Challenging political maturity, illusion of unipolarism

‌
By Mehdi Honardoost*

In a world in which nations have learned from history how to solve their disputes through diplomacy and negotiations, we are witnessing bad omens of regressive trends toward political immaturity by non-diplomats who resort to unilateralism for imposing their own world order. These trends need more vigilance from those who have historically suffered the brunt of war, and from those who believe in the legacy of diplomacy and negotiation.

July 14, 2015 was an international milestone for the history of political negotiations, a determining time in which 10 years of the onerous task for settling an international dispute with peaceful means (in compliance with Article 2 of the UN Charter) came to the accepted result of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran, China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Germany and the European Union. The adoption of Resolution 2231 in the Security Council on July 20, 2015, which lifted all UN nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, evoked a new global optimism on the function of the UN and the Security Council in closing long-lasting hiatuses and peacefully resolving political stalemates. From that historic moment, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had regular access to all Iranian nuclear equipment and has numerous times reported Iran’s full compliance with its nuclear commitments.

The combination of international political rationality with an unprecedented “heroic flexibility” in foreign policy that occurred on July 14, 2015 could lead to a new successful pattern of constructive interaction for those other countries that bear a pessimistic attitude toward the international system. Unfortunately, this opportunity for international diplomacy was missed by the rise of a new administration on January 20, 2017 in the United States.

Assuming the illusion of unipolarism for the US, this new administration from the beginning resorted to international unilateralism and a bullying approach in enforcing economic benefits for the few, to the detriment of destroying historical political legacies of multilateralism and peaceful negotiation.

The US withdrawal from the JCPOA was not the only example of this unilateralism. Its exit from the Paris climate accord, the TransPacific Partnership (TPP), UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council, and most catastrophically, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital are other examples of the list that should be seriously considered by those who have responsibilities for the future of peace and tranquility in international relations. The silence of the international community toward this unilateralism will create a schism between states and increase pessimism toward international organizations.

The arbitrary withdrawal by the US president from an international agreement was not related to Iran’s compliance with its commitments, but to the unilateral policies of a non-diplomat who didn’t have much knowledge of the four decades of resistance and defiance of a nation toward foreign pressures. What the Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in 2015 called “heroic flexibility” was an unprecedented permission for kicking off a new round of confidence building with an arch foe, and a genuine gesture toward the international community that Iran is ready for dialogue. This opportunity should have been seized by top negotiators of the JCPOA, not as a big challenge that needed to be passed. For a nation that had successfully spent eight years of an asymmetric war (1980-1988) with a coalition and undergone decades of sanctions and difficulties, this “heroic flexibility” was a political evaluation – an evaluation that could have resulted in confidence building and the trust of a nation toward the main actors of the international system, which could have begun a new era of constructive interaction between the parties.

In analyzing the main reasons of the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, aside from political variables, the economic ones should also be considered. When Resolution 2231 passed by consensus in the UNSC and nuclear sanctions were lifted, Iran earnestly stopped the activities of many of its nuclear power plants and changed the function of some others in compliance with the agreement. Consequently, Iran’s economic interactions restarted with the world and obstacles in economic relations began to be removed.

The JCPOA opened Iran’s large market to the world and facilitated the easy export of gas and oil to countries that are economically considered to be US rivals. The JCPOA accelerated the rise of new powers in the world, those who could surpass the present position of the US. This was intolerable for a businessman who was now on the political saddle in the US. Therefore, regardless of the consequences of his actions, the US president needed to do something to reverse the situation.

The US withdrawal from the JCPOA was more a damage to the legacy of multilateralism and negotiations than a danger to a country that has undergone 40 years of resistance. Iran has successfully learned the lessons of cohesion and resilience, but has the international community learned how to resist unilateralism and save its legacy of cooperation that are mentioned in the UN Charter?

*Mehdi Honardoost is the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Pakistan.

The post-hegemonic era: Greater uncertainty or sustainable security?

By Mahmood Monshipouri

Two contrasting scenarios paint radically different visions in a world after hegemony.  Richard N. Haass (“World Order 2.0”) notes that at the global level, the international community is no longer heavily influenced by a sole superpower and/or hegemonic power.  

 There is overall less consensus among the major world powers concerning governance and the new order. The fall of trade agreements, or as some would like to say the demise of the Transpacific Partnership (TTP), points to several convergent trends with potentially uncertain consequences. The decentralization of decision-making at the global level since the post-Cold War period has created a different balance of economic and political powers. The U.S. invasion of Iraq has thrown the Middle East into a region festering sectarian tensions. 

Subsequently, the Arab Spring uprisings, which led to a significant authority void in Libya and civil war in Syria, indicated that an emerging new regional disarray that often spills over into other countries.  The rise of populism and the resiliency of authoritarian in the Middle East are likely to shape its political climate in the coming years.  The spread of oligarchic rule and/or power throughout different regions will produce an alarming order for those interested in the persistence of human rights and liberal governance.

While Asia has come to dominate the global scene in terms of population and trade size, the European Union has encountered new challenges, some of which undermine its promise of unity, prosperity, and security.   The old glue that held Europe together has weakened if not totally faded away.  What is striking at this stage of world history is the absence of a hegemonic power capable of sustaining an order upon which world security can steadily balance.  

Absent a hegemonic power, multilateralism has become axiomatic or even inevitable. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and cybersecurity have revealed the dark side of globalization, producing both political tension and economic stagnation.  The United States has lost its economic hegemonic status to China, yet still remains active in advancing its naval dominance and power across the globe.  Absent a global consensus on rules, norms, laws, and sovereign obligations, the dangers of regional wars and the spread of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism would necessitate the active participation of U.S. leadership, only this time in a totally new context and with massive costs and unpredictable consequences.  The United States may or may not be ready to fully take that mantle of leadership in large part because it can no longer afford to be in the business of nation-building and regime change, if for no other reason than the fact that those tasks have proven to be daunting, costly, and untenable over time. 

     Given these realities, several questions are raised: Who will then punish international criminal and terrorists? Who will intervene in the case of genocide or ethnic cleansing?  Who will prevent the rise of another terrorist group such as ISIS?  The alternative to the previous order or the status quo may be worse or better; however it is difficult to predict future trends at this juncture.  

     A different view of the rapidly changing international system is provided by Michael J. Mazarr (“The One and Future Order”) who argues that the post-hegemonic order requires taking a more pluralistic approach to international relations and its institution, rules, and norms. In this new, multipolar order, U.S. leadership will still be critical to global stability.  

     Some of the proponents of this view regard the post-hegemonic world as one in which countries coalesced around key regional actors and blocs, namely China, Russia, India, the EU, Brazil, Japan, and the United States.  China’s “One Belt, One Road,” project, which promises more than $1 trillion in infrastructure, in over 60 countries across Europe, Asia, and Africa, and which connects Iran to Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, is the prime example. Still others such as Joseph Nye, Jr. (“Will the Liberal Order Survive?”) argue that China is unlikely to exclude the United States from the western Pacific, much less exercise global military supremacy. U.S. security guarantees in Asia and Europe continue to provide critical reassurance for the stability essential to upholding the liberal order.

     The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and NATO will prove to be crucial to the maintenance of the regional order.  Global issues of climate change, poverty, pandemics, refugee crises, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and the campaign against terrorism render global cooperation between/among different regions all the more inevitable.  Regional cooperation is imperative to prevent economic stagnation and the unraveling of the international system.  Multilateralism becomes integral to sustainable security, economic development, and the rule of law.  Cooperation is possible even when there is no hegemonic power.  Under such circumstances, Robert O. Keohane (After Hegemony, 2005) claims that international “regimes” can work to foster cooperation between nations, even though there is no dominant power to enforce any agreements.  Increased cooperation, Keohane goes on to argue, does not necessarily cultivate democratic or liberal values in contemporary world affairs.  Different regional actors and blocs, therefore, will have to work together to maximize prosperity and minimize conflict.  No major shift in international relations is conceivable beyond the general diffusion of power away from governments toward non-state actors. I tend to concur with such a vision, in part because the alternative would be far worse.
   

Mahmood Monshipouri, PhD, teaches Middle Eastern Politics at San Francisco State University and the University of California, Berkeley.