Shifting balance of power

I very much enjoyed reading Mark-Anthony Falzon's "Opinion" questioning whether the world seems to be hinting at a new world order. There is no denying that after the end of the cold war, the world is now living in a state of uni-polarity, whereby the only super-power remaining is the United States. In such circumstances, the United States is burdened with the responsibility of ensuring a safe future if it wants to ensure its own security.

The September 11 terrorists attacks, served as an eye-opener to both the United States and the democratic world societies. Much as most would have thought that with the end of the cold war, the world at large was a safer place to live in, events showed that some states are ready to resort to terrorism knowing full well that they are unable to rely on the conventional war strategies against bigger and more armed nations.

The present global security threat seems to be on top of the agenda for most countries. Yet other threats may be instability in some states, poverty, Aids, or an emerging Chinese challenge.

One only needs to look at the North Korean issue to realise how quickly events may change and create a sudden twist, if not global threats to the existing world.

The United States seems geared to stand up to the challenge posed by terrorism and in the near future we may see a reformulation of its national security strategy and defence policies, further burdening its taxpayer.

With globalisation, responsibilities would of course be expected to be shared. At this juncture, problems might arise as to who should lead. Given what happened on September 11, the United States took the lead and its President is determined to crush what he termed as the "axis of evil". He called for all peace loving nations to fight terrorists states and states that harbour terrorism, yet only a handful of states participated in the Iraq war, with Britain taking a leading role among the "coalition forces".

The Iraq war knows its origin to Operation Desert Storm, save that at the time President George Bush made it amply clear that he was not after Saddam Hussein's head. This time round, the President George W. Bush, declared that he wanted to rid Iraq and the world of Saddam as Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and therefore posed a threat to the United States and the world.

Ten years of United Nations' sanctions against Iraq mattered little in terms of compliance. The straw that broke the camel's back was September 11.

Whether there is tangible proof that Iraq had a finger in the pie remains to be seen. What is certain though is that the reason cited by the United States and the coalition forces, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has not yet been proven.

Thanks to the United States and the coalition forces, the world seems to have got rid of a dangerous dictator, but ridding the world of dictators does not justify unilateral military intervention as otherwise, we could safely assume that the United States can be transformed into a global policeman, with the capability of exercising what is sometimes called "benevolent hegemony."

It remains to be seen why the United States "lost its patience" (Hans Blix) with Iraq. Operation Desert Storm, and 10 years of sanctions, seemed to have achieved little, if at all. There was no change of heart on the Iraq leadership's part. Because of this, the Iraq people had to endure, and are still enduring, hardship. Whether the United States was justified in waging war against Iraq, is a question that needs to be addressed.

Did the United States take the lead because it firmly believed that Iraq was harbouring terrorists, and was somewhat involved in the September 11 attacks? Or did it take the lead unilaterally because it wanted to prove to the world that this is the era of Pax Americana?

Globally, the world seems to be hearing more of the United States than of the United Nations. It would seem that while the United States seems to be taking a proactive, pre-emptive approach, the United Nations seems to be hindered by bureaucratic measures.

The need has long been felt to update the structure of the United Nations. The vacuum this is treating can possibly give rise to strong nations taking military initiatives on their own. Whether justified or not, such initiatives can further create a most uncertain and dangerous environment.

It would seem, that the initiatives taken, by the United States and the coalition forces have dragged the United Nations to the back seat, and, given the prevailing circumstances, the role of the nations has been relegated to that of a humanitarian organisation.

Furthermore, on an individual level, anti-war protesters, were perceived as somehow approving of Saddam's atrocities at home, while, on a nation to nation level, the United States hurled such terms as "unwilling" towards states that declined to participate. Yet the same states, had for decades actively cooperated in the process of bringing about a better and peaceful world.

This does not necessarily imply that the United States is arrogant. However, while it would seem best for the United States to keep the role of a superpower against any entity that dares challenge its security, it is important that its global security approach be shifted to the United Nations.