Giorgi baRaTuria

Рецензент – профессор Кети Джиджеишвили, Грузинский тхнический университет
Khatuna Chapichadze
The New World Order under Neoliberal Development
(Facts, Accents, the Analysis)
Summary. The article critically discusses the New World Order, assesses the political and geopolitical processes throughout the world, and presents various opinions of experts and politicians.
It also offers our conclusions and points about the consequences of the war in Caucasus, in August, 2008, and stresses that the unipolar World Order has finished, replacing it by the multipolar system.
Keywords: The New World Order; Neoliberalism; Globalization; the Cold War; the Recession; International actor; the Multipolar World; the “Era of Globalization”; the “Unipolar Moment”; the “End of History”; the “Clash of Civilizations”; the “Frozen Conflict”; Democratization;
***
"This is not the first time the world has faced this question - so fundamental and far-reaching. In the 1940s, after the greatest of wars, visionaries in America and elsewhere looked ahead to a new world and - in their day and for their times -- built a new world order”. [1] (From Globalization: speech given by the current United Kingdom Prime Minister (that time, Chancellor), Gordon Brown, at the Press Club Washington, 17 December, 2001.)
Today the question of the New World Order arises with great actuality in International Relations theory and practice for the new and further interpretations and implementations. During its whole history and Woodrow Wilson’s well-known initiative, to provide the peace for the damaged Europe, suffering from the results of World War I, the idea of the New World Order as timely as nowadays was only after the end of the Cold War.
To look into the history shortly, it was the Recession of 1991-1992, which finally killed the new popular global idea within the White House [2], about the liberal institutionalization of the globe and the universal establishment of the “rule of law”, having been considered as one of the major value among other principles of such a fair concept about the New World Order. It was the fatal moment which determined development of the unipolar world system with the dominance of the only superpower (the US) after experiencing bipolar global reality before, during the Cold War, instead of formation of multipolar and pluralistic world with its progressive liberal mechanisms. Thus, the outcome received was disproportionate international political reality.
Accordingly, it is note-worthy to mention that massive criticism begun of the New World Order in American and European mass-media from the early 90-es [3] [4], as the picture was not effectively accentuating liberals’ points about nuclear disarmament, UN strengthening, great powers’ cooperation on international economic problems and security issues, also regarding expanding of NATO and European integration as well as about protection of Human Rights and polarization of the international system with equal participation of each international actor in it.
Along with Hans Kochler [5], Anne-Marie Slaughter [6] and other political analysts and experts, Samuel Huntington published a critical assessment of the notion of “new world order” and of Francis Fukuyama’s End of History theory in his Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1993-1996), describing the term as “an illusion of harmony, generated at the moment of euphoria at the end of the Cold War, [where] “the word “genocide” [had been] heard far more often than in any five years of the Cold War.” [7]
The frustrations replaced the notion of “new world order” by prominent ideas of the “era of globalization”, the “unipolar moment”, the “end of history” and the “Clash of Civilizations” [8] about the post-Cold War order development. And the old popular “new world order” practically disappeared until Bill Clinton’s presidency [9].
It is the period since 2000-s, when the concept comes back to describe at least some aspects of global reality. Former UK Prime Minister and current British Middle East envoy, Toni Blair frequently uses the term in his speeches during 2000-2003, discussing the “new world order” in the context of “new consensus” and underlining the meanings of “shared agenda” and of “global partnership” for doing it. (See, the speech of UK Prime Minister, Toni Blair to Foreign Office Conference on January 7, 2003.) [10]
We have already quoted Gordon Brown, current Prime Minister of UK, however it is considerable to mention his speech in New Delhi on January 21, 2008 [11], where he called for the New World Order that should fit the new challenges of the post-Cold War globalizing world through radically reformed “rules of game” and international institutions (World Bank, IMF, G8, UN, Transnational Corporations, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, NATO and US as a separate international actor). In this list we would also include so called Bilderberg Group as an unofficial, but influential global decision-maker.
Against current world financial crisis, it is note-worthy to discuss the article by Jeffrey Garten, which he wrote for the Financial Times, published in September of 2008 [12], where the Yale School of Management professor, the US Council on Foreign Relations member and the former Director General of Lehman Brothers gave the new definition of the New World Order and practically replaced it by the term – New Global Monetary Authority (GMA) that according to the author of the idea, will reestablish the New World that will be led by the only major international economic organization, responsible for policy-making worldwide.
In the final part of the article we aim to introduce our conclusions and points about the consequences of the war in Caucasus, in August, 2008.
First of all we should note that we share the opinion that the Russian-Georgian War has undoubtedly revaluated the global configuration even more than September 11, 2001, and has sharply changed it. (See, Rein Mullerson, The World After the Russian-Georgian War, September 15, 2008.) [13]
After the Cold War until now, despite terrorism, general international security problems and Global Warming, the New World Order was more or less stable in its political, legal, social-economic and geopolitical development. After August, 2008, Russian Federation, as it appears, de facto and de jure successor of the Soviet Union, with its political and military administration, presented by the former USSR’s KGB staff [14], introduced itself to the whole world as a direct occupant of the sovereign neighbor state, Georgia, legitimating it absolutely illegally by recognizing the sovereignty of Georgia’s autonomies, Abkhazia and so called, South Ossetia (originally, Samachablo) [15].
As a first consequence for the global changes, the events, mentioned above, show that there are no “frozen conflicts” at all and that they extremely shortly can turn into “hot spots”, especially, when there are participating Russia’s interests. Thus, the main international stability and military balance becomes quite critical in new century, and more efficient need suggests conducting more effective diplomacy, as a major priority for conflict-resolution. The myth about historical character of direct occupations and annexes in the epoch of globalization and during century 21 cleared away.
Globally is being intensified the question of legal statuses of “conflict zones” in general, and also, of the status for occupied territories that is directly linked to the territorial integrity of sovereign states, to one of the fundamental principles of international politics and international law.
After Russian recognition of Georgia’s sovereign territories: Abkhazia and “South Ossetia” (August 26, 2008) as independent states, the New World faces ripe ground for separatism (e.g. the same Russia’s federal units: Ingushetia, Bashkiria and Tatarstan are demanding independence since August, 2008 [16].).
Russia appears as the unstable and unreliable partner for other international actors and countries with whom it cooperates on fighting against terrorism, Disarmament campaign, overcoming Global Warming, etc. It contradicts even its strategic allies (China, India), which was already clear at Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Dushanbe, in later August, 2008 [17].
One more myth that cleared away after August, 2008, is that the possibility and real ability of democratization of Russia appears the same illusion as the end of the Cold War. Reforms by Yeltsin, the most democrat Russian leader, died quite early, before Putin.
Russia’s dominant economic power and its ownership of main energetic resources in Europe, supplying Putin - Medvedev’s totalitarian regime by the efficient instrument to control the decisions of leading European countries, can be overcome through Nabuko Gas Pipeline, the prospects of which has to be taken into consideration when assessing contemporary international reality and analyzing its possible development(s).
The main huge consequence of the Russian-Georgian War, affecting the global and international systems in such a dramatic way, is that the unipolar World Order, not having been authoritarian however, and existing less than 20 years, is finished; US no longer remains the only superpower. Apparently, the “August of 2008” has given birth to the New World Order with destructive, self-destructive, unreliable, unstable, totalitarian and absolutely unpredictable old player, direct successor of the Soviet Union, Russia.
Finally, I would quote Henry Kissinger, the well-known political analyst. When asked on television by CNBC anchors about what he suggests Barack Obama focus on during the current Israeli crises he replied that it is a time to reevaluate American foreign policy and that a, ““he can give new impetus to American foreign policy … I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a ‘new world order’ can be created. It’s a great opportunity. It isn’t such a crisis.”” [18]