posted 03-16-2003 08:44 PM               

The following article gives us yet another possible scenario to chew on. Hoople

***************************************************
Power and Interest News Report (PINR)
http://pinr.com
content@pinr.com
***************************************************

March 16, 2003:

To respond to this article, please contact content@pinr.com

******************************

"The defining of international order"
Drafted by Erich Marquardt on March 16, 2003

In the next few weeks, the future of international order will be determined. If the Bush administration chooses to invade Iraq after failing to secure United Nations approval, a precedent will be established encouraging states to pursue unilateralist rather than multilateralist policies. The failure of the U.N. to restrain the United States may spark a new wave of nationalism, where states no longer feel secure under the symbolic umbrella of international treaties and agreements. This will weaken global cooperation and increase the possibility for conflicts around the world.

The United States, formerly a public proponent of U.N. cooperation and multilateral arrangements, has shifted its national policy toward unilateralist action where the perceived interests of the U.S. are held sacred above all else. Withdrawing from the 1972 anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, rejecting the protocol to the bioweapons treaty, refusing to participate in the International Criminal Court, abandoning the Kyoto protocol and threatening preemptive warfare are all products of U.S. nationalism and unilateralism introduced by the current administration.

The upcoming decision about whether to invade Iraq will be paramount to the future of international order. If the United States invades Iraq without securing a Security Council resolution specifically approving an invasion, it will be following a nationalist, unilateralist policy rather than an internationalist, multilateral policy. Once the United States abandons multilateralism, other states will react in kind in order to secure their interests that are no longer protected by international agreements and alliances.

North Korea's bellicose foreign policy reflects this change. Pyongyang no longer feels secure by international assurances and is now attempting to strengthen its military by producing a large nuclear arsenal capable of deterring the United States from possible aggression. Iran has also reacted to the U.S. threat to operate outside of international restraint institutions like the United Nations. Tehran expressed its desire to control every aspect of its nuclear energy program, including the reprocessing of its spent fuel -- a procedure that can be used to develop nuclear weapons. If other powerful states also abandon multilateralism, global alliances will be replaced by smaller alliances, following the pattern set by the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing."

Larger powers such as France, Germany, Russia and China are against a U.S. invasion of Iraq because they do not want to abandon multilateralism. The reason that powerful states do not want to abandon multilateralism is because the United States stands unprecedented in its level of economic and military supremacy. Other states will have a hard time securing national interests in a world that is dominated by a colossal power that has abandoned international institutions.

However, if the United States actually does abandon multilateralism, by invading Iraq without U.N. approval, powers such as France, Germany, Russia and China may also abandon multilateralism in order to secure their interests against a power unrestrained by international agreements.

This danger is already becoming evident in the European Union. The initial plan for European integration was to bond all of Europe together. However, in order to weaken the unity of the European Union's resistance to U.S. plans in Iraq, the Bush administration divided the continent by splitting it into "Old Europe" and "New Europe." By rallying prospective E.U. member states behind American policy, the U.S. undercut E.U. unity, causing these future E.U. states to side with Washington rather than the rest of the Union. This undermined the current member states and caused E.U. policymakers to reassess the idea of further European integration; afraid to lose control over E.U. policy to U.S. interests that are no longer synonymous with their own, a reawakened French nationalism is now attempting to preserve their control over the body.

Therefore, the current debate over Iraq is merely a power struggle set on the world stage. Multilateralists such as Colin Powell would rather have the U.S. secure U.N. support, or an otherwise broad coalition before invading Iraq. Powell's purpose for this is that he does not want the U.S. to blatantly abandon multilateralism because it may hurt U.S. interests in the long term. The so-called "hawks" of the administration associated with the Pentagon are indifferent to the U.S.' failing to secure international support. These nationalists would like to see a U.S. unrestrained by international agreements, solely pursuing its own short-term interests even at the expense of other powerful states. As of now, the "hawks" are in control, expressed through U.S. willingness to attack Iraq with or without U.N. support.

If the U.S. continues to express its nationalism and invades Iraq without U.N. approval, nationalist sentiment could quickly spread throughout the world. If this occurs, it will increase the chance of future conflict as international institutions will be weakened and there will be a higher potency for the collision of nationalist interests between states.

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. PINR seeks to inform rather than persuade. This report may be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com.

posted 03-16-2003 10:14 PM               

And the plot thickens... when viewed in light of the long term, global repercussions against the multilateral model, a unilateral "my way or the highway" stance does paint a rather scary picture, and makes the "for or against this war" argument seem pale in contrast to a world where, pardon the expression, all Hell is breaking loose.