The Order of Things

Lately, loud moaning and desperate voices from liberals and conservatives alike at think tanks, universities, the media outlets and even government officials have surpassed all bounds. All declamations are warning -with frantic antics- of the imminent collapse of the world order that was set up by the victorious Western democracies in the aftermath of World War II. Institutions such as NATO, the U.N., WTO, and the European Union are increasingly under attack, or so claims this mixed bag of conservatives and liberals, by the ignoramus, the extreme right and the populists - read: President Donald J. Trump & acolytes.

The debate is legitimate, and this precious world order is worth saving, no doubt. But is it under attack, and is it truly in the throes of death? The answer is a resounding no, but one should, for the sake of debate, make some well-intended and much-needed clarifications into the notion of ‘world order’ and whom it was meant to serve. The world order was destined to serve the victorious Western democracies (the US, the British Commonwealth, and a ruined France), the defeated Western countries (Germany, Italy), and Japan, as well as others. The USSR was excluded but still present in all defense measures and treaties especially at the level of NATO. China too was not on the mind of the promoters of the the European Union, the WTO or NATO. The world has evolved since 1945, but these institutions have not, and they have extended their membership to more nations than anticipated. The issue is not one of overcrowding or of lack of space at the UN Hall in New York, but the lack of a level playing field between these new nations and the founding members, when it comes to abiding by the rules.

Take the U.N. for instance. Is it fair to have Finland, Sweden, New Zealand and the US aspire to sit on that same Human Rights Commission as say, Iran, China, Venezuela or Cuba? The divide is not East and West, or rich and poor, or progressive and conservative. Here it is about dictatorship and democracy. Who do you think in your right mind should be the proper candidates to oversee such a commission? Again, the matter is not one of race or discrimination or exclusion but rather one of shared principles and deeds just like in any other organization. If an organization promotes women rights it cannot conceivably have on its board a person accused and charged of domestic violence, can it? The U.N. of the past was concerned with the containment of the USSR, the issues of de-colonization, the non-aligned nations’ movement and other means of curbing totalitarian regimes and promoting democratic ones. Fast forward, the U.N. has become a bastion of autocracies to promote their images and pretend to be contributing to matters that they systematically crush and repress at home such as free speech and freedom of assembly. Is this an acceptable behavior? Would one not object to nations violating the very same ideals of the U.N., or to having dictators parade on stage just for the utopian principle of members’ equality? When the U.N. turns into a circus for rogue nations -that flaunt every ideal of liberty, freedom and human rights- facing off others who have spilled blood and spent treasure to uphold such ideals, it is high time to leave the building. China, Turkey, Russia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe, can run the asylum just fine. Others may join, but the happy rest can set-up shop across the street and continue to uphold universal ideals that need no large buildings, or blue logos to promote them, because they already enshrine them in their culture, constitution, and history.

Take NATO as another sample. The aim for post-war Europe was to de-militarize Germany, to bring France closer into the alliance, to maintain Britain’s special relation with the US, and for all of Western Europe to be strongly guarded against the mounting threat from behind the Berlin Wall.

Lately, loud moaning and desperate voices from liberals and conservatives alike at think tanks, universities, the media outlets and even government officials have surpassed all bounds. All declamations are warning -with frantic antics- of the imminent collapse of the world order that was set up by the victorious Western democracies in the aftermath of World War II. Institutions such as NATO, the U.N., WTO, and the European Union are increasingly under attack, or so claims this mixed bag of conservatives and liberals, by the ignoramus, the extreme right and the populists – read: President Donald J. Trump & acolytes.

The debate is legitimate, and this precious world order is worth saving, no doubt. But is it under attack, and is it truly in the throes of death? The answer is a resounding no, but one should, for the sake of debate, make some well-intended and much-needed clarifications into the notion of ‘world order’ and whom it was meant to serve. The world order was destined to serve the victorious Western democracies (the US, the British Commonwealth, and a ruined France), the defeated Western countries (Germany, Italy), and Japan, as well as others. The USSR was excluded but still present in all defense measures and treaties especially at the level of NATO. China too was not on the mind of the promoters of the the European Union, the WTO or NATO. The world has evolved since 1945, but these institutions have not, and they have extended their membership to more nations than anticipated. The issue is not one of overcrowding or of lack of space at the UN Hall in New York, but the lack of a level playing field between these new nations and the founding members, when it comes to abiding by the rules.

Take the U.N. for instance. Is it fair to have Finland, Sweden, New Zealand and the US aspire to sit on that same Human Rights Commission as say, Iran, China, Venezuela or Cuba? The divide is not East and West, or rich and poor, or progressive and conservative. Here it is about dictatorship and democracy. Who do you think in your right mind should be the proper candidates to oversee such a commission? Again, the matter is not one of race or discrimination or exclusion but rather one of shared principles and deeds just like in any other organization. If an organization promotes women rights it cannot conceivably have on its board a person accused and charged of domestic violence, can it? The U.N. of the past was concerned with the containment of the USSR, the issues of de-colonization, the non-aligned nations’ movement and other means of curbing totalitarian regimes and promoting democratic ones. Fast forward, the U.N. has become a bastion of autocracies to promote their images and pretend to be contributing to matters that they systematically crush and repress at home such as free speech and freedom of assembly. Is this an acceptable behavior? Would one not object to nations violating the very same ideals of the U.N., or to having dictators parade on stage just for the utopian principle of members’ equality? When the U.N. turns into a circus for rogue nations -that flaunt every ideal of liberty, freedom and human rights- facing off others who have spilled blood and spent treasure to uphold such ideals, it is high time to leave the building. China, Turkey, Russia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe, can run the asylum just fine. Others may join, but the happy rest can set-up shop across the street and continue to uphold universal ideals that need no large buildings, or blue logos to promote them, because they already enshrine them in their culture, constitution, and history.

Take NATO as another sample. The aim for post-war Europe was to de-militarize Germany, to bring France closer into the alliance, to maintain Britain’s special relation with the US, and for all of Western Europe to be strongly guarded against the mounting threat from behind the Berlin Wall. All went as clockwork till the collapse of that Wall. At such junction in history, a reunited Germany felt strong enough to find its own way, to cut its own deals with Europe, Russia and with the world at large and specially to get rid of the American security umbrella that protected it since 1945. At another level, globalization brought a bonanza to the developed nations of Europe -and chief amongst them Germany- to export products at unprecedented volumes. Europe became a global hub for a wide range of products and services. With a focus on reunification and globalization, contributions to NATO declined from all European members. The Big Brother in D.C. did not mind until it did. And, when it did, it was accused of being a nationalist, a populist and of abandoning Europe to its own fate. Rubbish and more of it, come to think about it. Russia’s partial invasion of Ukraine, and the annexation of Crimea came before Trump was ushered into the Oval Office. Russia’s serial assassinations of former KGB spies on UK soil predates the 2017 US elections. Furthermore, NATO members have not only fallen behind their financial obligations, they also have managed to nurture a wolf amongst them, namely, Turkey. A close Russian ally in the war on terrorism (aka the massacre of Syrian Kurds) and a reluctant NATO member who at some point denied NATO’s use of Incirlik air base, and at some other attacked the governments of Germany and Holland with a rhetoric worthy of a foe not a friend. Good luck fixing NATO without heeding the warnings of this US administration and accommodating a Turkey that has switched camps but in name only.

So, in short, the US is supposed to build the world order, maintain it, pay for it, fix it went it breaks down but when it points out to deviations from the original course it is accused of wrecking the system and causing its collapse.

The world order is not under attack, not from the US that is. The world order is under siege by the emerging non-democratic nations such as Russia and China, and their close consorts. The scorn and outrage of both conservatives and liberals in Western democracies should be directed at those flaunting the rules since joining the ‘club of nations’, not at those who wrote them.