Acid test for post-Cold War world

An ASEAN meet has just ended in Cambodia, without a joint declaration being issued at the end of it, reports said. Apparently, ASEAN could not arrive at a consensus on some hotly-debated issues relating to China. As is well known, China and some ASEAN members are making rival sovereignty claims over the South China Sea and this had bedeviled the ASEAN deliberations. In fact, commentators are now prone to describe the South China Sea as a ‘flashpoint’ region of the world.

Meanwhile, reports also said that the US has deployed a fleet of robot submarines in the Gulf to ‘prevent Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormus with mines in the event of a crisis.’ US anxiety in the Gulf is basically sourced by the consideration that she would be deprived of a considerable proportion of her oil supplies in the event of an armed confrontation between the West and Iran over the latter’s nuclear enrichment-related issues which have had both sides on a collision course over the past few months.

If there was some doubt among sections of world opinion on the role perceived national interest plays in contemporary international political conflicts, the above developments should help clear it. While it is amply clear that we now live in a multi-polar world, as opposed to the bipolar international political order which was dominant in the first few decades after the Second World War, a rough gauge could be arrived at of the degree to which perceived national interest predominantly drives states in their relations with each other in contemporary times, on scrutinizing the just mentioned developments.

Energy resources

China is reportedly claiming sovereignty over the South China Sea which is rich in strategic and other resources but so are some other states of South East Asia. A few weeks back, the Philippines, for instance, confronted China somewhat dangerously in the South China Sea but the Philippines is not alone in thus challenging China’s claim to sovereignty. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise if ASEAN has failed to arrive at a consensus on some of the issues facing it.

Likewise, in the case of the Gulf, it should be clear that the US is not making regional and possibly world peace vital considerations when it seeks to boost its military presence in the region. Oil and other energy resources are of predominant interest to the US and it is plain to see it would not be depending entirely on diplomacy in resolving its issues with Iran.

Accordingly, the major powers, in particular, are increasingly prone to side-step any collective thinking and multilateral approaches when addressing and resolving issues that touch very closely on what are considered their national interests. This tendency is increasingly on the ascendant in these times when multi-polarity or the dominance of international politics by a multiplicity of powers is very much to the fore.

World politics

This is in stark contrast to former times when bipolarity was the predominant hallmark of world politics. That is, when the confrontation between the former rival superpowers, the US and the USSR, and the consequent competition for global influence and power between them, basically defined the essence of international politics. Under the latter dispensation, there was less space and opportunity for interstate conflicts driven by national interests because the ideological confrontation between the superpowers determined the course and complexion of international politics.

It is in consideration of these broad contemporary tendencies that some commentators are compelled to observe that the present international political order is ‘anarchic.’ That is, the proclivity is on the increase for major powers in particular to act mainly in accordance with their individual interests, with less consideration being given to international collective undertakings and what have come to be seen as the norms and values of consensual international conduct. Logically, when states are driven predominantly self interest, international security is threatened unprecedentedly and this is the reason why ‘anarchy’ could be seen to be on the rise.

It does not follow that the bipolar times of the past are preferable to the present. The Cold War brought its own ills but there was less ‘anarchy’ in the sense we define it here. The international community is obliged, in view of these realities, to think afresh about ways of forging consensual thinking, conduct and harmonious coexistence among states. With more and more states in Asia, in particular, attaining big power states, these undertakings become increasingly urgent.