 The World After Iraq: A Ukrainian View By Volodymyr SENCHENKO |
After the persuasive military victory of the United States and its few allies in the Iraq war, the world's mass media were literally filled with forecasts regarding the declaration - according to the words of George Bush Sr. - of "a new world order". All opinion leaders hurried to express their thoughts, their vision of the future world dominated by one country. A substantial part of these visions is biased because their authors belong to either supporters or opponents of forceful, military conflict. Therefore, the opinion of a prevailing majority of unbiased people of independent Ukraine is instructive to some extent - this opinion is more independent and objective.
The dynamic development of the events around Iraq started on the 11th of September 2001, when terrorism brought the specter of danger to the whole world. The world more likely felt rather than understood that something had completely changed, that some crucial global process had begun. The Iraq war made it all clear. It became clear that besides the fight against terrorism, against dissemination of weapons of mass destruction, besides U.S. oil interests (all these things are being talked about a lot and declared), one is also talking about the setting of a new world order and recognition by the world community of a new one-country world leader - the U.S.A. As of today this is not a suspicion of something indecent - it is an objective and true fact, even if it were to be officially denied by the United States
The process of U.S. becoming a single world leader started in far 1945, when the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today it's a proven fact that at that time there was no need to use nuclear arms for military purposes. Defeat of militaristic Japan was coming to its end. Usage of these super-weapons had to have an influence on members of the anti-Hitler coalition, and had to determine the number one leader - that is, a leader among equal members, which were at that time the U.S.A, U.S.S.R. and Great Britain - the great countries - founders of UN, creators of the system of post-war world security. Right at that time U.S. declared through the words of its President Harry Truman that regardless of whether the U.S. wanted it or not, Americans had to recognize that the victory by Americans imposed on them a burden of responsibility for further ruling of the world.
The U.S. leader had all the grounds for such a statement at that time: The British Empire was falling to pieces; France became weak and needed help itself and although U.S.S.R. was a winner, it was a very weakened and exhausted one. And the other candidates for world leadership - Germany, Italy, and Japan - were defeated completely. The U.S. came out of World War II with strong economic potential, a military complex and a monopoly on super-arms - A-bomb. It seemed that one-country world domination was just one step away - one needed to win over the U.S.S.R. that relied not so much on its power, but more on the newly created system of international security on the basis of the UN. However, for this one needed a military victory over the U.S.S.R. As it became known in our days, U.S. military forces were thoroughly preparing for this victory. But they were not in a hurry, because according to their experts' estimates, nuclear weapons should have appeared in the U.S.S.R. only some 20 years later.
However, already in the summer of 1949 a first plutonium bomb was tested in the U.S.S.R. Even J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the American atom project, said that it was good that another side also had an A-bomb, that he was happy that an A-bomb hadn't remained a secret. Believe me, he knew what he was whereof he spoke.
Then the U.S. started to create an even more powerful weapon - a hydrogen bomb. But this time U.S.S.R. even got ahead of its rival. The first testing of a hydrogen bomb in the U.S.S.R. took place in 1953.
Competition for world domination between U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. turned into a "cold war", the nuclear arms race, and recurring military conflicts: from Korea and Vietnam to the Middle East and Africa. But this opposition didn't turn into in a big war, though sometimes both countries were on the brink of it (Cuban missile crisis). The reason for this is known- the equilibrium of nuclear potentials and total guarantee of destruction of both sides of a military conflict. Scientists "released a nuclear jin out of a bottle", but they didn't give up a monopoly on its use to any of the rivals. Understanding this equilibrium of military potentials made it possible starting from 1970s for these countries to mutually hold back the nuclear arms race and even agree on limitations of nuclear arms potential.
The situation drastically changed with the breakup of the socialist countries and the Soviet Union itself. This wasn't a result of a victory by NATO over the Warsaw Pact countries, as some politicians and journalists might think. More likely that was the self-destruction of the Soviet system by the hands of the Communists themselves. For many future decades specialists will be looking for the answer to the question - why and for what purpose this self-destruction was done.
Suddenly the U.S. became free to become a candidate for world leadership. The only limitations for one - country ruling remained in the system of security, which had been founded by the "fathers" of UN - Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin.
"Testing" functions of a world leader occurred for the U.S. during the last decade rather successfully in the former Yugoslavia and in Afghanistan. But military actions in those parts of the world were approved by decisions of the UN Security Council and NATO allies. Therefore, these actions cannot be considered as purely American victories.
A different thing happened in Iraq. The UN Security Council didn't join and not all NATO allies joined the campaign for the search for weapons of mass destruction and the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein's regime. Whether the world wanted it (and the U.S. itself) or not, the U.S. domination of the world became a reality.
The superiority of the UN with its mechanisms for security and the right of "veto" on the part of permanent members of the UN Security Council can be now forgotten about, like that which was once done to the League of Nations. From now on France, Germany, and even Russia already know their place in the "new world order". Maybe this wasn't that what was thought about, but this is what happened and it is like this now.
Now there is a bigger question: how long will one-country domination of the world last and what has to be an external and internal policy of countries of the world, how will the world leader behave itself?
Let's try to answer just the first part of the question - how long will the U.S. era last? Of course, not forever, because nothing lasts forever. All depends on when and who will become a candidate for the world's throne.
First of all, leaders of great countries, and especially Russia think that the world is moving towards polycentrism. And there is a reason for this because, let's say, in the East there are already candidates. During the last years this issue was discussed many times in Japan, i.e., that the 21st century would be Japanese. But the economic situation of the last years in that country would certainly make them more careful in pretensions for world leadership.
The other case is China, which still says nothing about U.S. leadership of the world, but energetically "pumps up" its own (China's) economic and military "muscles". China and India in the East can become active zones of development, and then they can "apply" for division of the rights and duties in the world system.
Secondly, for the time being a hypothetical union - Paris - Berlin - Moscow - has some prospective for reaching of a status of at least an equal world leader. But this might happen in a very distant future, but it might happen. Therefore, the most respected people in American strategy, in particular, Henry Kissinger began to contemplate saving Trans-Atlantic relations, otherwise a division of Europe and return to the policy of force of the 19th century would become inevitable.
Even if such a union formed, then it would be more likely a loyal ally of the U.S., rather that its rivals. Russia decidedly took on a defensive doctrine (it stopped confrontation with the U.S., sold aircraft-carriers, agreed to controlled limitation of arms, including nuclear ones). So, the union between the U.S. and Europe seems necessary.
Thus, appearance of new world centers of activity doesn't threaten the U.S. domination at all for a rather long term. Of course, this is possible under one condition, namely: if the U.S. doesn't ignore its own democratic traditions and doesn't start to abuse its position as world leader in achieving its national interests. In other words, if the U.S. doesn't set itself opposite the world community, if they resist the temptation to become "an elder brother", and if they don't play "their muscles" in the world loyal to the U.S. The next trial for the U.S. as a world leader will be their position regarding the UN: i.e., whether the U.S. will contribute to renewal of the UN's authority or whether the U.S. will try to occupy the UN's place.
Science, scientific and technological advance is capable to make unexpected and unforeseen changes in the new world structure. What science will offer (or maybe has already offered now?) in the future is little known to the wide public. One fact is obvious: current military power is very vulnerable to achievements of scientific and technological advance. Even one kind of defense weapons (note, it's not offensive), in particular, Ukrainian Kolchuga brought to naught the strategic advantages of an invisible airplane "Stealth", and multi-billion dollar expenses. Every "Stealth" costs around 1.3 billion dollars.
But if the military potential of modern leading countries of the world is mainly determined by the level of scientific development, intellectual power, then one can oppose these countries only with intellectual power, science, scientific and technological advance. And no one knows for sure what surprises one can expect from this kind of power - intellect.
|
Read also previous issue' articles:
The Herodotus of Ukrainian History
Ukrainians Want A Country That Respects Them
Ukraine's Brain Drain
Chauvinistic Smoke A Few Words on Russia
A walk on the underside
Re-inventing Production: Military Giants Discover Consumer Goods
|
| |
CONTACT US |
|
|
|
