The current Iraq drama has far reaching implication for this millennium.
America rules in so many aspects of this global village that the military is
just one sideshow of this unprecedented force. I recall the comment of a
military expert who said the US could take the world in a war. Mr Chirac may
genuinely want to be the conscience of the world, or is it that Gallic pique at
the Anglo Saxon “hegemony” and wanting to use the UN forum to show American that
France is its equal, that Permanent Security Council members (China, France,
Russia, the UK and the US), with veto wielding powers are equals in the premier
league of the world. This is despite the fact that the US military budget is
bigger than the total of all the other Permanent members and that country’s
economy is bigger than that of the rest of the Permanent council members
combined. There is also the commercial angle as France and Russia have been
significant trading partners with the Iraqi regime.
The real world we live in tells us that the only Super-power would have gone for
Saddam as it did. Should Saddam be bumped off? Will we see other Saddam’s being
bumped off without the UN’s endorsement? How relevant is the UN, created in a
vastly different world from the one we live in today? What does the new order
hold for us and even more, how will the world be during the transition until the
EU becomes a coherent force, China wakes up and whatever new force comes into
being.
The dictum, all wars are destructive holds at all times and war should have been
avoided at all cost and anyway. The main criticism that has been voiced is
concern about innocent Iraqi civilians who bear the brunt of causalities. Why is
Saddam being targeted when there are many nasty dictators out there, some of
them like the North Korean chap with some real nasty little toys? Is it because
the latter has nothing to offer other than WMD (includes nuclear, chemical and
biological) and threats, he is simply a blackmailer, while Saddam has huge
reserves of black gold – the second largest proven reserves in the world - that
oils the ravenous US economy. If the US is so anxious to introduce peace and
democracy in the region why does it not lean on other despots in the region to
open up, why does it not reign in the Israelis in the occupied territories? The
looting and disorder that the Coalition forces have not been able or inclined to
contain is a serious indictment of the war. It is inconceivable that the US with
its arsenal of computers and administrative experience would not have
“war-gamed” the chaotic scenario that followed the fall of Baghdad and other
major cities. Is it because the oil wells, secured easily, were more important
than the civilian population of Iraq? And where are the WMD.
For the millions of Iraqi’s who are impoverished because of the actions of
Saddam and the relatives of millions who have perished at his hands, Iranian and
Kuwaiti soldiers and civilians in those countries and in Iraq, Kurds, the Shia
Arabs and some members of the opposition, before effective internal opposition
was liquidated, his religious clan and family, bumping off this tyrant is the
best news. For the relatives of Sept 11 and the majority of Americans who feel
threatened by foreign extremists who may be sponsored by the likes of Saddam it
would be good riddance. Lets face it, supporters of the war say, surgical
strikes followed by mass surrender and disappearance of the regular Iraqi army
and air force saw only the Special Republican Guard, perpetrators of Saddam’s
dirty work giving some, rather limited resistance. There were significant
civilian lives lost, thousands wounded and the problems with water and
electricity continue to play havoc on the inhabitants of Baghdad and other
cities. It can be pointed though that on the body score, the number of civilians
killed or maimed pales in comparison to Saddam’s legacy, had Saddam prevailed,
several times more “traitors” would have been killed in the immediate aftermath
of the war. The main problem is where are the WMD? Will we see regime change
being used as the only pretext? Yes Saddam had used WMD against the Kurds and
other enemies. He had prefabricated and lied about certain developments for
twelve years and then September 11 came.
Once this drama is over reality would have been established. The US has shown
that it can act on it own, pulling in a number of allies, a rump in this case,
as it has done many times in the last couple of decades. September 11 brought
international legitimacy that had never been encountered before because of the
sheer bestiality of that event. Now it is business as usual America as takes out
the “bad” guys. Although by all yardsticks Saddam is a bad guy however, is the
US President, who barely scrapped through, with some help from his sibling to
attain the mandate as world leader, qualified to snuff him out. Yes there is
Congress to restrain him but again, their congressional districts do not have
voters with the mindsets like you find common in old Europe, they are not bogged
down by those arcane arguments Europeans keep coming up with. Lets face it, the
saying goes “among the constituents that matter”, he is a bad guy, from the same
region that gave us 9/11, lets zap the guy.
Is it is a sign that dictators who possess weapons of mass destruction, harbour
elements that are hostile to the new order or have control over resources – oil
in this case - that the US believes must be accessed by global players cannot be
hostile to the Super Power? Saddam is the first; Syria came into the spotlight
immediately after the fall of Baghdad. Although Syria, nominally ruled by
another strain of the Baath party had a stormy relationship with Saddam she may
harbour or is serving as a conduit for Saddam’s inner circle but in the absence
of the WMD, the case against that country is parlous. An attack on Syria would
also look to Arabs and the Muslim world as a ruse to complete the emasculation
of all the states neighbouring Israel. If Syria goes, Lebanon where it has
significant troops will go the same way, Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel,
the Palestinians pose more of a psychological than military threat and Jordan’s
government will play by the “rules”. The strong opposition from the Arab world,
Europe, including members of the Coalition means the hawks in Washington would
have to lay off Syria at the moment.
North Korea is currently in the spotlight, no doubt that country saw how control
of the airwaves and communication systems and bribery allows the US to cripple a
country, with relatively low casualty rates, but the North Koreans would no
doubt want some largess for playing by the “rules”. Libya, which appears to want
to acquiesce to demands for reparation for the Pan Am disaster is signalling it
will play the Pax American game. China, well that is a different story, they are
a significant force and, are the sleeping giant that will come awake in the 22nd
Century. In the Pax Americana scenario, they will absorb and be absorbed into
consumerism, dependency on the American market and technology so much that they
will mellow out and not threaten America or sponsor terrorism directed at that
country.
Israel and Europe, sorry we mean New Europe are buddies, in the case of the
latter, extreme passivity and objection to the war among sections of the
population was countered by firm “practical” decisions by some leaders. The
division in that continent means that that region will be no threat to Pax
Americana for some time. Chirac and other leaders will give sound bites and try
to use the UN system, but defence budgets in that region continue to slide and
although NATO keeps some thread in the Trans-Atlantic alliance, hence some
leverage on US policy, that alliance will be sidelined by America and its allies
of the day, in areas of the world outside its perceived (by America) remit.
Should we see other bad guys being zapped in this way and if so what is the
criteria for disposing of tyrants in the new order. The likes of Mugabe will
occasionally be criticised and sanctioned by America because of his brutality –
in trying to redress an anomaly in land distribution - and because the crisis in
that country also involves a white tribe. But Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is not within
Pax Americana’s grand design, rather on the periphery of the global plan. Burma
in Asia will also occasionally be in the spotlight for its blatant human right
abuses, as will Indonesia. But sadly for people and organisations concerned
about human and economic development these events do not negatively impact on
Pax Americana interests in any significant way so regime change will not be a US
priority. Therefore in these countries and others in Africa, Asia and the middle
East where, nominal or effective dictators will continue to oppress their people
or prevent them from fulfilling their political and economic aspirations without
worries about regime change.
In the new world order what role will the UN play? The UN, although invigorated
recently by Kofi Annan may be an outdated power broker. That organisation will
continue to intervene when it does not trip over American interests. But critics
will ask why should permanent members of the Security Council be the arbiter of
global events it falls short on some basic criteria necessary for it to be an
effective body. On the basis of regional representation, Africa and South
America are excluded; on the basis of population at least one other Asian
country should be represented. On the basis of wealth the countries with the
second and third largest economies, Japan and Germany are not in that group but
are obviously be expected to fork out huge sums for the UN. On the basis of
democratic legitimacy it fails because the majority of its members are not truly
representative of the people they claim to represent, not having won free and
fair elections.
Should the UN remain, as it is where all non-Permanent Council members have, in
theory equal voice but in practice votes can be bought like the allegedly in the
case of the fishing treaty relating to the Caribbean countries. Where the recent
announcement of France’s substantial hike in aid to Africa in the background of
the Iraqi crisis to represents a crass way of playing to the African block.
Should the system be amended to reflect economic and political leverage for
example for votes to reflect the proportion of the world’s GDP? If it were based
on proportion of GDP this war would have been a walk over for the US since it,
together with its allies would have commanded such a huge percentage of the
votes. Critics would say it would be a rich man’s club when there is already
such a forum, G8.
Should it be based on population, not a feasible proposal because the countries
with the bodies, China, India, Indonesia are so relatively poor that the UN
would collapse if they were to fund the operations of that organisation. If on
the other hand these poor countries, at great sacrifices of their citizens,
decide to fund the UN operations, democracy would have been bought at a steep
price, a regressive tax on the poor. It is inconceivable that rich
representatives will allow impoverished colleagues to take decisions that will
have a significant impact in the welfare of their constituencies. Certainly
there are sound arguments for the rest of the world to have a greater say in the
UN so that Africa, Asia and South America are represented for example in the
permanent Security Council.
In the current scenario Saddam is bad news because he makes the UN irrelevant,
as it was in the Balkans, the rich countries are divided and many of the poor
countries can empathise with the dictator in the guise of nationalism or plain
fright because many are in the same boat and think they could be the next target
of regime change. The impasse leads the way for Pax Americana to manifest
itself.
If Pax Americana is going to become the dominant force in events around the
world the issue is how can this new decision process reflect the views outside
USA.
How can the world constituency get a foothold in the decision making process in
the epicentre in this new order? What actions should be taken in other global
centres with significant powers and autonomy? There is still room for
traditional diplomacy, within alliances such as NATO, the UN and through
American domestic channels the US Presidency, Congress, and the media. If the UN
system is irrelevant in instances such as Iraq and the Balkans then some would
argue that the world may have to live with it, like the “separation of powers”
in the US, let the UN act where it has competence and the US will act where it
believes it has the competence. Traditional diplomacy has taken a hit because
the US does not feel bound by what it considers misguided positions of some of
its nominal allies like France and Germany and its traditional (although not
currently proactive) enemies, Russia and China.
Many people will moan and even be pushed to extremist actions. For them this is
the end of a collective world order, a dangerous new game, survival of the
fittest when the world need to pull all its strands together collectively to
solve the myriad of problems. The cold war pitting two major players has given
way to a uni-polar scenario, dreaded by governments and people outside the US.
But some pragmatist will counter that it is naïve to expect a dominant world
player with interests in all parts of the globe to play by rules devised by an
impersonal body like the UN. History has shown from the first world power,
Britain – with a foothold in all continents – that the only super power will
flex its muscles. They will note that the US is not a dictatorship like the USSR
was but a democratic and pluralistic society. They will play a more complex
game, using the UN system, the media, trying to influence US decision makers –
politicians and the legal system - as well as the alliances such as NATO,
hopefully linking such decisions on any specific issue with others that the US
has an interest. Indeed such a policy may see these forces linking up with the
doves in the US to convince that country that it cannot afford to go it alone
and may even see a reversal of this uni-polar scenario to one where the UN
reasserts itself as a pivotal player along with the US in world affairs. This
decision making process has serious misgivings but, in the foreseeable future
may be the only option on offer.
This scenario is expected to hold until the United States of Europe coalesces
into a cohesive political unit and China strides and pushes into becoming one of
the major players it aspires to be. The Iraqi affair is a watershed, from now
on, in the short to medium term Pax America and its allies are the winners, the
UN, Old Europe, NATO and the EU project are the losers, the rest of the world,
mere spectators. It may accelerate the demise of the nation state, its autonomy,
except on the scale of the US and bigger political units to follow. The move
will be towards global players involving a number of nation states.
The US will continue to try to form a real USA, incorporating South America,
initially along the lines of the NAFTA agreement between Mexico, Canada and the
US, by forming integrated markets and subsequently, stronger political and
military alliances to protect that market and counter the EU project, obviously
with the US at the apex. It is hard seeing such a countervailing multilateral
force gaining ground in Asia, rather China may try to take the mantle, meeting
with serious opposition from Japan, India and the smaller countries in that
region who will continue to use the American umbrella. The Indian sub-continent
would continue the brotherly conflict. Africa may play a repeat of the cold war
game only this time there will be two new issues: it will be a tussle between
the EU project and Pax America; it will however see a significant reduction in
the value of the UN vote. Or the continent may follow the EU project and form a
cohesive political and Economic unit.
JB Rogers 1/27/2004 ©