|
We may be present at the creation of a very new world in which no excuse is needed when the powerful is ready to bully the weak.
An atmosphere of misgiving pervades the whole world as the ongoing US-led invasion of Iraq - from the very moment the first bombs were dropped on the Arab country - set a precedent that a country could go to war against another sovereign state at will. It seems that power, instead of international law, has started to count more in world conflicts, causing most sovereign states to shudder.
As doubts and worries mount about the lack of respect for a just world order, people around the world are asking: "Is this really to be a precedent for the settlement of international conflicts in the future?"
The world can feel the chilly winds of US expansionism. Experts agree that the US-led military strike against Iraq will have a far-flung catastrophic impact on the world's structure.
Pang Zhongying, an associate research fellow with the Institute of International Studies under the Beijing-based Tsinghua University, said that the US-led war is also a test of the unilateralist Bush doctrine in the Middle East region. If it advances smoothly, it could further fuel the adventurism of the world's sole superpower.
Li Guofu, an expert at the China Institute of International Studies in Beijing, said he regarded the war as a "reflection of the US unilateralism promoted since President George W. Bush assumed power."
He added: "From the perspective of international relations, this war could be considered as a war through which the United States is attempting to rip up the basic rules of international relations formed after World War II and to set up a US-dominated international system in the new century."
The war will no doubt shatter the existing international system.
Opinion is divided on this issue. Juergen Haacke, a researcher with the Department of Political Science and International Studies at England's University of Birmingham, said: "Although some might argue that the coming world order is being shaped in the image of the United States, it is far from clear that countries around the world will readily accept a world order that would be premised on US power and pre-emptive disarmament wars."
According to Shen Jiru, a research fellow with the Institute of World Economics and Politics under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the historical trend towards a multilateral world is not likely to be substantially reversed and the current world order should largely be maintained.
The authority and credibility of the United Nations seem to be at stake as the United States and Britain launched the war against Iraq without a UN mandate.
It is worth noting that UN laws are unlike other laws. They are subject to no higher authority such as a supreme court.
However, as the most authoritative and representative global intergovernmental organization, the UN plays an irreplaceable role.
Haacke said: "For a good number of countries, the UN continues to be viewed as a relevant and appropriate forum to deal with questions of international peace and security."
Washington's failure to obtain UN authorization for its war against Iraq mirrors the fact that it was US influence rather than UN authority that had been weakened, Shen Jiru suggested.
The United States will surely find the UN useful, too, when the time comes to stop fighting in Iraq. Without the UN, it is impossible for the United States alone to settle all the issues, such as post-war reconstruction, fighting terrorism worldwide and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Nor is it realistic to establish another international organization to replace the UN, according to Shen, as the majority of the international community would not readily accept this.
The key instrument through which the world of order will try to deal with threats from the world of disorder will still be the UN.
The issue of Iraq has exposed the schism between the major powers. The relationship between Washington and those European countries opposed to the war will remain strained for the time being. However, the co-ordination mechanism among the major powers - particularly between the United States and the so-called "old Europe" - could not possibly be broken by the Iraq War.
As Zhao Junjie, a researcher at the Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, noted: "The nature of US-European ties remains unchanged and their global partnership will be reconstructed through continuing dialogue" due to their sharing of certain fundamental interests, values and systems.
Furthermore, economic globalization and the global issues that arise from it have made the interests of various countries increasingly interdependent.
Since no single nation or regional group alone can handle all the complicated problems that the world currently faces, dialogue and cooperation are indispensable.
Therefore, though the regrouping of the major powers on the Iraq issue has brought uncertainty to international relations, there seems little possibility of confrontation between the blocs, according to Shen.
The co-ordination mechanism amid the major powers thus will continue to operate to deal with emerging global issues.
Haacke noted that, despite Washington's structural power, "the legitimacy of any new world order depends on the extent to which it also satisfies the interests and ideas of other members of international society."
They want to see a multipolar world that can fully reflect their diverse interests and views. Suggesting that multilateralism should be the starting point of Washington's policies, Joseph S. Nye, Junior, dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, said that the United States cannot achieve all of its goals through unilateral action.
(China Daily April 11, 2003)
|
