World Order For Real

Finally, the international community has realised the reality of change in the existing world order, now well into the process of being redesigned. For obvious reasons, those dreaming of holding onto the outgoing order find it strenuous to acknowledge the pattern and clear writings on the wall. For better or worse, a big shift in power equations is unfolding. The tremors and cracks are audible and palpably felt. Those not enthusiastic about the development are engaged in vainly reversing, if possible, and stemming the slide as far as they can. However, there is neither any reason for much of the world to be actively engaged in the see-saw battle that is now shaping up to favour groupings that previously had less say in not only what others did and are now pressing their way for role-change.

The interest, speculation and fast-unfolding conditions generate concerns with the implications the tectonic shift carry as to who plays which role and how. Will one bloc replace another in continuation of how things were all these decades or will a vast change take place for the better, fostering greater international participation and cooperation aimed at poverty reduction, political stability without foreign interference, and consistency in the practice of global conventions and international laws? Will the hegemony of powerful neighbours be checked and the infamous doctrine of spheres of influence be vigorously negated?

Necessary recall

On China’s posture at the UN General Assembly last month, Western analysts noted how the No. 2 superpower and the world’s No. 2 economy presented itself as a member of the Global South heading for a model for cooperation and development sharply different from the existing one. This indirectly calls for the conditions that prevailed in the first half of the 20th century. On the eve of First World War and Second World War, the major powers of the day claimed and haggled over partitioning which territories for whom and with what strategic and economic profits. Big powers wanted partitioning of Poland while setting predatory sight on Czech territory. 

Hence, the anticipated change, once in full swing, might not necessarily offer something to gloat over excessively or despair deeply over the parting of the particular conditions that prevailed for more than a century, if not more. The anxiety as to the type of turns the ensuring events form is only to be expected. Its worrisome part is over the nature of the course. The moot point concerns with whether it will be adjusted to the inevitable or the powers that monopolised global agendas for so long will dig in their heels unsuccessfully in order to have their writ across all continents as they were previously used to.

Resistance to a natural order and a fairer participation of all nations will invite intrigues, conspiracies and relentless pressures on economically and technologically weaker states. Efforts to toxify politics and queer the pitch for rival groups risk rifts, clashes and grave consequences. The post-World War II decades witnessed inconsistencies and, at times, blatant display of audacity by especially superpowers—the US and the now-defunct Soviet Union — when dealing with governments that did not heed their advice. 

Foreign-engineered or inspired political changes in Guatemala, Iran, Egypt, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen are few of the many examples that showed how the so-called “strategic” interests of big powers compromised the rhetoric on the inviolability and sovereign rights of independent states, particularly UN members. Today, constant railings by some of the major powers against Russia and China, Venezuela, Iran and North Korea are a bid to stem the decline of the so-far dominant groups that fear having to bear the loss of their influence in setting global agenda covering almost any issue pertaining to their core interests. The jittery positions are transparent symptoms of the initial birth pangs of the new makings.  

As soon as he landed in New York in September, Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy wanted an answer from the UN as to why his country’s “invaders” had a seat at the table of power. He was referring to Russia being in the exclusive club of permanent members of the Security Council since the very inception of the world body created in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.  This is not the first time that an aspect of the UN system has come under question. Regular calls for reforms crop up but without any concrete move from the quarters that matter the most in effecting a comprehensive review of the organisation. The manner in which the UNSC is composed reflects who won the war, who lost it and who were under the colonial rule of most of the UNSC veto powers.  

End anomalies

The inequality to elevate a few over the vast many echoes an anachronism, which, however, its beneficiaries like to retain. They do not even want to share space of privilege with others. Regional groupings of economic and other nature provide for consensus in decision making, failing of which blocks the initiation of any new measure. European Union, NATO and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation are among those that adhere to consensus decisions. 

Failure to introduce reforms in tune with the broad UN spectrum can incite passions and create deep division in the world body that has survived nearly 80 years. But, given the changed conditions and increasing quest for a greater degree of participation in the UN system, major changes are called for. The ideal of equality among all member nations should prevail to end the existing disparity between the veto powers and the rest of the largest international organisation. 

Forty per cent of humanity owns less than what 10 per cent of the richest billionaires possess. No wonder that Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva identifies market liberalism plaguing democracy and disenfranchising millions. At the same time, relentless lecturing by major powers has made the weaker states resentful. Clearly, the UN can be impressively effective through reforms in its composition and functioning — from the recruitment to job allocations, budget disbursement and issues pertaining to injustice and welfare of the maximum numbers of people.   The UN focus on peace and development should be translated into action, and with it enhance the organisation’s image as an effective global agency that effectively addresses humanity’s core issues.

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)