NEW WORLD ORDER.

• Author: Holliday, Sam C.
• Position: Essay

Editor's Note: A frequent contributor on Middle East topics takes a broad brush to paint a future for international affairs in the 21st century. Whether in this opinion piece he proves to be an accurate or an unrealistic prognosticator must be left to the future to determine. -Ed.

Events in North Africa and the Middle East suggest a fundamental change in international relations. This is a tsunami far greater than that caused by the earthquake off the coast of Japan--it foretells a new world order.

It is clear that many think the nation-state and nationalism are relics of the past and discredited political concepts--a legacy of 19th Century nationalism. However, there are four possible world systems for the 21st Century--one of which is a new version of nationalism.

1. The United States might remain a super power.

2. China, Europe, Russia, India, Brazil and an Islamic Caliphate might challenge the United States, creating a multipolar world of great powers.

3. The United Nations might become a world government.

4. Or, as suggested here, a new version of nationalism might provide stability, security, peace, and a better quality of life.

The United States is unlikely to remain a super power. Recently the United States has not demonstrated the will and determination to hold that status. From 1500 until 1914 European nation-states became the great powers of the world and together they were a super power. After World War I Japan became a great power and the United States surpassed all of them. However, since the 1960s there has been a weakening of the will and determination of the American people, even though the armed forces of the United States have been unchallengeable in conventional war. More telling has been an unwillingness to do what is necessary to maintain financial and economic superiority. Of added concern are the erosion of self-reliance and virtues (shared moral, ethic and religious beliefs), and an increase in bureaucracy.

Will future political leaders and the American people have the needed courage when faced with domestic and foreign threats? Or will they go wobbly? There is a movement to restore pre-1960 American exceptionalism, yet it probably will be defeated by postmodernism. Therefore, the United States is unlikely to remain a super power.

Since Charles De Gaulle there have been European leaders who wanted to challenge U.S. policies. Russia, China and Islamists have had the same goal. If they are successful, and are able to create their own spheres of influence, the result would be a multipolar world system of competing great powers. This would be a dangerous world since each of these powers might trigger a conflict capable of destroying most of the world. Such an outcome is unlikely to provide stability, security, peace, and an improved quality of life throughout the 21st Century.

Many dreamed of the League of Nations evolving into a world government--and that dream continued after 1945 with the United Nations. This dream is enhanced by unquestioning belief in "the rule of law" as a replacement for the use of force, by improved communication through technological changes, and by the desire of the elites to centralize power. If this dream became a reality it would mean the end of sovereignty, and an end of national interests as the key factor in international relations. The advocates of world government see a centralized world system as the only way to achieve peace and security.

Can we realistically expect an international system of many small sovereign nation-states to develop in the 21st century? Can we expect supranational organizations to be content with power limited to the regulation of commerce and communication within parameters prescribed by the nation-states? Can we expect nation-states to be the final authority on all matters of civil rights, civil responsibilities, education, justice, security, health, and welfare? Can international law be limited to law between sovereign nation-states--rather than aspiring to be a global legal system? Can we expect nation-states, as components of federations, to provide regional stability, peace and security? Probably the answer to all of these questions is no, unless there is consensus on the ideal international system of sovereign nation-states, plus considerable effort over many years to achieve that goal. The purpose of this essay is to present such an ideal and to suggest a realistic path to that goal.

Nationalism and Multilateralism

Some have claimed that much of what the U.S. has done since the Cold War was illegal since many operations by U.S. armed forces were not sanctioned by United Nations resolutions. Those who would give the U.N. sole authority on issues of international security and peace are convinced that nationalism is a cause of war; they do not see nationalism as a means for achieving stability, which is a prerequisite for peace and security. Those holding such views also propose strengthening the military capability of the U.N., and giving the U.N...