Topic
IV. THE CHANGING WORLD ORDER by Dr. Aime MUYOMBANO
IV.1
The new world order
During the 20th
century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Wilson Churchill, used the
term “new world order” to refer to a new period of history evidencing a
dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World
War I and World War II.
They all saw these periods as opportunities to
implement idealistic proposal for global governance in the sense of new
collective efforts to address worldwide problems the go beyond the capacity
individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations
to self-determination.
These proposals led to the creation of international
organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, and international regimes,
such as the Breton Woods system and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,
which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power in favor of the
Unites States as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to
achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism.
These creations in
particular and liberal internationalism in general, however, would always be
criticized and proposed by American ultraconservative business nationalists
from the 1930s on. In the aftermath of the two World Wars, progressives welcomed
these new international organizations and regimes but argued they suffered from
a democratic deficit and therefore were inadequate to not only prevent a
another global war foster global justice.
The Unites Nations was
designed in 1945 by U.S. bankers and state Department planners, and was always
intended to remain a free association of sovereign nation-states, not a
transition to democratic world government. Thus, activists around the globe
formed a world federalist movement hoping in vain to create a “real new world
order” as a synonym for the establishment of a scientifically-coordinated world
state and planned economy.
Despite the popularity of these ideas In some
technocratic socialist circles, Wells failed to exert a deeper and more lasting
influence because he was unable to concentrate his energies on a direct appeal
to intelligentsias who would, ultimately, have to coordinate a Wellsian new
world order. During the Red Scare of 1947-1957, agitators of the American
secure and Christian’s right influenced by the work of Canadian conspiracy
theorist William guy Carr increasingly embraced and spread unfounded fears of
Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jews being the driving force behind as
“international communist conspiracy”.
The threat of “Godless communism” in the
form of state atheistic and bureaucratic collectivist world government,
demonized as a “Red Menace”, therefore became the main focus of apocalyptic
millenarian Conspiracism. The Red
States which is the liberals and program such as foreign aid supposedly
contribute to a gradual process of collectivism that will inevitably lead to
nations being replaced with a communist one-world government.
IV.3
From bipolarity to unipolarity:
Polarity in international
relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the
international system. It describes the nature of the international system at
any given period of time. One generally distinguishes four types of systems:
Unipolarity, Bipolarity, Tripolarity, and Multipolarity, for four or more
centers of power. The type of system is completely dependent on the
distribution of power and influence of state in a region or internationally.
Uni-polarity
akin to hegemony.
NATO accounts for over, 70%
of global military expenditure, with the US, alone accounting for 43%, of
global military expenditure. Unipolarity in International politics is a
distribution of power in which there is one state with most of the cultural,
economic, and military influence. This is different than hegemony since
Hegemony may not have total control of the sea ports or “commons”. Examples of
Unipolarity and the most recent examples of a unipolar world has been one
dominated by United States since 1991, in the aftermath of the collapse of the
Soviet Union. Other states and empires in the past have dominated their known
worlds in a unipolar fashion. Some examples are below.
Note that most of cases
as well as the dates given are open to some debate. Bipolarity is a
distribution of power in which two states have the majority of economic,
military, and cultural influence internationally or regionally. Often, spheres
of influence would develop. For example, in the Cold War, most Western and
democratic states would fall under the influence of the USA, while most
Communist states would fall under the influence of the USSR. After this, the
two powers will normally maneuver for the support of the unclaimed areas
Multi-state examples of
bipolarity
The bipolar system can be
said to extend too much larger systems, such as alliances or organizations,
which would not be considered nation-state, but would still have power
concentrated in two primary groups. In both world Wars, much of the world, and
especially Europe, the United States and Japan had been divided into two
respective spheres one power between the Central Powers and Allied Powers
during World War I (1914-1918). Neutral nations however may have caused what
may be assessed as an example of tripolarity as well as within of the
conflicts.
ultipolarity.
Multipolarity is
distribution of power in which more than two nation states have nearly equal
amounts of military, cultural, and economic influence. Opinions on the
stability of multipolarity differ. Classic realists, such as Hans Morgenthau
and E.H Carr, hold that multipolar
systems are more stable than bipolar systems as great powers can gain power
through alliances ad pretty wars that do not directly challenge other powers;
in bipolar systems, classical realist argue, this is not possible.
On the other
hand, the neorealist focus their fears on any number of other powers and,
misjudging the intensions of other states unnecessarily compromise their
security, while states in a bipolar system always focus their fears on one
other power, meaning that at worst the powers will miscalculate the force
required to counter threats and spend slightly too much on the operation.
However, due to the complexity of mutually assured destruction scenarios, with
nuclear weapons, multipolar system tends to have many shifting alliances until
one of two things happens. Either a balance of power is struck, and neither
side wants to attack the other, or one side will attack the other because it
either fears the potential of the new alliance, or it feels that it can defeat
the other side.
IV.4
International law
International law is the
term commonly used for referring to laws that govern the conduct of independent
nations in their relationships with one other. It differs from other legal
systems in that it primarily concerns provinces rather than private citizens.
In other words it is that
body of law which is composed for its greater part of the principles and rules
of conduct which States feel themselves bound to observer: (a) The rules of law
relating to the function of international institutions or organizations, their
relations with each other and their relations with States and individuals; and
(b)Certain rules of law
relating to individuals and no-state so far as the rights and duties of such
individuals and no-state entities are the concern of the international
community. However, the term “international law” can refer to three distinct
legal disciplines
- Public international law, which governs the relationship between provinces and international entities, either as an individual or as a group. It includes the following specific legal field such as the treaty law, law of sea, international criminal law and the international humanitarian law.
- Private international law, or conflicts of laws, which addresses the questions of (1) in which legal jurisdiction may a case be heard; and (2) the law concerning which jurisdiction(s) apply to the case
- Supranational
law of the law of supranational organizations, which concerns at present
regional agreements where the special distinguishing quality is that laws
of nation states are held inapplicable when conflicting with a
supranational legal system.
- The
two traditional branches of the field are:
- just
gentium law of nations jus
- inter
gentes – agreements among nations
Supranational;
International
courts: There are numerous international bodies adjucating on legal issues.
Some of them are: International Court of justice, International Criminal Court
and Court of arbitration for sport
East Africa community:
There were ambitions to make the East Africa Community, considering of Kenya,
Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda a political federation with its own form
of bind supranational law by 2010.
IV.5
Weapons of mass destruction
The most widely used
definition of “weapon of mass destruction” is that of nuclear, biological or
mechanical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international
law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has
been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and
not to WMD as a whole.
The acronyms NBC (for
nuclear, biological and chemical) or CBR (chemical biological, radiological)
are used with regards to battlefield protection systems for armored vehicles,
because all three involve insidious toxins that can be carried through the air
and can be protected against with vehicle air filtration systems.
However, there is an
argument that nuclear and biological weapons do not belong in the same category
as chemical and “dirty bomb” radiological weapons which have limited
destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned),
whereas nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill larger
numbers of people with very small amounts of martial, and thus could be said to
belong in a class by themselves.
IV.6
Rogue states
Rogue state is a
controversial term applied by some international theories to states they
consider threatening to the world’s peace. This means meeting certain criteria,
such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human
rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapon of mass destruction.
The term is used most by United States, though it has been applied by other
countries.
Rogue states can also be
differentiate from ‘pariah states’ such as Burma (Myanmar) and Zimbabwe which
alleged abuse the human rights of their populations while not being considered
a tangible threat beyond their own borders, although the terms have been used
interchangeably.
In late 1990s U.S officials
considered North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and
Yugoslavia to be “rogue states.” Yugoslavia was the first state to be removed
from the list with the Overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic on the 5th of
October 2000. The U.S invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 removed Afghanistan from
the list, and Iraq followed suit after the U.S –LED 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Libya, was removed from the list after achieving success through diplomacy, but
returned to the list because of the 2011 Libya civil war. The concept of “rogue
states” was replaced by the Bush administration with the “Axis of Evil” concept
(gathering Iraq, Iran and North Korea). U.S President George W. Bush first
spoke of this “axis of Evil” during this 2002 State of Union Address. In the
six months of the Clinton administration, former United State secretary of
State Madeleine Albright announced that the term “rogue state” would be
abolished in June 2000, in favor of states of concern.
However the Bush
administration returned to usage of the earlier term. The U.S government
perceives the threat posed by these states as justifying its foreign policy and
military initiatives, as in the case of antiballistic missiles programs, which
are held to be grounded in the concern that these states will not be deterred
by the certainty retaliation. As the U.S government remains the most proponent
of the “rogue state” merely means any state that is generally hostile to the
U.S without necessary posing a wider threat. Some others, such as author
William Blum, have written that the term is also applied to the U.S and Israel.
Both the concept of rogue
states and the “Axis of evil” have been criticized by scholars, including
philosopher Jacques Derrida and linguist Noam Chomsky, who considered it more
or less a justification of imperialism and a useful word for propaganda. In Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, William Blum claims that
the United States of America, because of its foreign policy, is itself a rogue
state. Iran has also described the U.S as a rogue state.
While the term is used
in the media of many countries, it has only been officially used by the United
Kingdom and Ukraine. However, the expression has been criticized by France,
Russia and china. Also refer to International isolation and Pariah State.
- There
are legitimate ways to react to the many threats to world peace. If Iraq’s
neighbors feel threatened, they can approach the Security Council to
authorize appropriate measures to respond to the threat.
- If
the U.S and Britain feel threatened, they can do the same. But no state
has the authority to make its own determinations on these matters and to
act as it chooses; the U.S would have no such authority even if their own
hands were clean, hardly the case
IV.7
‘War on terror’
The war on terror (also
known as the Global War on terror or the war on Terrorism) is an international
military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom with the
support of other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as well as no-NATO
countries. Originally, the campaign was wages against al-Qaeda and other
militant organizations with the purpose of eliminating them.
The phrase War in Terror was first used by
President George W. Bush and other high-rank in US officials to denote a global
military, political, legal and ideological struggle against organizations
designed as terrorist and regimes the were accused of having a connection to
them or providing them with support or were perceived, or presented as posing a
threat to the US and its allies in general.
It was typically used with a particular
focus on militant Islamists and al-Qaeda. Although the term is not officially
used by the administration of US President Barack Obama (which instead uses the
term Overseas contingency Operation), it is commonly used by the politicians,
in the media and officially by some aspects of government, such as the US
Army’s Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. On September 16, 2001, at Camp
David President George W. Bush used the phrase War on Terror when he said “the
crusade”, this war on terrorism is going to take a while, and the American
people must be patient. I’m going to be patient. But I can assure the American people
I am determined.” On September 20, 2001, during a televised address to a joint
session of congress, bush launched the war terror when he said, “our ‘war on
terror’ begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does end there.
It will not end until every
terrorist group of global reach has been found stopped and defeated. ”Bush did
not say when he expected this would be achieved. (Previous to this usage, after
stepping off the presidential helicopter on Sunday, September 16, 2001, Bush
stated in an unscripted and controversial comment: “This crusade, this war on
terrorism is going to take a while.” Bush later apologized for this remark due
to the negative connotation the term crusade has to people of Muslim faith. The
word crusade was not used again.)
The George W. Bush
administration defined the following objectives in the War in Terror
-Defeat terrorists such
Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations
-Identify, locate and
destroy terrorists along with their organizations
-Deny sponsorship, support
and sanctuary to terrorists; End the state sponsorship of terrorism
- Establish and maintain an
international standard of accountability with regard to
combating
terrorism
-Strengthen and sustain an international
effort to fight terrorism Work with willing and
able
states
-Enable weak states
-Persuade reluctant states
-Compel unwilling states
-Interdict and disrupt material
support for terrorists
-Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and
havens
- Diminish the underlying conditions
that terrorists seek to exploit
Partner
with the international community to strengthen weak and
Prevent
(re) emergence of terrorism
Win
the war of ideals
-Defend
US citizens and interests at home and abroad
-Implement
the National Strategy for Homeland Security
-Attain
domain awareness
-Enhance
measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of
Critical
physical and information-based infrastructures at home and
abroad
-Integrate
measures to protect US citizens abroad
-Ensure
an integrated incident management capability
IV.8
Humanitarian intervention
Humanitarian intervention:
“refers to state using military force against another state when the chief
publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations
being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.” There is no one
standard or legal definition of humanitarian intervention; the field on
analysis (such as law, ethic, or politics) often influences the definition that
is chosen.
Differences in definition
include variation in whether humanitarian intervention is limited to instances
where there is an absence of consent from the host state; whether humanitarian
intervention is limited to punishment actions; whether humanitarian
intervention is limited to cases where there has been explicit UN Security
Council authorization for action. There is however, a general consensus on some
of its essential characteristics:
Humanitarian
intervention involves the threat use of military forces as a central feature
It is an intervention in
the sense that it entails interfering in the internal affairs of a state by sending
military forces into the territory or airspace of a sovereign state that has
not committed an act of aggression against another state
The intervention is ‘in
response to situations that do not necessarily pose direct threat to states’
strategic interests, but instead id motivated by humanitarian objectives
|
The subject of humanitarian
intervention has remained a compelling foreign policy issue, especially since
NATO’S intervention in Kosovo in 1999, as it highlights the tension between the
principles of state sovereignty a defining pillar of the UN system and international
law and evolving international norms related to human rights and the use of
forces. Moreover, it has sparkled normative and empirical debates aver its
legality, the ethics of using military force to respond to human rights
violations, when it should occur, who should intervene, and whether it is
effective.
IV.9
Preemptive attack
A preemptive war is that, commenced
in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion,
or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (alleged unavoidable) war before that threat materializes. It
is a war which is preemptively ‘’breaks the peace. The term: ‘preemptive war’
is sometimes confused with the term: ‘preventive war’. The difference is that a
preventive war is launched to destroy the potential threat of an enemy, when an
attack by the party is not imminent or known to be planned, while a preemptive
war is launched in anticipation of immediate enemy aggression.
Most
contemporary scholarship equates preventive war with aggression, and therefore
argues that it is illegitimate. The waging of preemptive war has fewer stigmas
attached than does the waging of a preventive war.
The
initiation of armed conflict: that is being the first to ‘break the peace’ when
no ‘armed attack’ has yet occurred, is not permitted by the UN charter (see
‘Legality’ below), unless authorized by the UN Security Council as an
enforcement action. (Some authors have claimed that when a presumed adversary
first appears to be beginning confirmable preparations for a possible future
attack, but has not yet actually attacked, that the attack has in fact ‘already
begun’, however this opinion has been upheld by the UN.) Arguments for
preemptive war made during the Bush administration.
The
scholar Abraham D. Sofaer identified four key elements for justification of
preemption:
*The nature and magnitude
of the threat involved;
*The likelihood that the
threat will be realized unless preemptive action is
taken;
*The availability and
exhaustion of alternatives to using force; and
*Whether using preemptive
force is consistent with the term and purposes of the
U.N Charter and other
applicable international agreement
|
Professor
Mark R. Amstutz (citing Michael Waltz) adopted a similar but slightly varied
set of criteria and noted three factors when evaluating the justification of a
preemptive strike.
*The existence of an
intention to injure
*The undertaking if
military preparations that increase the level of danger; and
*The need to act
immediately because of a higher degree of risk
|
The
proliferation of WMD by rogue nations gave to certain argument by scholars
concerning preemption. They argued that the threat need not be “imminent” in
the classic sense and that the illicit acquisition of these weapons, with their
capacity to unleash massive destruction, by rugue nations, created the
requisite threat to peace and stability as to have justified the use of
preemptive force
NATO’s
Deputy Assistant secretary General for WMD, guy Robert cited the 1962 Cuban
Missile Crisis, the 1998 US attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant,
(identified by US intelligence to have been a chemical weapons facility) and
the 1981 Israel attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility at Osirak as examples of the
counter-proliferation self-help paradigm. Regarding the Osirak attack, Roberts
noted that at the time, few legal scholars argued in support of the Israeli
attack but notes further that, “subsequent events demonstrated the perspicacity
of the Israelis, and some scholars have re-visited that attack arguing that it
was justified under anticipatory self-defense.”
Since
the departure of the Bush administration, the Obama administration has made no
such claims to retain the right to declare a preemptive war.
IV.10 Super power
Superpower is a state with
a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to
influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale
to protect those interests. A super power is traditionally considered to be a
step higher than a great power.
Alice
Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at HT, Naval Post graduate
School), defines a superpower as “a country that has the capacity to protect
dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more
than one region of the globe at a time, and so many plausibly attain the status
of global hegemony.”
It
was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and
the British Empire. Following World War II, as the British Empire transformed
itself into the commonwealth and its territories became independent, the Soviet
Union and the United States generally came to be regarded as the only two super
powers, and confronted each other in the Cold War.
After
the United State won the Cold War, the most common belief held was that only
the Unites States fulfilled the criteria to be considered a world superpower,
although it is a matter of debate whether it is hegemony or if it is a besieged
global power. Brazil, china, the European Union, Indian, and Russia are also
thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st
century.
The
United States and Soviet Union were the two super powers during Cold War. Here,
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev meet in 1985. After the dissolution of the Soviet
Union, the United States was left as the sole world superpower
IV.11
Hard power/soft power
Soft power is the ability
to obtain what one wants through co-option and attraction, It can be contrasted
with ‘hard power’, that is the use of coercion and payment. Soft power can be
wielded not just state, but by all actors in international politics, such as
NGOs or international institutions. The idea of attraction as a form of power
dates back to ancient Chinese philosophers such as Laozi in the 7th
century BC. “Water is fluid, soft, and yielding.” But water will wear away
rock, which is rigid and cannot yield. As a rule whatever is fluid, soft and
yielding will overcome whatever is rigid and hard. This is another paradox:
what is soft is strong.”
What makes soft power soft?
The primary currencies of
soft power are an actor’s values, culture, policies and institutions and the
extent to which these “primary currencies”, as Nye calls them, are able to
attack or repel other actors to “want what you want.”In Nye.2008) applied the
concepts of hard and soft power to individual leadership in “The powers to
Lead”. In any discussion of power, it is important to distinguish behavior
(affecting others to obtain the preferred outcomes) from the resources that may
(or may not) produce those outcomes. Sometimes people or countries with more
power resources are not able to get the outcomes they wish. Power is a
relationship between an agent and a subject of power, and that relationship
will vary with different situations.
Meaningful statements about
power must always specify the context in which the resources may (or may not)
be converted into behavior. Soft power is not merely non-traditional forces
such cultural and commercial goods, as this confuses the resources that may
produce behavior with the behavior itself – what Steven Luke calls the “vehicle
fallacy.” Neither is it the case that all non-military actions are forms of
power, as certain non-military actions, such as economic sanctions, are clearly
intended to coerce and thus a form of hard power.
IV.12
Foreign (Humanitarian) Interventions
Humanitarian intervention
“refers to a state using military force against another when the chief publicly
declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being
perpetrated by the state against which it is directed. There is no one standard
or legal definition of humanitarian” intervention; the field of analysis (such
as law, ethnics, or politics) often influences the definition that is chosen.
-Humanitarian
intervention involves the threat and use of military forces as a central
feature.
It is intervention in the
sense that it entails interfering in the internal affairs of a state by sending
military forces to a territory or airspace of a sovereign state that has not
committed an act of aggression against another state.
-The intervention is in
response to situations that do not necessarily pose direct threats to states’
strategic interests, but instead is motivated by humanitarian objectives. The
subject of humanitarian intervention has remained a compelling foreign policy
issue, especially since NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999, as it
highlights the tension between the principle of state sovereignty – a
defining pillar of the UN system and international law – and evolving
international norms related to human rights and the use of force. Moreover,
it
|
has sparkled normative and
empirical debates over its legality, the ethics of using military. Force to
respond to human rights violations, when it should occur, who should intervene,
and whether it is effective.
IV.13 Noblesse Oblige
“Noblesse oblige” is generally used to
imply that with wealthy, power and prestige come responsibilities. The phrase
is sometimes used derisively, in the sense of condescending or hypocritical
social responsibility.
In American English especially, the term has also been
applied more broadly to those who are capable of simple acts to help another,
usually one who is less fortunate. In
ethical discussion, it is sometimes used to summarize a moral economy wherein
privilege must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege or who
cannot perform such duty. Finally, it has been used recently primarily to refer
to public responsibilities of the rich, famous and powerful, notably to provide
good examples of behavior or to exceed minimal standards of decency. It has
also been describe a person taking the blame for something in order to solve as
issue or save someone.
Author Prof. Dr. Rugema D. Muyombano
0Awesome Comments!