78. Who And The 3rd World

350 Emporium Current Essays UlilFfl IP1 MMM 41 & The new international political order which has come into existence after the disintegration of the Soviet Union has two predominant characteristics. First, for the first time in the history of the whorl, international relations have become truly global. The international political order which was brought into existence by the Congress of Vienna in the form of the Convent of Europe was an exclusively European oligarchy. The League of Nations had a wider geographical coverage, but it was still a predominantly West European affair. When the UN system was established, it was also in effect a closed oligarchy of the five permanent members of the Security Council, all of which, with the exception of the Soviet Union, were under the hegemony of the USA. The decolonisation process led to the virtual universalisation of UN membership. But the bipolarity of the international system brought about by the Cold War prevented the emergence of a truly global and universal political order. The end of bipolarity, the virtual globalisation of capitalism through the operations of the transitional corporations, and the spectacular advance of mass communication have imparted a truly global and universal character to the international system. " Secondly, for the first time in the history of the world, the international political order has come under the hegemony of one state. The Concert of Europe was characterised by the virtual equality of the European oligarch who had div ided the world into their own respectabie spheres of influence. The League of Nations also functioned as an ineffective oligarchy of more or less equal European powers, with the USA opting out of it, and the Soviet Union being prevented from joining it, for the better part of its existence. Although the USA had initial dominance over the UN system, the Cold War and nuclear deterrence established a kind of global balance of power which prevented any single state from establishing its hegemony over the entire international system. With the Soviet counter power disappearing from the international system, the new international political order has come under the virtually unchallenged hegemony of the USA, the other militarily Emporium Current Essays 351 strong states being either in strategic alliance with the USA, or at any rate unwilling to challenge its global hegemony. The NATO, of course, is not an entirely monolithic militarypolitical bloc. But the occasionally anti-American stand taken by some NATO members on specific international issues, such as the US blockade of Cuba or the unilateral US missile attack on Iraq on the Kurd issue, are only minor irritations caused by tactical, often economic

considerations, rather than the result of a divergence of strategic perceptions. Japan, though nominally outside the NATO, is' a close relieve of the USA and other NATO states, so far as foreign policy is concerned. Russia and the other erstwhile republics of the USSR are depending heavily on the USA and other NATO states for their economic survival and accelerated return to capitalism, China, although ideologically in conflict with the US, developed in strategic and economic understanding with the USA from the sixties onwards. China was helped out by the US in a big way in the Sino-Soviet conflict. The rapid development of state-sponsored capitalism in China, which has created a new Chinese dependence on the USA and its allies for private foreign investment, appears to have given a continuity to this strategic understanding. Thus the Security Council, the UN system, and the whole structure of international relations appear to have come under the hegemony of the USA. The new international political order is increasingly wearing the look of a new imperial international order. The USA, which is perhaps the most aggressively nationalist state of the world today, has been trying more or less openly to use the UN as an instrument for the promotion o its perceived national interests across the globe. Politically, it has been trying to bend the UN to its will by the non-payment of its dues, y persistently demanding "reform" of the UN system, and more importantly by trying to induct two of is allies, Germany and Japan, (India was also lobbying hard, but seems to have lost the bid) as permanent members of the Security Coun*il. Economically, it has been using the World Bank and the IMF over which it has decisive controlling power, for undermining the public sector and promoting a from of dependent capitalism throughout the Third World. Militarily it has been trying to use the UN as a support base for its own foreign military interventions, as well as a scries of discriminatory arms control regimes, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), designed and sponsored by it to make its own military power and that if its strategic allies globally unchallengeable. 352 Emporium Current Essays This policy of using the UN as an instrument of American foreign policy may be consistent with the US national interest as perceived by the US decision-makers, but it is certainly detrimental to the national and collective interest of the Third World states whose sovereignty, security and development are constantly threatened by it. Pakistan and other Third World states should not, therefore, unresistingly and wilfully accept the new hegemonic international political order in the name of "liberalisation" and "globalisation", and abandon the policy of non-alignment, as they seem to be doing. It must be remembered that one of the cardinal principles of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) ~ Pakistan was refused entry for many years since the members of NAM considered it as an "aligned" country -- was its opposition to imperialism and hegemonic military alliances. That principle still remains valid in the new international context. What is now imperative for the militarily and economically weak states of the Third World is to build up organised political resistance against the hegemonic new political

order and to work in a determined and persistent manner for the democratisation of the UN system. For in a necessarily asymmetrical international system, their security, independence and development can be safeguarded only by an international political order with a democratically constituted regulatory authority. In this context, Pakistan's opposition to the NPT and the CTBT, along with India, is a step in the right direction, indicating as it does a measure of resistance against wanton pressure from the hegemony of the New World Order for the acceptance of a palpably iniquitous and discriminatory regime. Similarly there is a dire need to introduce democratic changes in the Security Council, not necessarily giving countries like India, which themselves have poor human right records, a place in the body but by curtailing the powers of the existing members and pressurising them to give due consideration to world public opinion before taking any "drastic" steps and measures. • Pakistan'? vrice needs to be raised not only for its o\\n national interest $..*. a given point of tie but also for the democratisation of the entire system. Being one of the most populous democratic countries of the world, Pakistan has the right and the obligation to spearhead a movement for the democratisation of the UN. which should include, to begin with, abolition of the veto system, transfer of effective decision-making power from the Security Council tt. the Genera! Assembly, and democratisation of Emporium Current Essays 353 decision-making in the specialised agencies irrespective of the contributions of individual member states. The strongest opposition to the dcmocratis^iion of the international political order would inevitably come from those very NATO states which so vociferously advocate democracy and human rights at the national level, albeit on a selective basis. Just as their advocacy of individual liberty and national self-determination at home happily co-existed with their own global imperialism for several centuries in the past, there appears to be -m easy and comfortable co-existence of their democratic profession with their advocacy of an oligarchic international order for the 21iHcentury. Since any amendment of the UN Charter must have the concurrence of each of the five permanent members of the Security Council it seems almost impossible that the UN can be democratised through an exclusively constitutional process. That is why an organised struggle on the part of the Third World Mates, bath inside and outside the world body, is necessary for its democratization. The Non-Aligned Movement, O!C> SARRC, Organisation of African States and the numerous other international fcra to which they have easy access, may be utilised for this purpose. On account of the overwhelming majority of the Third World state in the UN General Assembly, such an international political struggle should possibly be less hopeless than may appear to be at first sight.

Pakistan has both the right and the obligation to sponsor and spearhead such a movement for International democracy.