The end of the cold war, or as I like to refer to it, World War three, strengthened the positions of leaders who emerged from it victorious, such as former US President George Bush Sr. These leaders promised that a unipolar world would emerge, more peaceful and stable than ever before. This seemed logical, as people’s attention post-WWIII seemed to have turned from competing in a worldwide arms race, which helped to drain the riches and resources of a number of countries, to bandaging the wounds of what was a long drawn out conflict.
Many analysts and observers felt that a unipolar world would be far better than a polarised one, where two superpowers sought to sabotage and foil the plans and plots of the other. Others however, pointed out that the politics of the cold war had led to the outbreak of a number of regional conflicts here and there, with each superpower supporting and strengthening various actors while seeking to contain others.
That being said, these people claim that in a unipolar world, where the United States has and continues to stand unchallenged, there is little incentive for it to work to help bring an end to these conflicts, or engage in serious development efforts in the third world.
Now, nearly a quarter century after the end of WWIII, we must ask: Where do we stand in relation to this new world order? Do we live in a unipolar or multipolar world? And has this new world order been successful in putting an end to the world’s various regional conflicts, such as that between Israel and the Arab world?
I personally do not believe that the new world order has materialised in the form of a unipolar world led by the US, however we also cannot say that what we live in a multipolar world. A more accurate assertion would be that the new world order resembles that of a “shareholding company”, where the number of actors operating within the company are many and whose influence is determined by the number of their shares.
This process is similar to coalition building in parliamentary systems, where parties are proportionally represented, with no one group being large enough to form a government on its own. In this system, decisions are made by the majority within each coalition, or as a result of agreements reached by its main parties.
Within the board of directors of this company (or this world), the US holds the most shares, and therefore its vote is often the determining factor in most issues, unless of course other powers decide to join together and form a coalition strong enough to oppose it.
This hasn’t happened once since the end of WWIII, however is still possible considering that Washington hasn’t successfully been able to contain Russia, despite the fact that it is much weaker than it once was. Containing Russia would mean doing so in the same way that Germany and Japan were contained at the end of the second world war, where the “Axis” countries’ military capabilities were limited and their economies tied to that of the “free world” and promoting the interests of the US.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, and a number of countries in eastern Europe, hoped to finally be included in the “Marshall Plan” that had resuscitated western Europe years before, only to find that the US was unable to live up to their expectations. This naturally led to the rise of leaders like Putin, who sought to assert themselves on the world stage’s board of directors and prove that although they may not be as powerful as the US, they could still sabotage their interests and cause problems for them.
China too has begun to play a similar role, challenging US economic hegemony in many African countries, despite their strong economic links with Washington.
It seems also that the US relationship with its allies in Europe has finally begun to crack, particularly with regards to issues concerning the Middle East (although the two sides still seem to agree on propping up the Muslim Brotherhood and other political Islamist movements that have sprung up throughout the region since the outbreak of the Arab Spring).
However with regards to the Brotherhood and other movements, I see the interests of the US and Europe eventually digressing once political Islamists decide to mobilise Europe’s large Muslim communities and lead them down a bloody campaign of violence against the governments and people of the continent.
So if the world’s current board of directors is not united with regards to what it wants, then is it safe to say that it is incapable of living up to the promises it has made with regards to world peace and security?
The response to this question is a resounding “yes”, however the lack of strategic unity among the world’s board of directors is not the only cause behind its failure to achieve this goal. This is because the board’s president, the US, has until now always been the final decision maker in any process, seeing as most decisions made regarding world peace and security have not deviated from that which serves US interests.
We can say that within the last quarter century the US has been successful in imposing its will on the rest of the world, often at the expense of its allies and enemies. All this said, it is necessary to determine who is primarily responsible for what we have witnessed in the Middle East and Arab world in the way of repression, poverty and armed conflict. Clearly the US bears the most responsibility, however this does not excuse the actions of other players in the region and the extent to which they are also to blame.
That said, it is still important to point out that the influence wielded by the US in the Middle East now is far bigger than that of the Romans and Persians in the Middle Ages or even the British and French during the age of colonialism. This is especially true with the coming of globalisation and the transformation of the world into a small, interconnected community.
We believe that the current state of confusion and chaos witnessed throughout the world is the result of the US’s policy of pursuing short term pragmatic goals at the expense of developing a long term vision for the future. The US’s policy of reaping short term gains is perhaps best exemplified by their support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.
One must ask: Did at no point during this campaign did anyone stop to consider what this alliance may turn into several years or decades down the road? Could no one have predicted the collapse of the US’s financial markets at the hands of those who consistently inflated its worth and ordnance? Could no one have predicted that the systematic deterioration of Afghanistan, even if it did serve to expel the Soviets, would one day help lead to the staggering collapse of the world’s most moribund giants, the US?
Considering these questions, we must come to terms with the fact that much of the chaos and confusion that grips today’s world may in fact have been planned and orchestrated by the US.
Condoleezza Rice in particular was largely responsible for implementing the policy known as “creative chaos”, which also leads us to question: Does the US actually seek to spread peace and security throughout the world, and have they failed in that? Or do they seek to gather the world’s wealth and resources in its developed north while leaving the south to wallow in poverty and ignorance?