Economics increasingly shaping international politics

Obama (R) and Cuban President Raul Castro

July 22, 2015

It should be plain to see that Western governments would have to brace for aggravating law and order issues in the wake of these social disruptions. Western governments have a lot of thinking to do on the question of managing identity conflicts within their national boundaries, particularly in the context of the current NATO-led bombing campaign against the IS and like organizations.

Are economics increasingly shaping international politics? The student and observer of international politics and economics would, perhaps, be compelled to broach this seemingly contentious issue on hearing of two very significant current developments on the international scene. They are, the reestablishment of diplomatic ties between the US and Cuba, which only a couple of months ago seemed to be an impossible proposition, and the clinching of an agreement between the US and Iran on the latter’s complex nuclear power-linked questions.

Economic globalization manifests the paradoxical features of being a unifier and leveler as well as a divider. It has this strong tendency of uniting countries which are geographically dispersed as well as ideologically distant, on the basis of economic considerations; the BRISCS being a case in point. On the other hand, the same economic current has spurred a plethora of identity conflicts globally, on account of its culturally divisive impact. Even as this is being written, South West Asia, the Middle East and parts of Africa are witnessing seemingly endemic violent conflicts generated by identity issues in the form of IS and Al-qaeda-inspired militancy, for instance.

However, the religion-based violence mentioned, has begun to exercise a socially destabilizing impact on Western societies, in that it is increasingly bringing to the public stage vociferously vocal white right wing groups and other political formations which draw their ideological sustenance from staunch opposition to the presence of ‘foreigners’ and immigrants. Such organizations are currently taking to the streets of Melbourne and Sydney in Australia in a show of disconcerting force, although it is quite some time since white supremacist organizations and allied right wing forces marked their presence on the Western political scene. Since the explosive onset of religion-based violence in Asia and Africa, however, the activities of these right wing groups have been on the upswing.

It goes without saying, though, that economic globalization and issues growing out of it are prompting ground-breaking international political developments. What could have spurred the US and Cuba to bury their decades-long ideological stand-off and diplomatic estrangement than economic considerations in the main? The need for closer economic interaction between the countries has been recognized by both states on the basis of common material interests. For instance, they could both do with inter-country stepped-up trade and investment. The US is being seen in some quarters as ‘an economic engine’ which could help in stepping-up Cuba’s economic growth.

The same is true of the US’ ties with Viet Nam. It was relatively recently that the states concerned decided to downplay their differences, born of Cold War politics, and chose to relate more closely on the economic plane. Clearly, economics are taking precedence over politics.

Meanwhile, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is on record that his country’s policy on the ‘arrogant’ US would not change despite the West and Iran clinching a deal on the Iranian nuclear capability question but it is clear that under President Hassan Rouhani the Iranian policy on the West in general and the US in particular would be relatively reconciliatory and based more on a clear conception of Iran’s national interest. Accordingly, since Iran was affected considerably over the years by the nuclear issue linked economic sanctions, Iran would have perceived it to be in its interests to clinch a deal with the West on the nuclear issue and be free of the sanctions. Once again, economics have come to the fore.

For those recent generations which are not too acquainted with Cold War politics and their compulsions, the foregoing comments on the primacy of economics may not seem to be particularly thought-provoking. This could be attributable to the fact that though wide-ranging and intensifying economic liberalization and globalization are part of everyday life at present, it was not so in the decades immediately after World War Two.

It is relevant to note that for those generations which lived through the latter half of the Cold War decades, current US-Iran relations present a considerable and substantive change from the past. During the Cold War years, the ideological rivalry between West and East shaped world politics considerably and past Iran-US ties were not free of these compulsions. But today, economic forces primarily shape developments in international politics and it could be argued that the bases on which international politics devolve have undergone a marked change. Accordingly, yesterday’s enemies could be today’s allies.

Looked at from a historical perspective, the year of particular importance in US-Iran ties is 1979 – the year the Islamic Revolution occurred in Iran. This was also the year when the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan took place, marking a new low in US-Soviet relations. Since the Shah of Iran, who was in power at the time of the Islamic Revolution and was a main target of the uprising, was firmly backed by the US, the Islamic government which took power in 1979, pursued an anti-US policy in the decades after the Revolution. Needless to say, the Iranian Islamic Revolution played a lead role in inspiring resurgent Islamism the world over.

However, there is no escaping the inference on surveying the more noteworthy changes in world politics today, that it is economic necessity that has the greater impact on international relations than ideological and connected compulsions of a political nature. Iran and Cuba are by no means compromising their sovereignty and integrity by choosing to deal with the West in a more accommodative way, but are perceiving the virtues of adopting a relatively pragmatic foreign policy to secure their national interests. It is the latter that are uncompromisable. The well being of publics has to take precedence over other considerations for states.