 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 17 - 23 June 1999 Issue No. 434 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 17 - 23 June 1999 Issue No. 434
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Living Travel Sports Time Out Chronicles People Cartoons Letters What after Kosovo?
By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
Even if efforts to bring to an end the destruction of Kosovo by the Serbs and of Serbia by NATO are successful, the Kosovo crisis will certainly have far-reaching repercussions, not only on the Balkans, but on the world at large. Although the issue has now been placed in the hands of the UN Security Council, when NATO decided to launch devastating missile strikes against a sovereign state, it did not wait for a Security Council resolution or authorisation from the UN.
There are two ways of looking at this momentous event: either as an isolated incident, a one-off phenomenon rather than the precursor of a new trend, on the grounds that the subsequent involvement of the Security Council has ensured that NATO's bypassing of the council did not establish a new rule; or as having set a dangerous precedent that will be invoked in similar situations in future. As the reason behind bypassing the Security Council was to avoid a Russian or Chinese veto over the shelling of Yugoslavia, and as this type of situation is quite likely to recur, the Kosovo crisis should be seen not as an isolated incident but as indicative of a fundamental change in the world order enshrined in the UN Charter in the aftermath of World War II.
And what of that world order? Today, the very foundations on which it was built are being questioned. For example, it is far from clear why the victors in World War II should continue to be regarded as victors in the wake of what I call World War III, otherwise known as the Cold War. Although not waged on the battlefield, it was nevertheless a war in every other sense of the word, where victory and defeat were measured not in military terms but in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and with it the collapse of the post-World War II world order.
Since the demolition of the Berlin Wall, the most evocative symbol of East-West confrontation, the world order is no longer based on the confrontation between capitalism and communism, which replaced the successful wartime alliance between Western democracies and the Soviet Union in the face of fascism. But having successfully overcome the challenges of both fascism and communism, the West now finds that no mechanism exists under the UN Charter to ensure a smooth transition to a world order that reflects present realities. For example, there is no provision for nations like Germany or Japan to be promoted from their obsolete status as defeated nations, or for Russia to be demoted from its former status as one of only two superpowers at the summit of the world order. On the eve of the new century -- and millennium -- there is a glaring discrepancy between the realities of our contemporary world and an outdated world order inherited from a very different world structure in the past. This is a major flaw in the global system.
What is the nature of the present impasse? Whenever global legitimacy is at variance with the requirements of global development, violence erupts; change occurs in unconventional and unpredictable ways. A case in point is the flare-up of violence in the Balkans. Some could argue that neither Russia nor China are any longer qualified to obstruct decisions enthusiastically endorsed by the community of 'civilised' nations in the West. Moreover, in the light of recent events, some could even argue that Fukoyama's 'end of history' theory has been vindicated.
Fukoyama never meant by the 'end of history' the end of the unfolding of events, but the end of ideological debate over the basic rules determining the course of events. Now the whole world has come to accept democracy, human rights, a market economy, the rule of law, as the basic tenets of the world system. Consequently, the UN should be restructured to reflect the prevalence of such tenets. However, this would immediately come up against formidable obstacles.
Although Germany and Italy are no longer regarded as vanquished nations, offering them a status in the UN similar to that of France and Britain would raise questions as to Europe's right to have four representatives with veto rights in the Security Council. And what of Japan, whose status is similar to that of Germany? Moreover, if redressing disparities between North and South is also taken into account, and a nation like India is offered veto powers, would that be acceptable to Pakistan, or, for that mater, to other nations from the South which see themselves as being on an equal footing with India, like Egypt, Nigeria, Brazil, Mexico? And if these constraints remain insurmountable obstacles in the way of restructuring the United Nations, surely its relevance will be severely compromised. If, in addition, Russia is demoted to reflect its true weight on the world stage, will this not make the UN more of a liability than an asset as it proved to be in the Balkan crisis; will it not make its marginalisation and redundancy a permanent rather than a transient phenomenon?
On the other hand, if NATO becomes the substitute for veto power in a newly emerging world structure ushered in by the Balkan crisis, would this not also usher in new forms of generalised upheaval? The developed Western nations see themselves as the driving engine of the present day civilised world, but this engine is only improving the lot of an ever more shrinking proportion of the human species. A growing proportion of humankind is being propelled into frustration, alienation and destitution. This silent majority should be empowered rather than marginalised.
This entails redressing present disequilibria. The world must be further decentralised rather than driven towards still greater centralisation. Regional organisations should be encouraged and promoted. Citizens' associations and NGO's should be further developed on all fronts and further politicised in all directions.
Globalistic activities should not be reduced to those of the multinational corporations and the emergence of a global economy beyond the authority of state structures and national sovereignty, but should extend to the systematic organisation and follow-up of world conferences on all issues of global concern: poverty, environment, global warming, women, population growth, water scarcity, nuclear disarmament, etc. Empowerment of the people is the key issue, if overcoming impotence at reforming the world system from above is threatening humankind with ever more ominous bottlenecks and collapse.
