Political Risks In 2012
As the year 2012 begins, it should be noted that political risks reign in global headlines in an unprecedented manner. In every segment of the global economic scene, concerns rise over gridlocked, insular, or fractured politics that affect the market. A continuance of the politically driven upheaval in the eurozone appears guaranteed.
Political Risks In 2012
Ironically, political risk in contemporary times has grown to be so trendy that its consequences are now normally overstated. Therefore, the great challenge, for political analysts as well as corporate investors and decision-makers, is in cautiously considering the risks in a globe of ever-increasing data, information, and commentary. In this regard, the Middle East and G-zero should be accorded top priority risk for the year 2012 (Eurasia Group 4).
The Middle East and G-zero. The Middle East and G-zero should be accorded top priority risk for the year 2012. The G-Zero in this case refers to the unwillingness or inability of the leading world powers to assume new burdens and risks. The United Nations notes that, in this region, there are numerous unresolved sectarian, religious, as well as ethnic tensions. It is also imperative to consider the continuing nonexistence of a feasible regional security structure, at the heart of ongoing protests, long-standing autocracies at risk and colossal challenges facing the recent democratic regimes (4).
Note that, the U.S may not depart from the region soon. However, moribund US leverage generates a gap in peripheral political engagement, security provision, and economic support. This is at a time of outstanding geopolitical volatility in the region. It is worthwhile to note that Turkey assumes the role of the contemporary Islamic model for democracy, economic dynamism, and modernism. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia, desires to develop the power of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to counteract America’s pressure for speedy reform, particularly in the Middle East monarchies (4).
There is a mounting danger for Israel, too. The Arab Spring has created a gush of populism across the Middle East, roiling Israel’s associations with Jordan, Turkey, and Egypt. In the meantime, Israel has little assurance in support from its global allies including the U.S. Ally fatigue, an increasing feeling of seclusion, and Iran’s proposal to shift its nuclear program to bomb-resistant underground locations make an Israeli hit on Iran increasingly thinkable, although currently unlikely, particularly in the face of Iran’s provocations. In addition, it undermines negotiation efforts with Palestine, opening up likelihood for more bloodshed, within Lebanon and Israel.
In Syria, there are little prospects of constructive negotiations between the opposition and Assad. In regard to this leadership struggle, the Arab League may extend Assad’s regime without creating a credible solution to the calamity. In Iraq, bigger sectarian conflict is currently filling the vacuity left by the departure of American troops. Earlier trends in the direction of mutual accommodation have overturned, and Shia-Sunni tensions are yet again on the rise. As the events unfold, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran, each seek more influence in the region (4).
No key player external to the region will move in to fill this void. This scenario would leave three major regional players namely Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia in the current Middle East predicament. This is because external actors have little enthusiasm for intervention, and there is practically no prospect of regional collaboration to resolve these problems. Paradoxically, that is the real dilemma. That is why the United Nations requires considering an intervention in the Middle East and G-zero predicaments as a matter of urgency.
Eurasia Group. Top Risks 2012, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. < http://eurasiagroup.net/item- files/1201-05%20Top%20Risks.pdf >.