#8
Profil
March 24-31, 2003
The Shape of Things to Come

Nikolai Zlobin: The war in Iraq is opening a new page in the history of international relations. The new world order will be built under the watchful eye of Washington, as part of the American sphere of national security. Nikolai Zlobin is Director of Russian and Asian Programs, Center for Defense Information

Americans are under the assumption that the old system of international relations, grounded in the outcome of World War II, no longer responds to modern security threats and, most importantly, does not correspond to the real world power structure. The notion that systemic change was needed appeared long ago, but the events of September 11, from the American perspective, showed the impossibility of a gradual transformation and created the need for rapid revolutionary change. And it is well known that any revolution, including one in international relations, brings about a disruption and breakdown of old norms, replacing them with new ones.

The recent discussion about Iraq in the Security Council further convinced the US of the necessity for a radical reformation: American officials concluded that they could very well become the victims of the rigidity and sluggishness of the current international institutions, victims of near-sightedness and egotism on the part of countries that carry significant weight in today's system but have no chance to maintain that position in the framework of a new system.

This especially applies to Russia, which would not be one of the five new global leaders controlling global destiny through voting rights in the Security Council - it clearly lacks the necessary economic and geopolitical advantages. The same goes for France - it is plain that France will never be more influential than Germany or Japan, who have no veto power in today's UN. Not to mention the billion-strong India, which is a nuclear power, and a number of other countries vying for leading positions.

That's why many in America think that the peaceful stance of many European countries, including Russia, stems less from pacifist reasons than from egotistic ones - in particular, a worry that in the new system that America is currently building (beginning with Iraq), they could have a much less prestigious position. And that's why they're striving to maintain a mechanism that has repeatedly failed. It's no secret that in the past few years, the UN has turned into an organization dealing with humanitarian concerns (AIDS, drug abuse, poverty), but not an organization able to adequately react to modern threats to global security.

Undoubtedly, in pushing for a new model of international relations, the US has an America-centric system in mind. The reality of today's world is that the US is the only superpower, beating its potential opponents in many respects. For the American establishment, therefore, it is obvious that the world agenda should be written in Washington.

This doesn't mean that America underestimates the danger inherent in a unipolar model. Its leaders understand that a certain balance of power is desirable, especially since the US is taking on an arduous and long-term responsibility. Judging by George Bush's last few statements, America is not only planning to act as an arbiter in international disputes and to disarm and neutralize countries it deems as potential threats, but also to undertake structural changes in those countries - expecting, in the meanwhile, that as soon as a dictatorship falls (Saddam, in this case), then American-style democracy will take its place. It should not be forgotten that the American worldview is messianic at its core. The US believes that Americanizing the world will make it more civilized and predictable. Not only are they convinced that freedom of speech, democracy, human rights and free markets are the best of human values, but they also see their role as spreading these values among as many people as possible.

So, for the most part, the war in Iraq is but the visible portion of the deep processes that currently shape and will continue to shape the system of international relations for at least the first half of the 21st century.

BACK TO THE TOP    #250 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE