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.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/779/op13.htm