http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/779/op13.htm
The global order
The interests of core power continues to dominate while the Arab region
remains fragmented, submissive and vulnerable, writes Amin Howeidi*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Even following the end of the Cold War, the concept of national
security has remained as Robert McNamara, former US secretary of
defense, outlined in his book The Core of Security. It not only
comprises issues of conflict and arms but also defence against crimes,
disease, natural and environmental disasters and terrorism, as well as
economic and social issues such as poverty, housing and immigration.
Events have proven that military power is used less today than it was
in the past. Struggles now take place between states on the basis of
overall capacity, not sheer force. The capacity of a state is the sum
of its strength in various fields.
This is one fact. A second is that what we are now seeing here and
there is World War III. A repetition of World War I or World War II has
grown impossible on a global level due to the possibility of reciprocal
nuclear obliteration. Even on the lowest level, it has grown impossible
through the limitations of using raw force, even between a major state
and a developing one, as happened in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq,
and likewise in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In following, the
21st century will bear witness to the use of languid force represented
by defence without using violence but rather threats of force,
persuasion, discussion and negotiation. Events have proven that
excessive use of raw force can lead to strong and aggressive states
losing their power over the long term and falling into a quagmire,
driving them to withdraw even with the cover of a fig leaf. Everyone
has grown capable of inflicting punishment and counter- punishment --
this one with traditional and supra-traditional arms, and that one with
traditional and sub- traditional arms.
A third fact is that after the global order was split, prior to the end
of the Cold War, between Eastern and Western blocs, now the world is
split into a northern hemisphere more advanced, wealthy and strong, and
a southern hemisphere more backward, poor and weak and in which
conflicts sometimes take place using raw force between or within
states. Relations between the North and South are characterised as
zero-sum if gains are made only by the northern player, which is
usually the case. If both sides make gains, this is called the win-win
approach.
A final fact relevant here is that the current war taking place between
states and terrorism that began with 11 September 2001 has revealed
that small powers can, using non-military means, cause losses of
thousands and immense economic damage to major powers that possess the
strongest arsenals and greatest economic capabilities in the world.
Responding with crude force was a grave mistake for states are fighting
an enemy they cannot locate. This makes the "enemy" a martyr in the
view of some, and paves the way for spreading terrorism rather than
eradicating it. Its employed means are capable of inflicting much
greater punishment than the enemy it faces can. Just as elephants
cannot kill ants, and demonstrations cannot be dispersed with the use
of planes and missiles, so fighting cannot continue without end.
During this third world war, hot points have spread from London to
Tokyo and New York, passing through Egypt, Oman, Saudi Arabia, India
and Indonesia. This has produced changes in the global variables that
can be summarised as follows:
Ever since it has become customary for peoples in democratic states to
accept the exchange of freedom for security; whenever they have wished
for security they had to give up part of their freedom. Even the United
States did this when it detained suspects without official enquiry and
for an unstipulated period of time. Major states, and in particular the
United States, have changed from toppling aggressive regimes through
crude force to altering their behaviour by placing pressure on their
leaders. The toppling of President Saddam Hussein's regime was costly
and imprecise, while the deal struck with the Libyan regime was a
complete success -- the regime stayed in place after changing its
behaviour and paying its exorbitant fines, the approach now being
followed in Syria.
International organisations are no longer being ignored. Rather,
respect for their resolutions and selective insistence on their
implementation are being used as a form of blackmail on regimes that
are being targeted. The invasion of Iraq took place as a blind eye was
turned to the international community. Now, the Syrian regime is being
stalked with the use of Security Council resolutions following the
killing of Al-Hariri.
The United States' intervention in the internal affairs of states has
grown deeper, more widespread, and more flagrant. It has elected itself
the global police. North Korea is barred from joining the nuclear club,
which Israel occupies a comfortable chair in that deadly inner circle.
Iran is barred from enriching uranium, the trial of Ayman Nour sours
relations, and what took place in the Egyptian elections is
unacceptable while the Iraqi elections took place under occupying flags
and demonstrations protesting against model forgery. All of this
intervention now takes place without any objections, unlike in the
past.
When the claims of Washington and London about weapons of mass
destruction turned out to be false and that was covered up with demands
of imposing democracy in Iraq and the countries of the greater Middle
East, most regimes changed their behaviour and instated new orders with
the appearance of democracy while the status quo in fact remained in
place. The United States apparently wants to re- draw regions according
to its taste.
Global security has not been realised. Despite the fact that shared
challenges do not differentiate between states, their agendas are
mutually distancing. Everyone agrees that the enemy is terrorism, but
not everyone has agreed on distinguishing between terrorism and
legitimate resistance. Everyone is speaking about narrowing the gap
between the haves and the have-nots, and yet the wealthy states, as was
made clear in the recent Hong Kong conference, have not agreed to
cancel export subsidies for agricultural products except gradually and
by 2013. This means that we, and the other developing countries, are
attempting to actualise our national security in the shadow of a global
order that does not believe in mutual security and which applies
international legitimacy selectively. It does not want to secure
justice for developing countries. It is a class-based world that wants
the poor to grow poorer and the weak to remain prey. The alternative is
found in unity and participation, but where are we in relation to that?
Rather than uniting on the regional level, we are increasingly
fragmented. Rather than clinging to the regional level, we are
increasingly dispersed.
And thus our national security remains fair game because we do not
change although everything around us does. And I mean change for the
better, not for the worse.
* The writer is former minister of defence and chief of General
Intelligence.
=C2=A9 Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/779/op13.htm
.
|
