The World Order

The World Order

What does it mean to talk about world order? This is a question that has attracted a lot of controversies. A critical review of the concept reveals that there have been three distinguished efforts made towards realizing the vision of the world order. These include the formation of the League of Nations, that of the United Nations and finally the attempt to globalize the world operations. However, irrespective of the wide use of the concept of world order, there has been a controversy as to what the concept really means. This controversy is attributed to the fact that the concept, apart from being elusive, has a lot of confusions in its definition. However, the concept has in most cases been used in describing the various aspects of international scenarios arising from post Cold War and other major events like the wars in the Middle East, which attracted the attention of the world.

This paper will endeavor to reveal what the world order would actually mean and the various human and structural transformation processes that can help realize it. The definition offered in this study will, thus, be normative to the appropriate forms of human transformations.  Methodologically, the paper will employ historical analysis, especially the overriding debate of the acceptable post-Cold War international system as its primary methodology in revealing what is meant by world order. The improved world order will, thus, constitute the dependent variable while the various forms of political and humanistic transformations will constitute dependent variables.

To be more specific, the attainability of world order would mean that the world would be ruled by one government as well as monetary system. It is also feared that the realization of this vision will see a few individual restricting the population of the world to their own advantage. That is, population growth will be restricted through implementation of such policies as would greatly reduce the number of children each family would be allowed to have. However, I personally believe that for the people who are looking at the concept in terms of its contributions, such an initiative is acceptable as it will result into the reduction of famines, diseases, and wars related to overpopulation.

Another fear is that just as is witnessed in the relationship between the super powers such as America and the relatively poor nations like Iraq, a dominant system may emerge where we only have rulers and their servants and not the middle class. It will also be interesting to see how its champions will realize a scenario where the whole world will be guided by a uniform law with a single legal system in which world courts will be observing the provided uniform codes of law which will be enjoying the back up of a welfare state. As is witnessed in the regions of the world where there has not been peace like the Middle East, there will be categorization of the nations into those obedient to the world government and those who are not. The rebellious nations will thus be seen as enemies of peace and therefore of the nations that are supporting world order. Such nations will face such measures as sanctions with their citizens being forced to starve for food and other social amenities.

Moreover, as has been the case with Iraq, such nations will be vulnerable to any group/nations which would want to advance an attack on them since such attempts by a cooperating nation will always receive the support of the other nations which are for peace. Another issue which will also likely to present a real barrier to this initiative would be the prohibition of private ownership of firearms. This has been the main reason behind the U.S and world’s involvement in Iraq which is believed to be carrying out illegal programs for mass destruction weapons.

Much of the controversies that surround the possibility of achieving world order therefore stems from the originators of the concept. However, even with these controversies, I still do believe there is enough momentum which will finally make this vision attainable. The concept seems to slowly be gaining its roots and will affect every nation and all people across the globe. Initially, the concept was common among highly developed nations and even among these nations; it was also limited to individuals who were believed to be very powerful and therefore influential. The personalities emanated from various categories including the political class, the elites in the corporate world and those who were very wealthy. These groups had a goal of creation of a government that would control the whole world. However, the challenges had been getting the support of the of the individual nations back up a form of transformation that would see them lose their sovereignty through the removal of regional as well as nationalistic boundaries with the intention of these nations being obedient to the group.

Those championing for world order have also been viewed as people who have no common agenda for the world but who simply want to have control over all the human beings on the Earth surface. The next question is therefore whether it would be possible for the world to realize world order. I will say a big yes as well as no to this question. Reading the documents by the United Nations will leave one with no doubt over the possibility of realizing the vision of world order. Moreover, the UN has for example, come up with treaties which are waiting for the individual nation’’ ratification to give way to the international law. It can be argued that with the dilution of the world high hopes for peace after the major world wars, the individual nations may have no otherwise but to support the establishment and reinforcement of some form of international rule as well as the empowerment of such independent body like the UN nations to control actions taken individual states. .

Albeit conflicting definitions of the world order, various studies can reveal the various meanings of the concepts and the way in which people’s perception has changed over time. For instance, having read the works of scholars like Marvin F.S, one would want to believe that it’s the League of Nations that had set the ground for the establishment of world order. This argument is based on the fact that after its formation, the League of Nations provided an important form of international symbols. However, this was neither the beginning nor the end of the pursuit towards the realization of the world order, but rather understanding of this concept as the symbol of world cooperation. The League of Nations served as a great movement that brought together a number of organizations with the common aim of disposing various measures towards the realization of the world unity. The movement, therefore, marked the beginning of the journey towards the realization of the world unity while decreasing the aspects of nationality or sovereignty in their common understanding. However, it failed in fulfilling its goals based on the fact that it lacked the support majorly from the Americans, who were seen as isolationists.

The study on the world unity was, however, revitalized after the World War II. The driving force in this case was the UN, which identified and wanted to correct the gaps that may have presented a barrier to the success of the League of Nations. Though it realized greater headway towards the realization of the world order, the UN also failed in its attempt to meet the requirements of the latter, due to the frictions that were experienced between the major powers as a result of discrepancy in their ideologies as was marked by the Cold War. The sharp differences between the United States and the Soviet Union were based on human internalization of various ideas, socialization and capitalization.

Other forces that have since contributed to the hope of realizing the world order include the end of the Cold War and the falling of the Berlin Wall. However, with the various transformations came the concept of the new world order which is attributed to the former U.S. president George Bush. The use of the term gained its popularity especially among the political class of the 1990 when he used the term while delivering his speech to the joint Congress session. Even with its wide usage, people have not come to an agreement of what the term should be taken to mean. However, world order has been used in the description of a number of contemporary issues such as economic interdependence, the rise of nationalism and fragmentation, the post Cold War balance of power, and the advancement in technology as well as integration. That is, every human issue that has undergone transformation and appears to have made humans react differently to the international issues.

The first interpretation of world order is, thus, based on world politics. Realists have often been in the limelight arguing that balancing of power results from the international politics implemented among the sovereign states. Having seen the effects of having one major super power like the U.S., one can be persuaded to agree with their assertion that world order can only be realized when power is distributed in a stable manner among the states which are seen as major. On the other hand, the Liberalists in their definition of world order consider both the relationship between states and that among people. This definition may as well be very convincing to those who have analyzed into depth the reasons for the internal and external wars in certain nations. For example, citizens of the Middle East nations which do witness more case of human rights’ violation and those in Africa which suffers the effect of abuse of political power by autocratic leaders may support the assertion that world order can only arise from such major human values as human rights and democracy. Such relationships can also be reinforced through human transformation as resulting from the establishment of various international laws and international based institutions like the United Nations.

The concept of world order may also imply a situation in which such international institutions like the United Nations step up their role in the management of the global affairs, which is regarded as globalist point of view. On the other hand, idealists have stated that the concept of world order is simply used to describe the fact that the present world situation is far much different in a number of aspects from the past. That is, the acknowledgement of the human and structural transformations that have taken place especially since the time of the World Wars.

The case in history that brought this debate to the public arena was the speech delivered by George Bush. To a certain group the then president of the United States meant that there was a possibility of the international relations being based on a new structure with the guiding principles of observing international law with the United Nations being granted more power and roles in the management of the world affairs. Others have simply interpreted his use of the term world order to mean that the president wanted to win the support of the public and other governments to come to the aid of the North in their war which was basically against the rebellious South.

This description, therefore, presents three different paradigms of the world order which have since remained to be of concern for anyone who would want to carry out any further research on this topic since they all continue to affect this debate. First is the globalists’ view-point which stresses the need for a global kind of management and the United Nations, which focused on the need for balance of power or the realists, and finally, those, who limit their focus to the simple identification of change. The debate about what would George Bush obtain with the current US foreign policy, was taken to another level when he was making clear his plan to be hostile to Iraq as an attempt to secure world order.

It is good to dig elaborate on this issue since the opinions of such leaders are influential to the world politics. For instance, Those who sides with Bush’s notion of world order have always seen any nation’s hostility as a chance for building up a new world order and therefore supported such actions as sanctions being taken against the nations that are perceived as rebels. In the speech, Bush described his perception of the new state as an arrangement where the conducts of nations are governed by the rule of law. In addition, he believes that in such situation, the United Nations while holding to its credibility should be able to, through its mandate of peacekeeping, ensure that the promise and vision that were propagated by the founders of the United Nations are fulfilled. The United States former president’s interpretation of the world order, therefore, clearly points to his belief on the interpretation offered by the globalists.

Equally, the events like the current wars in the Middle East, the genocide during the WW II in China, as well as the plight of the raped people in the third world countries were not just one country affairs, but the global world issues to as a way of ensuring that there is a state of order in the world. Such wars do attract the attention of the international community since they always trigger violation of human rights as well as misuse of power which are against the spirit of world order. With such understanding, it may be argued that there is need for such international like the United Nations to help especially through their peace keeping role. The aspect of respect for universal human rights will also be looked at in relation to the need for the nations to adhere to the rule of law in the way in which they conduct themselves.

This write up will focus on attaining the in depth analysis of the meaning of the concept, and various human transformations that would be necessary if the desired world order is to be realized. Structurally, the write up will also look at the various mechanisms that will have to be put in place to ensure that the changes which are necessary for the realization of world order are put in place. Finally, the write up will seek to present the implication of the implementation of such measures. For example, the development of the UN itself was as a result of the WW II and the peace studies that followed thereafter. People’s focus is slowly changing from the events that transpired during the war to how the structure and future responsibilities of the UN organization would be.

For a better understanding of world order, one may also want to compare the present and past scenarios. For example it is evidenced that with the Moscow new policy which saw it cooperating with Washington in the application of the UN doctrine, the collective security against Baghdad, resulting from the reduction in the power held by the Soviet Union, the old world order which was initially based on the liberal institutional order was giving way to the establishment of the new world order. The initial vision that was based on the liberal institutional order had been driven by the peace studies and the war by the Councils of Foreign Relations.

However, the idea of the world order has not come without challenges. One of such challenges to its vision has been on how to have a balance between the need to give the states a chance of enjoying their national sovereignty and the need for reinforcing universal order. Other arguments like that which holds that the concept of sovereignty as put by the leaders of the individual nations was a mere fetishism are also in favor of the need to create an international society and not sovereign nations. That is, the realization of world order would ensure that the society would be physically secure and culturally free while at the same time more economically stable. He particularly identified the need for nations to advance their economic interdependence as the best way to help erode the various barriers existing between the nations.

Another issue that has to be considered is that of security. Most studies that have been conducted in this line have emphasized that for the effectiveness in handling international disorders to be realized, there will be the need to hand over the policing responsibility to the United Nations. Some scholars have also recommended the need for the formation of a police-like force which will be able to operate internationally. Some leader have argued for the need to assign national forces whole units on a rotating basis of 2 years to the UN command  instead of creating a true multinational army. Those who advance such an argument have reservations for the establishment of a permanent multinational police-force of the UN. The argument here is that if it was to be given a centralized Chief of Staff which lacks nationality and has not been restrained by having to be loyal to the laws of his/her nation, then he would curve out his own Napoleonic future.

Another international policing strategy has also emphasized that the difficulty in establishing effective international army would be solved through granting air power. The main argument of the policy is that this kind of power could grant a chance for awesome destructiveness even with fewer personnel. The policy also holds that it is when the international community can be able to access the air power that the individual states can become indefensible. This position resembles one of the feudal castle which resulted from the usage of gun power. It was evidenced during these wars that the state-based powers had no significant air force. This made them to resist the bombers and fighters who were acting under the direction of the UN. It is thus convincing for one to argue that the nations violating the world peace would best be dealt with through having an air force with an international backup to ensure that the violators are reacted to through quick and certain retribution. That is, it is through such actions that people will be able to have a feeling of world citizenship and a real meaning of life.

Certain scholars have, therefore, argued that the Gulf war and the current wars taking place in the Middle East denote the fulfillment of such visions. It is noted that the Gulf War was majorly carried out by coalition of different nations’ air forces under the authority of the United Nations. This team provided retribution against Iraq which was perceived to have violated the world order. While supporting the action, the then president of the US George Bush, argued that there was already the feeling of world citizenship and used it to defend the action that had been taken. He expressed his hopes that the horror caused by the combat would make Iraq to finally accept that the world was going to unite irrespective of any nation’s resistance. He, thus, persuaded Iraq to come in togetherness with family of those nations which had showed their support for the world peace to avoid being isolated.

Another argument is that it is necessary that an intermediate arrangement be formed to enable the world’s transition from the experienced world wars and world sovereignty. According to this argument, the next step in achieving the world sovereignty would be the setting up of a security arrangement with the regional security under the authority of the combination between the forces from the Soviet Union, the United States, China and the Great Britain. One can also argue that for regionalism to be successful in catalyzing international integration, it will have to remain flexible and informal in its functioning.

However, some interpretations are obviously made to favor the super powers. For instance, the Council of Foreign Relations supported the opinion of having the definition of the US interest widened to include the application of the military force in any country in which it feels that there is a threat to peace. That is, the belief that those, who present a threat to the world peace must be blocked through a joined force. What would however be difficult is the identification how to come up with criteria which would help in the identification of the aggressors. However, this has since been done by the Armament group which has defined an aggressor as that nation with a commitment to overt acts of military or that which has been steadfast in its refusal to hand over the dispute it has to an international agency, and finally, that nation which has shown its unwillingness to comply with the directives given by the international agencies.

From this discussion, it is, thus, clear that various structural transformations are necessary in providing the necessary foundation towards the achievement of the world order which will be characterized by the transitional sovereignty which will support interdependence of the various nations economically and a collective security which will work towards ensuring that international order is maintained. The collective security will basically be an international police force which will be commanded by a central authority, – the United Nations. In addition, the world order will also be characterized by the various national actions which are basically carried out in the interest of individual nations. Instead, actions that will be undertaken will seek to serve the common interest of all the nations and against the states which are found to be aggressors.

Though the framework of the vision of the world order as has been provided, its realization may take a long time, due to the fact that it may not be easy for the status quo to be changed to ensure greater world sovereignty. Such shift would require the participation of the United States in numerous conferences in a bid to create the world order. It is also argued that there will have to be regional arrangements which are perceived as being able to act as a stepping stone to the realization of the world order.

Another structural component of the world order would be the rule of law which governs the way in which individual nations conduct themselves. The debate of the need for international laws to govern the post-Cold War world has been ongoing. According to scholars like Henry Kissinger, the conventional American thinking is in support of the argument that the new world order can only be realized with the establishment of appropriate set of legal arrangements. The big question has, therefore, been on the best way in which the international legal arrangements can be implemented and how it should relate to the United Nations. Scholars have, therefore, called for the establishment of an authoritative UN and various treaties properly formulated which are superior to the laws of the individual nations. Such treaties should be able to affect the way in which the states interrelate.

However, calls have been made on the need for the policy experts to ensure that such laws do not affect the ways in which individual governments relate to their citizens. Such ratifications have not come without opposition for fear over dominance of the nations. For example, a case is cited in which a group of American elites came together in 1950s to address their fear of legally empowering the United Nations over the individual nations through its treaties. There have also been attempts towards making the UN member states accept the role of the international court of Justice with them being called upon to fully give in to the Article 36 of the Statutes of the International court in the 1990s.

World Order Based of Transformation of Human Nature

The transformation and the ultimate acceptance of the world order would not be possible if human themselves are not transformed in their nature. Violence is normally understood to be resulting from the fact the human beings are imperfect and do crave for fulfillments of which some would be going against the spirit of peace. This explains why, for example, individuals in the Islamic countries would feel so much obliged to carry out a terror attack on a nation that they consider as an enemy to the realization of their individual and collective dream and thus survival. Such individual do believe that there can never be coexistence without at least some level of conflict since, to them; it is wars which enables the achievement of both individual as well as national goals.

An example of such scholars is Sigmund Freud who believed that aggressiveness is part and parcel of human beings. According to his explanation, the aggressive nature of human beings explains why people may be reluctant to enter into any peace agreements or such movements as would be initiated with the purpose of restoring peace. Instead, such individuals will tend to oppose any attempt by those in the position of leadership to persuade them into uniting with other regions. In fact, those who believe in this notion do believe there can never be a situation of absolute peace without certain aspects of conflict. That is, conflict is part and parcel of the society and presents a ladder through which individuals and nations ascends to higher position.

This partly explains why realizing world order will never be an easy task. For instance, the attempts like that of the United States to ensure peace in the Middle East has been interpreted as a form of suppression of nations like Iraq. Looking at what has happened in some of the nations like Germany, during the reign of Hitler in the past, it is also clear that there are occasions in which citizens have been triggered to enter into wars by their leaders. Such notions are always deeply internalized and present real barrier to the realization of world order.

However, there are a number of ways in which such human nature presenting barriers to world order can be dealt with to ensure their transformation which will eventually lead to world order. One of the ways through human transformation can be realized through conceptualization of the evolution values thinking and actions that can support the realization of the needed transnational framework. There are four basic human values that are useful in this case. These include: reduction of collective violence occurring at a large scale, the possibility of the establishment of conditions that would ensure political justice and the realization of those human rights considered as fundamental, the maximization of both economic as well as social well-being, and finally, the promotion of a sustainable environment through rehabilitating and maintaining the environmental quality. The latter value majorly deals with the conservation of resources.

To ensure such transformations, it is necessary for the world leaders to define the various issues as well as policies that would help come up with an appropriate response to the scenario that prevailed in the post Cold War period. These scenarios included the need to empower the relief agencies and that of the individual governments and all people to ensure that those who fall victims of natural disaster are protected. That is, the leaders should embrace an integrated approach taking into account both the social and economic issues. The concept has shown some level of success in changing the mindset of people in regard to world order in disaster stricken countries like Rwanda and Somalia with the United States adopting as its military mission humanitarian assistance.

It has also been argued that for the United Nations to be internationalized, the world will have to be convinced of its credibility in handling matters of international importance like that of its peacekeeping role. This concept is contained in the Article 42 of the Security Council’s Charter which grants the council the authority to take actions aimed at restoring and maintaining peace and security at the international level. However, it states that such actions should only be limited to situations in which various attempts to settle the scenario in a peaceful means has failed.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Though the attempts to put into place a world order started way before the 1990s, much efforts have been realized in the post Cold War period. Its visions have remained constant for a long time with specific variation in the strategies that are being put in place for their attainment. Such events as the World Wars and the Cold War stepped up the momentum for the attempts being put in place towards the realization of the world order as a quick solution to the prevention of vices like the violation of human rights becomes inevitable. Before the 1990s, attempts by the President George Bush were two other attempts manifested in the form of the League of Nations and later the United Nations. It is noted that unlike the first two, the third attempt towards the achievement of the world order became more complicated.

It is clear that the realization of the world order may, therefore, require the pursuit of three different paths. The first step would be that giving more powers to the UN and the other related world institutions to enable them secure the submission of the individual states. The second paths that can also be pursued is putting measures in place to support evolutionary regionalism where various regions develop into entities with legal, political, and economic arrangements which can allow binding together of the member states. The third option would be promotion of the idea of piecemeal functionalism. For this option, the international interdependence will be realized through ionization of such issues as environmental conservation, control on the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction and control of economics and trade. Finally, for a positive transformation, there will be the need for the change of people’s perspectives especially those which make people believe on war as part of the solution to their problems.

For the new world order where every nation is under the rule of law while the United Nations is also credible in exercising its rule of law, a number of adjustments will have to be made. The Foreign Relations Council and the other relevant organizations will have to be empowered to be able to shape the vision and the necessary strategies that can enable the realization of the world order. Secondly, the organizations will have to attain a great level of influence on the US foreign policy. Thirdly, there will have to be the realization of the need for the actual sovereignty transition from that based on the individual nations to the international level. This will come with the international body granting the UN more power and authority to enable it ensures that the rule of law prevails. Finally, the will also have to be the shifting of attention of the individual nations from their own interests to such issues considered to be of the international interest.