So where is Europe at the dawn of a New World Order?

Date: 27/03/03

By Dana Spinant

WHEN President George W. Bush ordered the first cruise missiles and bombs to be unleashed against Iraq at dawn on 20 March, he did not just trigger the start of the Second Gulf War. He also signalled the dawning of a New World Order.

The crucial question is whether Europe can prevent this becoming a New World Disorder, in which any country - following the US example - can take pre-emptive action against any potential enemy of the future.

For Romano Prodi, the European Commission president, that is the nightmare scenario: "There is indeed this danger," he told European Voice after last week's Brussels summit. "This is why we insist that multilateral institutions, which have been hurt during these past few weeks, especially the United Nations, take an important role in everything that follows this war."

Chris Patten, the external relations commissioner, echoes that, declaring that the EU faces a "very clear choice" after the war. "We are at a crossroads - either we decide that the only way we can deal with the problems of the 21st century is to go back to the 19th century - in which you rely on national sovereignty, national interests and balance of power relationships" or "pull back together again the institutional shards left from this bruising encounter in the United Nations", he said in a recent interview with the Financial Times.

The world will not return to the pre-war order, based on international institutions and the US hyper-power playing the multilateral game.

Why? Because the Second Gulf War is not the cause of the New World Order, but the first expression of it.

The trigger is America's security strategy following the al-Qaeda terror attacks of 11 September 2001: a new military doctrine of pre-emptive war. Put simply, if Bush and his advisors believe the US is under threat, they will strike first.

"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.

"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively," states the US National Security Strategy of September 2002.

Iraq is the first practical application of this new doctrine, which opens the way to "wars of choice" as opposed to "wars of self-defence". Possible targets in the future are the other "axis of evil" countries Iran and North Korea, as well as "rogue", states such as Libya.

The new security strategy risks setting a dangerous precedent. North Korea could, logically, attack the US if it fears that Washington is planning strikes aimed at disarming Pyongyang.

How does this doctrine impact on multilateral institutions and how will it change the world order?

Pre-emptive diplomacy, coupled with Washington's unparalleled military power, will erode the role of international institutions such as the United Nations. The logic of pre-emption is that Washington needs to act - and quickly - if it feels that its people or its interests are under threat. Multilateral fora such as the UN are viewed by Washington's hardliners as a source of prevarication. It follows that international institutions are likely to be sacrificed on the altar of pre-emptive diplomacy - with Iraq being only the first to feel the results.

Carl Bildt, the EU's former high representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, argues that there is a gulf between the way in which Europe and America view multilateralism.

"European inclination to support an approach through multilateral institutions like the UN is based on the recognition that neither the European Union, nor any other international actor, has the broad-based power or the strategic patience to sort out major and difficult international issues all by itself.

"Thus, an amount of coalition-building is always called for, and the broader the international consensus that can be established, the greater are the possibilities of bringing the endeavour in question to a successful conclusion," the former Swedish premier wrote in a Centre for European Policy Studies' paper entitled Pre-emptive military action and the legitimacy of the use of force (13 January 2003).

As for Washington, "with unrivalled military power, and increased relative economic strength, the temptation to think that one can sort out all issues only with the US power is strong," he adds.

"Multilateralism and coalition-building can be portrayed as fettering the power of the US in chains and preventing it from taking the action needed to reorder the world in accordance with its values. If the aim is set, coalitions are welcome to assist in their execution.

"But it's the purpose that defines the coalition - not the other way around."

Bildt underlines that the US vision risks jeopardising the international regime organised around the UN: "The short-term advantages of breaking the established order [rapidity of action] could then rapidly be outweighed by the long-term disorder resulting in other areas and on other issues."

Can Europe prevent this New World Disorder?

The answer is yes, but only if it succeeds in creating a truly multipolar world in which it can match the US.

Robin Cook, the former British foreign secretary who resigned as leader of the House of Commons in protest against a war without UN backing, insisted in an interview with The Guardian that "not a rival, but an alternative pole within international relations" is needed.

This would mean the EU providing not only an economic but also a political counterweight to the US and speaking with "one voice" against American unilateralism. Britain, like France and Germany, must learn to channel every decision taken by the US on war or peace through the UN. "We must respect international institutions," says Cook.

A balanced multilateral system must be based on common priorities, and on shared ownership of such priorities.

"If we are going to have a multilateral system we've all got to have ownership of what the priorities are going to be,"he adds. In addition to security, such priorities must include the environment and development. "We are not going to win the international war against terrorism unless we also win the international war against poverty," the Scotsman underlines.

Although it is too early to predict how the future world order will look, in the long run it is clear that there is no alternative to international cooperation. This is Patten's conclusion, too: "If we are going to deal with problems ranging from international terrorism to weapons of mass destruction we can only do it by reinvigorating and strengthening multilateral institutions," he says.

The US will have to learn that no weapons will ever be invented to enable it to defeat terrorism on its own.

When President George W. Bush ordered the first cruise missiles and bombs to be unleashed against Iraq at dawn on 20 March 2003, he did not just trigger the start of the Second Gulf War. He also signalled the dawning of a New World Order.