On Tuesday (Jan 12, 2016) night, Obama gave his last state of Union address. The speech was delivered effectively. While watching and listening to the speech, it seemed that a stage was organized like a satiric show, i.e. Hasb-e-Haal at a private TV channel in Pakistan. President Obama seemed like ‘Azizi’ (political satiric), the audience in the hall played the role of Najia Baig (co-guest) for laughing and clapping, and the V.P. Joe Biden played host of the show (Mr. Junaid Saleem). According to the Washington Post, the duration of the speech was 61 minutes, and the audience clapped for 15 out of the total time; most of these claps were ‘standing ovations’. The total number of claps were 78 (20 claps in the first 12 minutes, 18 in the next 12 minutes, 15 each in the following 2 consecutive 12 minutes and 10 times in the last 13 minutes). These analytics show that it was actually a ‘claptrap’ for the publics/nations around the world.

There were three sets of audiences of the speech: (i) congressmen and other officials, (ii) American people, and (iii) different peoples around the world. Unfortunately, the interests of these three audiences remain conflicted. The simultaneous address to the conflictive audiences was not only difficult but also contradictory. The inconsistencies of the speech seemed to be amusing and the audience clapped quite frequently (on average during each minute). Sometimes, the audience clapped unnecessarily and looked out of place.

Apparently, the stage was set for sophisticated political acting and to inspire the populations across the world. It was intended to influence world public opinion in favour of the USA and the international system controlled/led by the American polity. President Obama confessed the existence of mistrust between government/election system and the American public. According to him, this mistrust was the ‘one of the few regrets of his presidency’. He added that average American citizens believe that their voices didn’t matter and most of the extreme views get all the attention.

Analogically, the above said mistrust actually exists between American controlled world system and the world at large. And this pervasive mistrust is likely to transform the present ‘pro-profit socio-economic system’ to a ‘new pro-people system’ led by the emerging Asian giants like China and Russia. Pakistan is likely to be the major player in the change of existing global system.

President Obama made apparently adverse remarks that the Chinese economy was contracting. Actually, this is a good omen for the world at large. China is considered as the ‘workshop’ for the world as it supplies manufactured goods to all nations quite inexpensively. In other words, China is likely to export deflation to the world and will result in stabilizing the prices of goods; and as a consequence, people (particularly in poor countries) are likely to benefit from the absence of inflation.

President Obama stated that American governance system has been reaped in favour of the rich. He mentioned that three percent of the rich Americans hold half the wealth and underlined that America would have to change the system to reduce the influence of money in domestic politics. The President forcefully mentioned that America spent more on defense than the next eight nations combined; he emphasized this point three times: “it (any country) was not even close”. However, this statement is not justified due to purchasing price parity factors. The speech seems to be fan-fare of huge propaganda, which is not likely to work for the existing international system.

The president said that the several parts of the world will remain unstable in the years to come and mentioned the names of Pakistan and Afghanistan in this list or category. This statement shows the hidden intentions of the American designs, and the world should be sensitive to such plans. The President clearly said that American nuclear deal with Iran has worked well and he claimed that Iran has shifted its nuclear stockpiles overseas. Apparently it is an overstatement as Iran has suffered but successfully sustained American sanctions for decades; why Iran will surrender its nuclear option now?

This is actually a tactic of war-politics in the Middle East. The emerging conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is likely to be an outcome of this strategy. But the USA is likely to fail in its designs, as the world does not trust American policy actions. It may be noticed that America has announced the lifting of sanctions on Iran a few days ago but at the same time has imposed new set of sanctions on 11 companies that are associated with Iran’s missile development system. Such double and complex games are not likely to work anymore.

The president said that America did not feel any threat from ‘evil states’ but from the failing states. The failing states represent the existing global system led the USA and the failings allude to the failure of the world system/USA. The president further said America has to ‘remake the International system’ and stated that the pace of change in the world would accelerate. However, I like to highlight the emerging system would not be favourable to USA but to the rest of the world.

The coming years will show transformation of social, political, economic and security systems in the world including South Asia. The Middle East and Africa are likely to experience political turmoil, which will influence other regions adversely. All the relevant countries must comprehend the unfolding of new future in their respective regions; and take collective/cooperative measures to deal with such deep conspiracies coming from different parts of the world (proxies).

Pakistan must understand the proxy actors who are implementing such a dangerous schema. In my view, the relevant people can notice how the forces of status-quo and the forces of change shall be at logger heads in the times to come.

It is strongly urged that the people of Pakistan, the armed forces, and politicians should be on board to deal with the complexities of international relations including the tactic of interventionism. The proxy actors are likely to play their adverse role but Pakistan should be able to deal with it through its own means and international support from China and Russia.