A new international order
by
S.Madhusudhana Rao |
Engaging the world in troubled times
US President Barack Obama has pledged to give a new shape to global order. He is not the only one who wants to put the world in order. it is the buzzword for every American president and its definition and scope varies with the person in office. Obama’s immediate predecessor George W. Bush, too, wanted a new world order. Eight years ago, he said, addressing the graduates of the US Military Academy at West Point, “Our security will require transforming the military you will lead – a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.”
It’s a strange coincidence that Obama too spoke of his vision of a new global order at West Point graduation ceremony last week, though he took a different view of the existing situation. “The burdens of this century can’t fall on our soldiers alone; it also cannot fall on American shoulders alone,” a clear reference to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both started during the Bush era. US security and global interests are at the core of Bush and Obama doctrines although they differ in basic approach to reshaping the world. While the former preferred a go-it-alone policy and vigorously pursued it in Iraq war, the later, true to his policy of engaging adversaries and not confronting them, is not so gung-ho about unilateral adventures.
After the demise of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, the sole superpower has been trying to put the world in order, the way it wants it to be, rearranging the pieces on the global jigsaw board. But the American vision of a new international order has remained a dream in the post-Cold War era with so many puzzles pregnant with political problems, economic inequalities, social tensions and regional imbalances.
Over the years, the challenges to such an effort have only increased both on political and economic front and threatened to undermine the values Americans cherish most: Freedom and democracy, the two pillars on which the American society has been built. So, the attacks on American defence, economic and financial power centres in September 2001 not only shook the country’s foundations but the people’s psyche as to what has gone wrong.
What followed is a new American perspective of the world seen through the prism of terrorism that challenges the establishment, political, economic and military power of individuals and nations. Terrorism is born out of extremism and fundamentalism which have little respect for liberalism. They are poles apart and have no place in an egalitarian society; for that matter in a world for which the future is more important than marching backward. It’s a clash of ideologies, political systems and a question of supremacy that pits raw strength against sophisticated hi-tech weaponry.
When terrorism is viewed against a larger geopolitical background, its perceived and potential threat to the security of countries harbouring extremists and neighbouring nations is a concern the US feels compelled to address for two reasons. One, Washington’s self-assumed responsibility as the global cop; and secondly, it being a major target for militants whose avowed aim is to destroy the US.
When we look into the cause and effect of terrorist attacks on US interests worldwide, it is evident that there is a motive behind every action – from American involvement in Afghanistan to US aid to some countries allied with Washington for strategic or economic reasons. But militants’ actions do not justify their means to achieve their ends – to turn the clock back to hundreds of years. The interests clash at a middle ground that becomes a battlefield for both sides.
The US sees it imperative, as the global leader in every sphere of life, to safeguard its own interests and those of others imperiled by the ‘dark forces of heathen world’ to uphold democratic and liberal values. In this onerous task, successive American presidents since the World War II have taken upon themselves a knight-in-shining-armour role to defend countries in distress and rescue them from the clutches of despots, dictators and terrorist elements.
In more than half a century of pre- and post-Cold War era, the US has played a significant role in changing the course of histories of countries around the world, not necessarily for the benefit of people living there but to fit them in its scheme of things. Or, to usher in a new world order, both political and economic. In the process, the world has divided itself into two broad camps, pro- and anti-American, and the continued friction between them is bound to exacerbate tensions in the future.
Nevertheless, Obama’s vision of a new global order that “can meet the challenges of our generation” snugly fits into his philosophy and policy goals of “strengthening existing alliances, build new partnerships and promote human rights worldwide” as it pursues a strategy of global leadership that is increasingly coming under strain, particularly in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Obama had plunged headlong into the volatile Mideast as soon as he took over with a promise to end Bush’s cow boy diplomacy. His landmark Cairo speech last year to the Muslim world extending a hand of friendship and bridging the gulf between the two cultures was hailed as a fresh American approach to this region and a break with traditional condescending attitude towards Muslims and Arabs. One of the first things Obama did soon after assuming office was to greet Iranian leaders on their country’s New Year day Navroz promising a new beginning. Similarly, he raised new hopes among Arab leaders that his administration would find an amicable solution to the pestering Israel-Palestinian conflict by reining in the recalcitrant Jewish state.
After a year plus, the road to Mideast peace is still strewn with hurdles and roadblocks put up by US ally Israel while Washington’s ‘engagement’ efforts with Teheran are in a state of confrontation over Iran’s nuclear programme.
Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate how US efforts to reshape the world have gone horribly wrong. The US invasion of Iraq in 2001 had served American interests more than those of Iraqis. After hunting for Saddam Hussein’s so-called weapons of mass destruction in deserts and palaces, neither US forces nor international experts could find a single piece of evidence that posed a threat to American or regional security. However, the Bush administration toppled Saddam to establish a democratic set-up. After years of strife and thousands of deaths, the mayhem that is Iraq calls for introspection how far the US intervention has helped that country.
US entered the Afghan theatre with the avowed aim of destroying Al Qaeda network and its elusive leader Osama Bin Laden after the brazen 9X11attacks. Eight years later, despite claims that it is winning the war on terrorism, scepticism remains high among Americans who have been pouring billions into the war chest and Afghans whose US-propped government is ambivalent about Taliban insurgents. The Obama administration is in a catch 22 situation there: If it pulls out militants will run over Kabul and re-establish their form of government; if the US continues to fight with Afghan and Pakistan government forces’ help nobody is sure how many more years are needed to root out the Taleban and their mentors Al Qaeda. Even if Americans succeed, they face Al Qaeda threats in some other countries where Washington’s No1 enemy has spread its tentacles.
History tells us that it’s utopian to try to reform societies. They re-evolve themselves and any external pressure to change their course results only in resistance which manifests in vengeful actions. The US will remain a global leader in many years to come. But every great power has limitations to extend its influence and once this fact is realized it helps reduce global tensions.
Oman Tribune
|
Other comment for S.Madhusudhana Rao
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NEWS UPDATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
