Opinion | Columnists
Striking the right balance of power
Although the US is reeling under economic crisis, it has managed to preserve its military power and check Russia's aspirations
- By As'ad Abdul Rahman, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:14 October 9, 2008
- Image Credit: Illustration by Nino Jose Heredia/Gulf News
Irrespective of the economic crisis facing the US, the fact remains that the country is the strongest military and economic power in the world due to its technological knowledge and superiority in other sectors.
Ever since 9/11, America has followed a new strategy worked out by a group of scholars at the Rand Institute. It was presented to the Pentagon and the recommendations are as follows:
- US considers itself as the world policeman, giving itself the right to punish any contender.
- As the "policy of deterrence" followed during the Cold War had come to an end, the policy presently followed stipulates that any country that poses a threat to the American national security must be beaten.
- On the basis of "fighting international terrorism", the principle of sovereignty of other countries can be violated.
- Respect of international treaties and agreements becomes selective.
- The US alone has the sole right of taking action against terrorist threats with no limits whatsoever.
However, until when can the US carry on with this policy? Some scholars believe that this unipolarity is bound to be short and temporary. Others believe that the US wields enough power to impose its hegemony over the world for decades to come. A third party believes that the world of a sole superior power may not last.
Russia has already regained its power and is making a comeback to the world arena. China will have, in the next two decades, a strong and highly developed economy, together with a well-settled political authority that could encourage it to look after its regional and international interests.
Indeed, the US forces the world to choose between one of the two options - a world order under its hegemony or chaos.
This dilemma is the the subject matter of Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, The Choice, Global Domination or Global Leadership. Brzezinski, indeed, believes that an "abrupt termination of American hegemony would without doubt precipitate global chaos, in which international anarchy will be punctuated by eruptions of truly massive destructiveness."
Therefore, in order to avoid this disaster, Brzezinski thinks that "a gradual and controlled devolution of power could lead to an increasingly formalised global community of shared interest."
The "principal challenge to American power," he emphasises, "can come only from within - either from the repudiation of power by the American democracy itself, or from American global misuse of power."
Brzezinski, thus, calls upon the American political leadership to follow a long-term strategy that "will mobilise world support, rather than alienate it".
Agreement
In 2004, President George W. Bush violated the agreement that his father, George Bush, had signed with the then Russian president Boris Yeltsin. In that agreement, Bush Sr. stated that the Nato membership would stop at the East European countries that were annexed to the Soviet Union after the First World War, namely Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland.
Yet, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were given Nato membership, while Georgia and Ukraine received generous American promises for future admission. In this context, the US thought that it had succeeded in surreptitiously sneaking into countries, which, in the past, had been part of the Soviet Union.
The recent events in Georgia, however, have proved otherwise. The Russian military intervention is seen as a sign of the end of the American hegemony over the world as well as an indication of a gradual, albeit complicated, process that is prone to bring back the"balance to the world order".
It may not necessarily take the shape of a cold war; it is more likely a kind of "modernisation of balance". This, however, may not mean that Washington will resort to a policy of isolationism. It is rather expected to immediately reorganise its forces and allies to check Russia's gains, particularly in Europe and the Middle East.
What has enraged the US Administration, and has forced the European Union to take a different stance than that of the US, is the old classical Russian response: Resorting to military power against Georgia. Although the EU believes that a military encounter between Russia and the West is a far possibility, the increasing number of American warships in the Black Sea, keeps the remote possibility of an encounter in mind.
The Europeans intend to find a way out of this crisis through negotiations, away from the war machine, which may be still kept around as a means of pressure. That is why the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy have agreed on withdrawal of Russian forces within a month from the whole Georgian territory, with the exception of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This entails European guarantees offered to Moscow together with the deployment of 200 European inspectors in Georgia.
On October 15, it has been agreed, "international security negotiations" will be held in Geneva. The question remains, will the last agreement hold and will the October negotiation succeed?
Professor As'ad Abdul Rahman is the Chairman of the Palestinian Encyclopedia.
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Russia, China complicit in Syria carnage
By Fawaz Turki, Special to Gulf News
By their double veto at the UN, they have chosen to back the Al Assad regime that is already wet spaghetti
-
Two prime ministers in trouble
By Kuldip Nayar, Special to Gulf News
Gilani faces contempt of court charge while Singh encounters moral responsibility in 2G scam case
-
Moving towards honest democracy
By Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia
Russia needs to unbundle power and property and separate executive power from system of checks over it
Your turn
