force and huge amount of unexploited energy resources.

To paraphrase the famous quip during the 1992 US Presidential debates, when an unknown William Jefferson Clinton told then-President George Herbert Walker Bush, “It’s the economy, stupid,” the present concern of the current Washington Administration over Darfur in southern Sudan is not, if we were to look closely, genuine concern over genocide against the peoples in that poorest of poor part of a forsaken section of Africa.

No. “It’s the oil, stupid.”

Hereby hangs a tale of cynical dimension appropriate to a Washington Administration that has shown no regard for its own genocide in Iraq, when its control over major oil reserves is involved. What’s at stake in the battle for Darfur? Control over oil, lots and lots of oil. US and China have been locking horns over the black gold for quite some time now.

In recent months, Beijing has embarked on a series of initiatives designed to secure long-term raw materials sources from one of the planet's most endowed regions-the African subcontinent. No raw material has higher priority in Beijing at present than the securing of long term oil sources. Today China draws an estimated 30% of its crude oil from Africa. That explains an extraordinary series of diplomatic initiatives which have left Washington furious. China is using no-strings-attached dollar credits to gain access to Africa's vast raw material wealth, leaving Washington's typical control game via the World Bank and IMF out in the cold. Who needs the painful medicine of the IMF when China gives easy terms and builds roads and schools to boot? Beijing has a plan and well it seems to be working very well.

The US is trying to retaliate by exploiting the war in Darfur. The Pentagon has been busy training African military officers in the US, much as it has for Latin American officers for decades. Its International Military Education and Training (IMET) program has provided training to military officers from Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, in effect every country on Sudan’s border. Much of the arms that have fueled the killing in Darfur and the south have been brought in via murky, protected private “merchants of death” such as the former KGB operative, now with offices in the US, Victor Bout.This, once again, brings in the similarities between the 'Cold War' and the 'New Cold War'. Bout has been cited repeatedly in recent years for selling weapons across Africa. US Government officials strangely leave his operations in Texas and Florida untouched despite the fact he is on the Interpol wanted list for money laundering.

The Asia factor

Asia, all throughout the history, has been the deciding factor of major wars which include the Cold war and the Second World War. On one hand bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki officially terminated the Second World War in favor of allied powers, and on the other hand Vietnam & Korea were two of major battlefields for the Cold War between US & USSR.

Today,once again the events in Asia are slowly shaping up the 'New Cold War'. Unlike Europe, there is a lot of hostility amongst neighbors in Asia and there is always a threat of a Nuclear War looming. This part of the world houses 3 nations with Nuclear weapons (I am a little foggy about North Korea), which makes any event in this region very important. Most recent being the war in Sri Lanka. China and Pakistan provided unconditional military & intelligence support to the Sri Lankan government while India preferred to remain neutral, maybe because the last time India interfered in SL it resulted in assassination of former PM - Rajiv Gandhi. This neutral stance of India is being duly criticized by Indian Tamils and has led to a un-balanced and dangerous geo-political situation.

This, in fact, is the only reason why USA is so desperate to find allies in this region. India is their only hope which is why they are providing unconditional support to India against Pakistan. Recent statement by President Obama "India has right to protect itself" strengthens this claim. A weak Pakistan is in interest of both India (for obvious reasons) and USA because if they control Pakistan, it is very easy to corner China as US already has Japan and South Korea on their side. Precisely for this reason, US started off by installing a puppet government in Pakistan and now they are entering Pakistan via Afghanistan on pretext of eliminating Taliban. The puppet (Zardari & Gilani) government has not even tried to seek China's support which has rendered Beijing quizzical and furious. American dominance is definitely being felt in the Indian subcontinent.


China's attitude has made it very clear that they are not backing down. Current Economic crisis is helping this attitude of China. US is trying it's best to keep a check on their activities and have been successful for most part, but the rate at which China is growing can result in more difficult times for the USA. China is on the path of successfully replacing the (former) USSR in this 'New Cold War' and US would not want to make the same mistakes that it made during the Cold War. US has the advantage of experience.