Author: Bhavik Sarkhedi

The victory of Bashar al-Assad in the approximately six-year old Syrian Civil War recently is a great news in the fight against Islamist extremism. Aleppo, once the largest and most populated city of Syria, was under the control of the moderate rebels for a long time, until it was reclaimed by the Assad regime lately, thanks to the Russian intervention.

The implications of the recapture of Aleppo are immense, primarily because it leaves Bashar al-Assad in control of the majority of Syria, including almost all urban areas. Furthermore, it strengthens his assertion of his being the sole legitimate sovereign ruler of the nation, thereby garnering support from the international community. Indeed, it is a pivotal moment for him.

However, since the Arab Spring of 2011 and the ongoing crisis in Middle East, one question seems particularly important- Where are the International relations headed for the Islamist countries?

Indeed, the concept of international institutions has been directed by western oriented norms right from the start, intellectually sustained under the guiding principles of the International Law Theory. However, does it truly mean that the recent tumultuous times are an onslaught of the erstwhile IR policies framed by the west? The phenomena of the birth of ISIS can largely be attributed to the abysmal policies of the west for reason far too selfish and are likely to remain the same for years to come, until it leads to the destruction of either of them. In that essence, we can anticipate the International Relations are likely to deteriorate than get any better.

We live in an ear of Western retrenchment. Since times immemorial, the West had dominated the world views. However, the dramatic rise of the ‘Rest’ in the Middle East has attracted sharp reactions among the critics and the public alike, which can be mostly characterized by the anxiety of the world towards the Islamist Jihad (or the Holy War). The need to comprehend the new geo-political and cultural landscape is now more than ever, especially by the academicians of International relations, and to eradicate the crisis altogether rather than curtailing it by merely targeting ISIS should be the focus of the current generation of policymakers.

In determining a viable solution to the crisis of middle east, one has to focus on the fundamentals of Islam in the arena of International relations, which forms the basis of decision making for more than 50 Muslim countries of the world. It therefore follows that the attitudes, behaviors and interpretations and interactions of these nations, including the Jihadist groups like ISIS, will be based on these same principles. In that sense, going beyond the idea of Jihad as the axis of Islamist international relations in engaging with ISIS and other groups will be a logical step to curb them.

The school of International Relations has not always invited a pluralistic discussion in world affairs. The ignorance of ‘third world’ nations by the IR academy since Cold War now needs to be changed. The West is still hegemonic after all, but with the rise of new centers of power, we also come across new centrisms. Thus, provincializing the West in our analytical interpretations can be the next possible way to a more effective and equitable path to global governance.

The dominance of China across the world is not unknown to many. With a recent video going viral on the internet under the question “Who most wants to overthrow China?” that depicts the phantasmagoria of Communist Party’s nightmares of Western subversion, it broadly depicts Chinese public sentiments towards a government far more oppressive and tyrannical than any other, and questions the long standing communist rule in the country itself- A rule of despotism under Xi Xinping, the CEO of China.

China is preparing itself for the 19^th five yearly congress which is scheduled in 2017. If Xi Xinping, the current president of Chinese Communist Party survives the 19^th Congress, China will have overtaken the erstwhile Soviet Union as the world’s longest- lasting Communist dictatorship. Although growth during his tenure has been modest, remaining just above 6% per annum, the previous five years have been instrumental in bringing forth the true ambitions of China, and more necessarily it’s ruler, who is leading the country in dangerous directions- economically, politically and internationally.

Xi has spent most of his initial term accumulating power in his own hands. The idea of “collective leadership” of his predecessor, Hu Jintao, has now been replaced by a more individualized form of despotism, revolving around the personality cult known as Xi. He currently heads most of the groups in charge of running the economy, similar to what a CEO does for a corporation. The next congress might as well be an opportunity for him to fortify his power, which might allow him to defy the rules that have confined his previous counterparts to two terms.

In 2016 a major global leader, only in the last phase of his job as head of an entity containing more than a billion people but whose governance and leadership had been beset by crisis and confusion in recent years, Xi Xinping can be best described as a godfather to a Mafia clan, as noted by Chinese writer and democratic activist, Yu Jie.  Yu describes Xi and his sent-down generation as those have ‘zero real understanding or sympathy with democracy’. He goes on to say that Maoism is the only systematic, comprehensive and accessible body of ideas that Xi concurs to. His words are extreme, but they certainly don’t seem incorrect.

While Xi may be the face of a renewed and a more strengthened China, it would be still unwise to compare him with the likes of Mao. It is true that Xi derives his power from his ability to harmonize with his Party’s interests. Thus, looking at Xi outside the milieu of the Communist Part of China (CCP), therefore, means that one is looking at something that in a sense has no existence at all. Unlike Mao, Xi never grew into the Party, but always belonged to it. He has no existence discrete from the culture of his Party, and no autonomy without it. The point of him being a Godfather of China, therefore, seems no longer relevant. The truly powerful, as history teaches us every now and then, locate their power far away from their own selves.

Thus, although Xi is determined to restructure China so as to present it as a force to reckon with in the international arena, it is also crucial that such profound ambitions be put in perspective, so as to ensure they don’t lead to conjuring results.