Geopolitics of chaos

The current geopolitical environment is undergirded with shifting power dynamics pertaining to the US-China strategic competition. To make up for the lack of a prudent China policy aimed at peacefully outcompeting Beijing across economic and technological domains, the US has created and weaponised geopolitical chaos to contain its competitor.

Using its regional pawns to create and sustain global unpredictability, uncertainty and turbulence, Washington can avoid a direct confrontation with China, one of the largest export markets for US goods and services.

The deliberate generation of chaos is especially visible in the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza hot wars. Arming Ukraine and Israel ensures that the flames of war do not subside despite the unimaginable - and unforgivable - ongoing cost in human life and limb.

The Ukraine-Russia war is more than two years' old. There is evidence that the war could have ended merely months into the Russian invasion, following intense diplomacy between Kiev and Moscow. But it was blocked by NATO states that were eager to prolong the war to weaken Russia.

Sanctioning Russia has forced Moscow to move closer to Beijing, prompting the US and its allies to impose sanctions on China-based companies seen as helping Moscow's defence industry by circumventing existing Western sanctions.

By doing this, the Chinese are apparently "perpetuating the conflict". And this is coming from states that have armed a genocidal Israel to the teeth and whose weapon-supply pipeline to Ukraine refuses to run dry.

A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson has rightly pointed out that in its competition with China, the "US sanctions should be seen as an attempt to hold onto [US] economic leadership in the absence of any real opportunity to do so legally. Russia is just a pretext."

Similarly, by stoking the Israel-Gaza conflict, the US seeks to undermine Chinese influence in the Middle East. Beijing has been building its reputation as a peacemaker after brokering the Iran-Saudi rapprochement. It seeks to do the same for the Israel-Palestine conflict settlement, thus providing an alternative to Washington's decades-long position as the sole but biased arbiter.

Within days of Chinese efforts to bring fourteen Palestinian groups to the table for dialogue and possible reconciliation, Israel carried out high-profile assassinations in Lebanon and Iran, shifting focus to conflict escalation.

Concurrently, since the launch of the BRI project, China has significantly increased its presence in the MENA region. Beijing seeks to protect its national interests by safeguarding the oil and gas supply and supplementing diplomatic relations with trade ties.

According to estimates, China's trade volume in MENA is thrice the trade volume of the US in the region. The Chinese strategy is to focus on energy projects and infrastructure building while sticking to its foreign policy principles of non-interference. This makes China more acceptable to regional states than the US.

In case of a prolonged Israel-Gaza war, and the resultant disruption in supply chains or escalation involving more regional and outside actors, Beijing's political and economic interests in the region will be affected. This suits the US.

Focus on the Israel-Gaza and Ukraine-Russia wars does not mean that the US is no longer fomenting geopolitical chaos in the South China Sea region.

Last year, Washington - which has a 1951 mutual defense pact with Manila ? acquired four new naval bases on Philippine islands close to contested waters and Taiwan. Washington has thus completed the arc of US alliances stretching from South Korea and Japan in the north to Australia in the south.

Following this, the ongoing standoff between China and the Philippines over contested waters is the latest in US-supported provocations in South China Sea. The Chinese see Manila's actions as "inviting wolves into the house and willingly acting as their pawns". But then, this is exactly how the wolves would like to devour the dragon to contain its rise.

To add to the chaos, nuclear weapons are being openly discussed. Since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, President Vladimir Putin has warned the West about his readiness to use nuclear weapons to protect Russian sovereignty.

An Israeli far-right government official has twice called for striking the Gaza Strip with a nuclear weapon. Al Jazeera, quoting an anonymous Iranian official, reports that this statement, combined with Netanyahu's earlier statements at UN on Iran's nuclear programme, could prompt Tehran to rethink its nuclear strategy.

Likewise, a recent report in The New York Times claims that a top-secret US strategic nuclear plan is aimed at reorienting Washington's nuclear strategy to China's expanding nuclear arsenal and possible coordinated nuclear challenges from China, Russia and North Korea.

Introducing the nuclear topic into the turbulent geopolitical conversation ? from all sides ? is highly irresponsible. Political rhetoric or leaking news to media for political signaling could result in strategic miscalculations.

In a globalised world of interdependence, economic recession and political instability will impact all, whether stakeholders or neutral actors. This is already being demonstrated by the Houthi's asymmetrical maritime warfare.

Navigating chaotic situations requires critical thinking, diplomacy and strategic vision. At present, the status-quo power with the most powerful military suffers from an acute shortage of these commodities.