A skewed world order

The international system changes with the passage of time—strategic, political and economic compulsions act as the causative factors. Sometimes the change is gradual, while the shift sometimes is tectonic. The inflection points are the prominent events brought about by conflagrations, disasters, natural and man-made calamities. We are apparently standing at an inflection point, brought about firstly by the Covid calamity that portends to change the existing world order and influence economics, international trade and indeed international diplomacy. Experts believe that "contemporary history will forever be divided between what happened BC (before coronavirus) and AC (after coronavirus)." Secondly, the blatant and illegal invasion of a free and sovereign country by a big power, transgressing all international norms, is likely to influence the future order of things internationally. It is not for the first time, though, that such transgression has occurred, but the invasion of Ukraine is seeing a form of human barbarity—perpetrated by a powerful country on a relatively weaker country—not seen in the recent past.

The current world order is actually a skewed system dictated by the strong, ordered by the colonial and neocolonial powers unable to shed the hubris of the past. Such arrangements betray the hypocrisy and double standards of those that dictate the world order. And Putin and Russia won't be left behind.

Sometimes the old order gives way to the new in a process driven by ideas flowering from the minds of intellectuals. After the end of the Cold War, a new paradigm had to be invented for international intervention, and one came handy in the form of the Huntingtonian doctrine, The Clash of Civilisations, which advanced the thesis that not countries, but cultures (read: religion) will confront each other in future. And so it was when the US and its coalition of the willing—which started with 31 countries and ended up with 48 (comprised of all Western countries except for four, and all but three of them were non-Muslim countries)—launched its illegal attack on Iraq in gross violation of international laws governed by the United Nations Charter.

The international political order or law that sought to govern international relations and the behaviour of nations was the UN Charter, including sovereign equality of states and prohibition of the use of force in international relations. It was a compact that was agreed upon by 50 countries initially, and by those who became members of the new international organisation subsequently. The international economic system followed from the Bretton Woods Agreement, which has been defunct since the 70s—although its two institutions still govern the international monetary system and development. And perhaps the most important adjunct of the rules-based international order—the human rights regime—is governed by the Declaration of Human Rights, which, according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, promises to all the economic, social, political, cultural and civic rights that underpin a life free from want and fear.

The UN is hamstrung by the veto power of the Big Five. Most of them are the victors of World War II, and as the saying goes, to the victor goes the booty. The veto power is one such booty. More often than not, it has been used for petty national interests by them, rather than for the greater universal good. It has been used to sanctify illegal wars like the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq. The most recent exercise of this power was Russia's veto on the UN resolution that would have called on Moscow to immediately halt its attack on Ukraine and withdraw its troops beyond the international borders.

A similar "casteist" treaty that divides the world into nuclear haves and have-nots is the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its objectives are to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. An unofficial appendage of the NPT is the Nuclear Club, an informal arrangement of the band of five declared nuclear powers. Not that a few undeclared merit entry into it, but are not acknowledged by the anointed five. The NPT successes have been mixed, most of all in respect with the general disarmament, which has played into the hands of the non-proliferation security fallacy. NPT's "success" has been well articulated in an article in The Print, published in March 2020 commemorating 50 years of the treaty. It says that the NPT "spent the first half of the 50 years living a lie, and the second half witnessing its own dangerous demise. It is hazardous to continue to believe it will be effective in preventing nuclear war, and the sooner the world moves on to other ways to secure itself, the better."

Today, the world is at a crossroads. To quote US-based think tank the Council on Foreign Relations, "the benefits of the US-led order and, in particular, the many international agreements that the US has championed to open up the world to the free flow of goods, services, ideas, and people no longer look so promising—not least to the many Americans whose livelihoods have suffered as a consequence."

The post-Cold War order imposed by the US also faces challenges. The liberal order is decaying where multilateral approach to solving problems has been replaced by narrow nationalism. The unequal benefits of globalisation have accentuated the north-south divide. Today, the centres of economic and military powers are shifting. The lone superpower is having its status challenged, with its main contender enlarging its footprint not only beyond its region, but much beyond into other continents. But be that as it may, experts opine that although the world is likely to see more competition, the logic of major power cooperation remains overwhelming, thus reducing the chance of conflagration between major powers.

What the last 75 years have demonstrated is that no order can be dictated, much less imposed, on others. When that happens, that order is bound to be challenged and violated, as we are seeing today. A rules-based world order must be a collaborative arrangement, and no country, big or small, should be allowed to abuse it by flaunting its military or economic clout.

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan, ndc, psc (retd) is a former associate editor of  The Daily Star.