|
I. Introduction to New World Order
Teachers may want to have the students read this
introduction before they read the selected essays on "New
World Order" to provide a basic understanding of the concepts
included therein.
Political scientists and diplomatic historians have long been
interested in the question of world order. European
nation-states and their governments sought ways to establish
international order in Europe following the destructive wars
of the 19th century. That is, they sought to establish
guidelines, practices, and international institutions that
would ensure peace and order in Europe and in the rest of the
world, much of which was under European colonial rule.
Attempts to maintain world order failed, and World War I
ensued from 1914 to 1918. At the end of the war, U.S.
President Woodrow Wilson led the international effort to
establish a new world order that would guarantee world
peace and stability. Central to this process was the
creation of the League of Nations, an inter-governmental
organization (i.e., an organization based on a formal
agreement between three or more governments of nation-states)
whose primary function was to keep peace in the world through
ordered relationships among the member nations.
However, the plans laid by the League of Nations were not
able to bring about a lasting peace, and in 1939 World War II
broke out. The Second World War ravaged many parts of Europe
and East Asia until it ended in 1945. The widespread
destruction experienced by so many countries during the war
contributed to far-reaching support for new efforts to
establish the United Nations, which succeeded the League of
Nations in its efforts to bring about peace and stability
internationally. The United Nations Charter
institutionalized the key principles upon which the world
order would be based: national sovereignty, non-intervention
and international cooperation.
At the same time, the rise of two superpowers, the United
States and the Soviet Union, following World War II led to a
new bi-polar world order. To describe this world order
in very general terms, the nations of the world were split
into two camps: liberal democratic countries in the West, and
communist countries in the East. Antagonism between these
two power blocs was intense but never developed into open
conflict. However, the Cold War played out in a number of
"hotspots" throughout the world. For example, the locally
devastating wars in Korea and Vietnam, as well as Angola,
Congo, and Ethiopia/Somalia, were all fought by opposing
factions backed to varying degrees by the Soviet Union and
the United States.
The bi-polar global "cold peace" was preserved by the
tremendous nuclear capabilities that each power bloc's
military alliance (the North American Treaty Organization
[NATO] and the Warsaw Pact) maintained during this period.
Each alliance realized that any attempts to change the world
order could lead to a nuclear conflict and mutually assured
destruction (MAD). With such a threat constantly looming,
both sides were wary of any moves to offset this balance of
world power.
The demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in the
early 1990s radically changed the configuration of global
power relationships. The world order that emerged has been
described by some as uni-polar; it was dominated by a
single power, the United States. In this new world order,
questions arose as to how to create a "balance of power," or
maintain stability around the world. Debate focused on the
role the United States should play in bringing about world
peace.
With the end of the Soviet threat, many commentators,
especially in the United States, have argued that there is no
longer a need for the US to remain involved in other regions
of the world — that it is not the role of the United
States to play "policeman" in world affairs. Others have
maintained the contrary — that it is both a moral duty
and in the strategic interest of the United States to become
involved in regions where there is unrest, and stand as a
leading force in international organizations, especially the
United Nations. This is a debate that continues in national
and international politics today, and greatly influences the
extent to which the United States is focused on foreign
relations.
Some theories about the world order which relate to
September 11:
Social scientists have offered various theories to explain
the current and future world order. In the field of
international relations, there are several theories that are
well known and relate to discussions following September 11.
While some theoreticians aim to predict the future world
order, others consider what the world should look
like, and suggest approaches that can be taken to achieve
these ends. Below are some examples of different views that
scholars of international relations have express on the topic
of world order:
- Conflicts of culture shaping the world order:
In his influential and controversial work, Clash of
Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996),
Samuel Huntington theorized that in the post-Cold War
world order, cultural divides would be the source of conflict
in the world. He identified eight "civilizations" in the
world and argued that the new world order would be threatened
by clashes between these groups.
In the context of the September 11 attacks, which are
believed to have been perpetrated by Islamist extremists,
commentators throughout the world have referred to
Huntington's theory. Some have argued that Huntington had
predicted this inevitable divide between Islam and the West.
However, most social scientists - including Huntington, who
clarified his view following the attacks - do not consider
that the "clash of civilizations" theory adequately explains
September 11 and its aftermath. Many argue instead that
radical Islamic movements are more indicative of "clashes"
within Islam than between "global" Islam and "western
civilization."
Click here for an interview with Huntington
in The New York Times on October 20, 2001.
- Dominance of western liberalism shaping the world
order:
One of the theories that is often cited in opposition to
Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" is Francis
Fukuyuma's "end of history" as articulated in The End
of History and the Last Man (1993). Fukuyama considered
that the demise of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of
communism demonstrated the triumph of western liberalism. He
foresees that in time all societies will evolve to a point
that they will adopt liberal democratic institutions. In
turn, the resulting new world order will be characterized by
international cooperation through market economies and
liberal democracy.
Other social scientists reject Fukuyama's claim that these
western values will be accepted universally. Citing the
resistance to western ideology exhibited by groups in various
parts of the world -- of which Al Qaeda is the most visible
example -- critics argue that Fukuyama's theory
oversimplifies the complexity of cultures, values and
"evolution" around the world.
Click here for Francis Fukuyama's article "The
End of History?" in National Interest (1989).
- International law and institutions shaping the world
order:
Some social scientists, including David Held and
Mary Kaldor (whose essays are included in the
Globalization and New War? subject areas,
respectively), maintain a cosmopolitan perspective of the way
the world can be ordered. Cosmopolitans consider that human
well-being is not defined by geographical and cultural
locations; that national or other boundaries should not
determine the limits of rights or the satisfaction of basic
needs; and, that all human beings require equal moral respect
and concern. Based on these principles, they call for
strengthened international legal and regulatory institutions
that would be charged with the responsibility and the means
to maintain security around the world through the enforcement
of human rights and global justice.
David Held argues that international legal institutions offer
an alternative to unilateral military responses to
international crimes like those committed on September 11.
He and others who share his view look towards the
International Criminal Tribunals of Rwanda and Yugoslavia,
and other criminal cases tried under international law as
proof of the international community's capacity to prosecute
serious crimes. By relying on these international
institutions rather than acting independently, countries like
the United States could uphold the principles of universal
international law, and put an end to the cycle of fear and
hatred that is generated by military attacks.
Critics of this perspective do not consider that this
internationalist vision is a realistic one. They argue that
the competing interests that exist among nation-states are
too divided, and nation-states' insistence on sovereignty is
too strong to allow such a shift of power from nation-states
to international institutions. According to some critics, the
inadequacies of current institutions, such as ineffective
bureaucracy and inefficient spending, are indicative of the
flawed nature of international organizations in general. They
maintain that this ideal would be impossible to implement.
|
