Nowadays experts frequently speak about serious changes taking place in global geopolitics. They talk about changing geopolitical landscape. It would be useful for humanity to comprehend the inner logic of the processes. Nevertheless, right now, there are more questions than answers, and it would make sense to analyze several aspects in this context.
U.S. mistake: ”abuse of reality”
There are many to claim that contents of world politics have changed, although a course of those changes is debatable. It is not about terminology used, but rather ultimate destination that it leads humanity to. That is the most troubling and thought-provoking aspect.
Zbigniew Brzezinski refers to current geopolitical phase as ”post-hegemonic age”. Analysis of the depth of thought expressed by this renowned political figure and eminent political scientist reveals a connection between terminological changes and the ones in global geopolitics. The term ”post-hegemony”; does it imply the end of the policy of dictate? Experts are searching for answers, although some insist that, in reality, it is only the form of hegemony that is changing. Known as ”China’s Kissinger”, Yan Xuetong believes that it is about ”reconstruction of hegemony”, with mutual relations between the U.S., Russia, China, Iran and Turkey playing the principal role (see: Bercan Tutar. Yeni güvenlik mimarisi jeo-politik çoğulculuk (New security architecture, geopolitical pluralism) / www.yeni safak.com.tr, 08 October, 2013).
In his last U.N. address, Barack Obama spoke of unbelievable geopolitical struggle in the Middle East but said he did not view it as part of some “Great Game”. Aspect that evokes doubts about insincerity of the U.S. President is his other remark: “… our priority is not the Middle East but the Asia-Pacific basin”. Once we compare these two ideas the subject of great geopolitical game becomes evident.
It is not accidental that according to analysts, an intense rivalry over clout is unfolding between the big powers in the region extending from Morocco to Indonesia, Afghanistan to Somalia, Kenya to Tanzania, Pacific and Indian Ocean coasts to Eastern outskirts of Central Asia, Caspian and Mediterranean Seas (see: previous article; Турция проиграла России в Средней Азии (Turkey lost Central Asia to Russia) /www.inosmi.ru, 26 July 2013). Terrorist acts perpetrated in various regions, unexpected introduction of extremist religious groups, provoking of clashes in different countries, and meddling into domestic affairs of others are the components of the process.
It appears that one of the new signs of hegemonic aspiration is disguising the very ambition of it. Delicate and crafty methods are employed to spur manmade processes and to accuse others of provoking them. This side of the problem can be assessed as signifying growing uncertainty and complexity of modern global geopolitics. Views of renowned philosopher Noam Chomsky are relevant here. American media recently published his analytical article concerning Barack Obama’s foreign policy course.
It goes on to explain psychological motives of the ”abuse of reality” – a thesis to underlie the U.S. policies pursued for decades. The idea was expressed by Hans Morgenthau, who believes that America’s ”transcended purpose” is a reality while the actual historical record is the ”abuse of reality” (see: Noam Chomsky. The Obama Doctrine / www.chomsky.info, 8 October, 2013). That is to say, that the U.S. may fulfill its mission of protecting its national interests/creating order (also known as “the establishment of equality”), a God-given right.
However, Washington’s emergence as a power of aggression, subversion, and the one that violates international law is a mere outcome of failed policy at a particular stage, or ”abuse of reality”. The primary issue is that the U.S. has to shed the psychological illusion of a historical mission to be fulfilled.
Geopolitical ”reconstruction”: players of the no winner game
Apparently, similar to Morgenthau, Chomsky also considers America’s exceptionality natural. He laments Washington’s inability to act correspondent to reality of a particular historical phase. U.S. has to strive for not isolationism but towards the policies to underpin its exceptionalism. ”Abuse of reality” must not lead the society astray. It symbolizes philosophical roots of America’s exceptionalism. Scrutiny of ongoing geopolitical processes in the world from this perspective would reveal some hidden aspects of global geopolitics, including that denial of the “Great Game” by Barack Obama is probably a sign of yet another game being played. Hegemonic aspirations of other countries only add to the complexity of the situation.
Raging strife, inter-confessional clashes, territorial claims, aggression aimed at alterations of borders make an impression of ”strings attached”. If that is the way they seek to ensure reconstruction of hegemony, then we have to recognize the grave threat for humanity. Obama is right when saying: ”… there are no winners in this game”. The world in its entirety would suffer.
The aforementioned exposes one essential aspect characteristic to modern geopolitics: singlehanded reign all over the world is an illusion! Countries are more interdependent than ever. Syria and Iran issues have only underscored that feature. It is common knowledge that no country is potent enough to resolve those issues alone. Interests of all the stakeholders must be taken into account. For example, Syrian opposition demands resignation of Assad as precondition for partaking in Geneva conference. Washington in turn, considers this demand legitimate. However, there are others who disagree, and if they are not reckoned with, the problem will persist.
Situation around Iran is pretty much similar. Today we hear no more calls for unilateral military action against Iran. Great geopolitical powers are inclined towards compromise and mutual agreement. Admittedly, it does not imply alleviation of existing contradictions in the global geopolitics. On the contrary, new factors of uncertainty emerge.
It is all about hegemony again. Let us presume that 10-15 leading nations will have their say in the world. In principle, it does change the overall picture. Experts rivet attention to 2 key aspects. First, the fate of relations between some countries with hegemonic aspirations is vague as there are no guarantees that they will not resort to confrontation at a particular point. Increasingly strengthening regional players will attempt to extend areas of their influence. Others may seek to join smaller alliances as an alternative. Present volatile social situation in many countries augments the probability of armed confrontations (see: Андрей Безруков. Свежий ветер оптимизма (Fresh air of optimism) / ”Россия в глобальной политике”, 31 August 2013).
Second, there is uncertainty about the establishment of international legal mechanism to regulate the new phase. Claims of UN undergoing crisis would be relevant in this context. In general, system of international relations can be characterized as ”fluid” or ”transitional”, thereby complicating the process of creation of a set of criteria to be recognized by all leading countries of the world (see: previous article).
Therefore, one can hardly conclude that uncertainty and contradictions of the global geopolitics are eliminated. Reconstruction of hegemony may only replace the previously existing problems with some new ones which beg the questions: does humanity need such a ”reconstruction”? Where does it lead the world? Finding answers to those questions proves to be a challenge.
Kaynak: Newtimes.az
