London, (RIA Novosti, Pavel Andreyev). The history is in the making. It is being created almost day after day by tireless efforts to promote the agenda. Everybody does it.
Every country does it. It is just the question of who has more capability to push it ahead.
Despite the recent discussions I witnessed at the Davos Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum about the demise of the American unilateralism and the need to re-shape the world system to appreciate the interest of the others, the recent developments in Kosovo, as well as the plans to shoot down a rogue satellite (i.e. to test National Missile Defence system) prove the opposite.
The world is changing. But not in the direction the wishful thinkers at Davos hope. The trends were setup before - during the "humanitarian intervention" (i.e. bombing) in Yugoslavia in 1999, war in Iraq in 2003, US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 and plans to put in place the ABM elements in Europe in 2005.
The world is swiftly being driven away from the Westphalian Order of international relations. Dating back to mid-17 century, this system cut down on half a century of religious wars in Europe and provided for the basic principles of the national sovereignty - the territorial integrity and non-interference with the domestic affairs of the sovereign states. These principles, however old they are, were the paramount of the international law ever since and were reiterated in the UN Charter for the post-World War 2 world order.
Today they sound more of a joke. But a bitter one. The states are no longer free to act within there own territory. Moreover, they may no longer be sure that this territory will exist at all without their own consent to disband it. This is all now at a courtesy of the powers beyond their reach.
Even more troubling is that the international institutions, like the UN, OSCE etc., which are there to check and balance and, indeed, take the decisions to resolute crises no longer serve this objective. It's unclear how they see their task now, but not taking decisions, as well as stretching and twisting the decisions taken before definitely does not serve the purpose of the universal mediator.
Another vicious trend, which has been developing is the furthermore upswinging arms race. What is more troubling it has been instigated by only one side. One could argue, that, indeed, the Chinese, Russians and rogue states are in the race too. Having said that, it is obvious that the initiative here lies beyond the Atlantic ocean. China, Russia and the six rogue states spend hardly a third of the US military budget. And none of them have acknowledged new deployment plans, meanwhile the US are pushing hard forward the agenda of further NATO expansion and ABM elements installation.
So were does it bring us in terms of the new world order? An uncertain future full of separatist movements, curtailed by punitive actions of the powers, which have the mandate to act like that from the superpower. Others will emerge as a controlled territory, rather than a sovereign state, on the wish of the superpower and its allies to serve the purpose prescribed to them. Considering the number of frozen conflicts worldwide this may well become the way to re-shape the world to one's taste. However, this would also entail protests and deviant policies of some members of the international community at least until they are cracked down upon by the superpower, which means essentially a World War 3.
A "better" option of redefining the world map is the notorious 1944 "napkin agreement" way with its zones of influence divided between the main international players. This would create a temporary status-quo, which will not, however, eradicate the tensions and ultimately end in a Cold War 2.
But even the latter scenario, let alone the multipolar just world order, which would respect the justified interests of the members of the international community and the paramount of sovereignity, would require an important skill, which seems to have evaporated from the international relations today. Essentially - diplomacy.
Any agreement, even a "napkin one" or may be "the napkin one" most of all, requires a dialogue and opportunities for mutually acceptable concessions. And there is no window of opportunity for that today.
Instead of sitting down and working out the solutions the powers are resorting to megaphone diplomacy, rather announcing their own decisions. What once was discussed and decided in the intimacy of the diplomatic circles, today is trumpeted on the broad sheets of the newspapers and live broadcasting.
This in turn does leave indeed little room for further political manoeuvre and, indeed, a dialogue. In which case, the above-mentioned options for the future are shrinking to one. But is it the one, which we want?
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
