Oil, terrorism, and conflicting allegiances—a really potent volatile cocktail troika that has set the stage for a worldwide conflagration. The situation has been remorselessly slipping out of control for the past several years. Has the crisis now reached a point of no return? Or can the world hope for some sanity and strong leadership to pull it back from the brink of a Third World War? The latest series of conflicts in the Middle East has certainly precipitated tension in a manner that appears irretrievable and, therefore, begs the serious question: What is in store for us? It is clear that the present situation is unlikely to return to the status quo. Stakes are high enough and every nation is deeply concerned and involved in its own way with at least one, if not all, of the three factors listed above. This global scale and high stakes of the situation will force nations to make hard decisions weighing the immediate and longer-term implications, and balancing human considerations and harsh economic realities in a digital manner with scant modicum of diplomacy.
Oil prices have remained high and are climbing. At these levels, the situation is hurting energy-hungry developing countries such as India and China, and also a host of developed nations led by the US. The incipient economic recovery in Japan, the moderate growth in the US, the as-such-indifferent European economy, and the oil-fired roaring economies of India and China are extremely vulnerable to oil price shocks. Bleak prospects for moderation in oil prices and a high probability of sharp increases argue for assertive action to resolve this conflict decisively and immediately. However, there is no visible credible leadership that can do this assertion through diplomatic or peaceful means. Use of force therefore appears a more distinct possibility than ever before.
The world has always faced terrorism. However, there has been a marked escalation post 9/11. If there were an index of global terrorism, it would have outpaced even the oil prices! Oil and terrorism threats are terribly inter-twined, sharing geo-politics, economic considerations, and pseudo-sovereignties. Weak leadership over time has allowed sovereignty to be diluted so much that it is now difficult to distinguish between real countries and proxy nations. Therefore, it is a challenge to bring legitimate leaders to negotiate on behalf of their people in order to secure a diplomatic and peaceful resolution. The situation is also complicated by the horrible dilemma of not knowing how much push would be too much when dealing with some of the more volatile elements, who have control on oil and nuclear capabilities, in this war game.
All powerful nations would have been simultaneously playing a direct and overt as well as a covert and proxy strategy to secure the most advantageous position. Some would have made better headway than others. The nations that feel left behind would be scrambling their way through alliances. These alliances are made of necessity and are therefore negotiated, and not born of ideologies and are therefore unsustainable. As these axes get formed, one is reminded of the formation of similar axes before the First and the Second World Wars.
The fall of the Soviet Union brought an end to the relatively safe period of mutually acceptable détente of the arms race. That worked as the rest of the world left their destiny in the hands of the two equally matched powers. Further, post 9/11, the leadership of the US has lost its potency in a uni-polar world. No longer is the world dancing to the wishes of the US and are unhesitatingly confronting the US in all matters, including military. That leaves the world now extremely vulnerable to both the divided and self-interested leadership, and the weapons of mass destruction that seemingly provided a shield of protection during the cold war era turning to be its most viable threat.
The present crisis in the Middle East appears well set and has already brought about a confrontational exchange of views in the G-8 leadership. Harsh and irretrievable stances have already been taken and the Atlantic divide, bar the United Kingdom, has indeed deepened. Prognosis holds that the crisis will heighten before it subsides. This is the time when the world leadership, if they exercise restraint, wisdom, and sanity, could help isolate this conflict in the Middle East. If, on the other hand, there is a rush of blood, a tiredness of dealing with this vexation for so many decades, and perhaps emotional and subjective decision making, then perhaps the situation would rapidly widen to include many more zones of conflict. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of conflict zones. North Korea is at an extremely difficult point of no return. Afghanistan, Pakistan and India provide another difficult zone. Venezuela seems also spoiling for action.
Is there anything that can be done to diffuse the situation? Immediately, the G-8 must resolve not to participate directly. It must divide responsibilities among the member countries to make best efforts to keep themselves off this conflict, while realistically expecting the conflagration to escalate before it subsides. The G-8 must arbitrate with their proxies to accept a resolution of the geopolitical issues that they must evolve quickly to settle borders, install leaders, and reduce arm stockpiles. This does appear like a tall order, and quite honestly, beyond both the capability and indeed intentions of the G-8 nations themselves. Perhaps, it is also not right to expect them to sacrifice for the good of the world at large. Therein lies the nub of the problem. It is too simplistic to assume nations will be altruistic when they face energy shortage as a stark reality. Longer-term solutions would require installation of a power group that commands the respect of the world because it has both the willingness to act for the interest of the larger world and has the capability that is superior to any single nation. This could mean including in the UN Security Council more nations with the capability and willingness to act more decisively and in the larger interest of the world, rather than in promoting a particular axis of self-interest.
The unbearable cost of a World War will prevent the leading nations from joining the fray willingly and immediately. Hence, there will continued proxy wars being fought in the Middle East. However, in the absence of a sustainable solution, the prospect of that terrifying notion will never be too far from reality.
Content Guide
