Testing ground for 'new world order'

The world has just ended the first round of its 21st century long and dangerous fight, in order to establish the new balance of power which, in turn will shape the world's New Order.

It is a testing ground not only for Iraq, the League of the Arab states and Israel, but also for the United States, Europe and Russia and, most importantly for the United Nations as a whole.

"This is a time of trial - for Iraq, for the United Nations and for the world." Thus spoke the UN's Secretary-General Kofi Annan commenting on the Security Council's resolution 1441 on Iraq, unanimously adopted last Friday by the council's 15-member states.

Though the goal of resolution 1441 is to ensure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq "in compliance with the Security Council resolutions and a better, more secure future for its people," ultimately it stretches far beyond Iraq and the region.

Annan's statement is very significant as it embodies both the fears and hopes of a world full of uncertainties, and a world which is dangerously struggling to shape up its "New Order" to protect itself from its own powerful adventurous unilateralists.

For the moment at least, the Security Council resolution 1441 in the words of Annan "has strengthened the cause of peace, and given renewed impetus to the search for security in an increasingly dangerous world."

Of course the resolution 1441 is only the first step in a long and arduous process fraught with dangers and uncertainties. Its success, or failure - to quote Annan once more - "will greatly affect the course of peace and security in the coming years in the region, and the world."

The new test is going to be very hard indeed. Not necessarily for Iraq or the other Arab states only, whose role and weight in regional world affairs, incidentally, have been tremendously diminished, but mainly to the Europeans.

Though it was intended to deal with an immediate issue, namely disarming Iraq of its Weapon of Mass Destruction, WMD, the Security Council resolution has significance which goes far beyond.

The whole debate at the UN started over two months ago, to deal with the immediate question whether the United States should wage a war against Iraq. But the outcome, thanks to the solid European argument led by France and aided by Russia, points to many other issues of great importance and detrimental to the security, peace and co-existence in the world.

Most, if not all of these issues deal with the U.S. - its vision of the New World and its role and place in it. The debate does not centre on methods only, but substances as well.

Should the U.S. engage in a dialogue with its allies or ignore them? Judging from the debate over Iraq, the U.S. administration has come to realise, at the end of long and exhausting discussions within the Security Council, and has opted for the later.

First of all, credit should go to U.S. Secretary of State Collin Powell who strongly believes in nurturing America's allies and friends in world affairs, which are of concern to the world's peace and security. Confronting an unprecedented powerful hawkish gang in an American administration since Vietnam, Powell eventually won the president's ear.

We have seen in the last few days how even a president, such as George Walker Bush, can learn from the debate of the last eight weeks that in the long run it is better for the U.S., the UN and the world security to co-operate rather than bully; to be conciliatory and not arrogant.

The outcome of the debate as stipulated in the resolution 1441, reflects a new reality which one would hope that the U.S. can not, and will not ignore in the years to come. And that is: Europe matters.

The strong showing of France President Jack Chirac, supported all the way by Germany's Gerhard Schroeder who fought an anti-war election campaign last September, was evidently effective and persuasive.

Now we learn that the administration, which was only two weeks ago snubbing German ministers, the latest being Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, has suddenly become more accommodating.

Not only was Germany's defence minister graciously received by his American counterpart at the steps of the Pentagon few days ago, but the president made an overdue friendly phone call to Schroeder.

Of course some of Europe's leaders, such as Spain's Jose Maria Aznar and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, have been Bush's top fans during the UN debate. But what mattered most was the United Kingdom's Tony Blair.

Though he has been too accommodating sometimes, Blair can claim, according to briefings by his sources, that he was playing a positive role in restraining the administration's more peculiar impulses.

With a sense of stability on the home front, having won the majority in both houses of the Congress, the coming weeks and months in the remaining two years of Bush's administration will be the real testing ground for U.S. foreign policy at large.

Real issues

The list of issues on which the U.S. and Europe sharply disagree is not limited to Iraq. It includes climate change, fair trading, protectionism, Palestine, Iran, International Court, capital punishment, war on terrorism and missile defence.

These are the real issues of which the way they are handled could determine the future governments and politics in many democracies. With the president's boosted confidence, even Blair may find hard to maintain his "love affair" with America intact.

The place to deal with these issues is the UN and it is important for Europeans to pull together over them. They have been successful over Iraq so far, and they can do it again over the other issues.

Mustapha Karkouti is the former president, Foreign Press Association in London.