Part 2 : Research for a new world order since 1991 At the end of the Cold War in 1991, the collapse of the USSR Empire had two main consequences : The first consequence is that the United States become the winners of the Cold War, without having fought directly their opponent. We pass from a bipolar world to a unipolar world. The United States became the only superpower, status which they exploit in 1991 during the Gulf War by obtaining moreover the support of the previous republic of the USSR, which was two years previously their sworn enemy. The second consequence is the rise of the nationalisms (will for people to create their own state and to protect their nation against presumed enemies) in Europe, what provokes multiplication of States in Central and eastern Europe. But also multiplication of local conflicts notably in Russia (the Chechen people in the Southwest which dashes from 1995 into a war for independence), war on Yugoslavia. I The United States leading the world? A. The USA as the only superpower in the world. Source 1: The World as seen by the United States as the turn of the century 1/7
Source 2 : The current geopolitical organization of the world Questions : 1. After the end of the Cold War, who is the master in the international relations? The end of the CW gave the USA the status of the first global power. It s the first time in history that international relations are directed such as this by one country. From that time, the USA have the name of superpower or hyperpower, title given by the French minister of international affairs, Hubert Vedrine. 2. Which are the various forms of intervention of the USA on the international scene between the 1990 s and nowadays? For what reasons? Are there changes between the end of the Cold War and nowadays? Why? Directly after the CW, the USA developed their interventions all over the world. But, they never acted alone. They acted inside coalition they led and under the UN or NATO mandates. Indeed, during the first Gulf War (1990-1991), the led a coalition composed of various countries: France, the UK, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. They also gave forces for the international force created under NATO mandate to make respect the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia in 1995. But, after 2001 and the terrorist attack on their territory (on the WTC and the Pentagon on September 11 th 2001), they launched military operations without the UN consent, first in Afghanistan then in Iraq. In these two countries, the USA decided to attack countries suspected to help or support terrorist (Afghanistan was suspecting of helping Taliban and Al Qaeda, responsible from the terrorist attacks on 9/11) or to attack countries under dictatorship and suspected of producing weapon of mass destruction (that was the case in Iraq). Doing this, the USA developed preventive war. It has been their principle mode of action since 2001. Moreover, the end of he CW doesn t end weapon proliferation. In 1998, Pakistan became a nuclear power. North Korea is suspected to have the nuclear weapon. Iran is trying to obtain the technology in order to manufacture the nuclear weapon. The question of proliferation of Nuclear weapon is another stake all over the world and in the international relations. B. The UN deprived in front of the US superpower? 2/7
Source 1 : Dayton peace agreement on Bosnia Herzegovina For the first time after four years of fighting in the former Yugoslavia, this agreement commits the parties to end the war and to start building peace with justice. It represents our best hope for ending the worst atrocities Europe has seen since the Second World War and out best opportunity to prevent a wider and more terrible war in this volatile region of Europe. The agreement enables Bosnia and Herzegovina to continue as a single state, with full respect for its sovereignty by its neighbors. The parties have agreed to a constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina that creates effective federal institutions, including a Presidency, bicameral legislature, and a Constitutional Court. The country will have a central bank with a single currency. The agreement settles the territorial issues over which the war was fought. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina will administer 51% of the country's territory. Sarajevo will be reunified within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It will be open to all the people of the country. [ ] Free and democratic elections will be held throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina next year. [ ] The agreement provides for the creation of a peace implementation force, or IFOR, under the command of NATO, which is headed by a U.S. general and with a grant authority of the UN. IFOR will monitor the cease-fire and separation of forces. Fact sheet released by the Office of the Spokesman, November 21st, 1995 Source 2 : American intervention in Iraq From The Economist, September 6th, 2003. Source 3 : Why the UN is vulnerable Why, why the United Nations? They re not the Americans, cried out one horrified Iraqi journalist, as he stared at the rubbled1 corner of the organization s Baghdad headquarters. At least 20 UN officials, Iraqi employees and others were killed on August 19th when an explosive-laden flatbed 1 Rubble = décombre 3/7
truck 2 was detonated, probably by a suicide bomber, by the compound s wall. Among the dead was the UN s special representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was meeting with colleagues in his office when the bomb went off. The Brazilian official declared that his top priority was to protect the Iraqi people under occupation. He called for the UN, rather than the American-dominated coalition, to control Iraqi oil revenues. The Canal hotel has housed UN weapons inspectors, which many Iraqi nationalists considered an insult to their sovereignty. Although many Iraqis express revulsion at the bombing of the Jordanian embassy and the UN headquarters, the two deeds undoubtedly serve the interests of the anti-coalition fighters. Iraqis are reluctant to blame their compatriots. The Economist, August 23 rd, 2003. 1. What is the UN role after the Cold War? With multiplication of states (194 members today instead of 125 in 1970) and the end of the CW, the UN plays an important role in the international relations. It seems to be the case with the first Gulf War in 1991 and with the help to people or with the signature of Dayton peace agreements. The UN stands security for peace in the world and manages with diplomatic relations on world scale. 2. Which are its missions? How can it act? With multiplication of local conflicts on Earth, its domain and locations of intervention still grow. It intervenes more and more for civilians using the humanitarian interference right (it s the right to enter in an independent country to provide help to refugees or people in danger on the humanitarian plan). It creates in 1998 the International Crime Tribunal in La-Haye (Netherlands) to judge people convicted in genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. There were two chambers: one for Rwanda (now closed) and one for Bosnia (still existing) It has for mission to maintain peace and preserve the respect of human rights. It creates resolution to manage with international conflicts (like in Darfour) or diplomatic problems. It sends missions to maintain peace under the blue berets authority who can act on two scales: - using force to separate belligerents like in Bosnia - help and assistance to populations to rebuild like in Rwanda. 3. Is the UN the master of the situation and can it impose its own views? Its political weight is very relative as the attitude of the United States during the 2nd Gulf War showed it. It is not the boundless power expected by some people at the beginning of the 1990s. Nowadays, we can see that the UN has problem to act on problems when the main countries of its security council don t pay attention on its resolution. Moreover, the UN don t have enough soldiers to help everyone and the actions of the blue berets are most of the time difficult because they don t have the right to fire, except for self defense. More than that, next to the UN, other actors intervene to manage with international, humanitarian or environmental problems, as the NGO like Greenpeace or the Red Cross, the anti-globalization associations. II The World facing new threats : Source 1 : World peace or world of fear : 2 camion chargé d explosifs 4/7
Peter Nicholson, Travel warning from mum, cartoon published in The Australian Times, October 2- th, 2002 (after Bali suicide Bombing). Vocabulary : A jumper = a sweater ; APEC = Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation ; landmine = mine anti-personnel ; Al Jazeera = a TV channel headquartered in Doha, Qatar. Source 2 : George W. Bush lays down the principle on the war on terror. Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. [ ] Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror [ ]Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. [ ] States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic Georges W. Bush, State of Union Address, January 29 th, 2002 Vocabulary : Steadfast = firm ; to starve = to be hungry/ to make people hungry ; to flaunt = to exhibit/display defiantly ; to blackmail = faire chanter. 5/7
Source 3 : Nuclear scattering North Korea s reckless and provocative firing of missiles over the Sea of Japan has brought a stale but unmistakable whiff of cold war days. [ ] These manoeuvres break a moratorium on missile launches going back to 1999. They come too amidst concern about the proliferation of missiles (some sold by North Korea to Iran and Pakistan) and the alarming erosion of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. In recent years India and Pakistan have "crossed the threshold" to join Israel as nuclear weapons powers outside any legal framework. Iran - a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty - is playing cat and mouse over its own nuclear ambitions. [ ] [North Korea s move s] immediate effect will be counterproductive and is likely to strengthen the hawks in Washington, Tokyo and Seoul. Aid from South Korea, such as rice and fertilizer, is likely to dry up, worsening hunger in the north. Japan announced immediate punitive measures. But wider sanctions, given China's aversion to backing them at the UN, and the parlous state of the North Korean economy, are unlikely. Perspective on provocation, The Guardian, July 6 th, 2006. Vocabulary : reckless = fearless ; stale = not fresh ; a whiff = smell ; to cross the threshold = to enter ; to back = to support ; parlous = dangerous, precarious. Source 4 : US Supremacy challenged So, welcome to the new multipolar disorder - and farewell to the unipolar moment of apparently unchallengeable American supremacy. [ ] This new multipolarity is the result of at least three trends. The first, and most familiar, is the rise or revival of other states - China, India, Brazil, Russia as comeback kid - whose power resources compete with those of the established powers of the west. The second is the growing power of nonstate actors. These are of widely differing kinds. They range from movements like Hamas, Hizbullah and al-qaeda, to non-governmental organisations like Greenpeace, from big energy corporations and drug companies to regions and religions. A third trend involves changes in the very currency of power. Developments in technologies with violent potential mean that very small groups of people can challenge powerful established states, whether by piloting an aeroplane into the World Trade Centre in New York, targeting a missile at Haifa, taking on the US military in Iraq, bombing the London underground [ ] The net effect of these very disparate trends is to reduce the relative power of established western states, above all of the US. [ ] Timothy Garton Ash, Lebanon, North Korea, Russia Here is the world s new multipolar disorder, The Guardian, July 20 th, 2006. Vocabulary : the comeback kid = l enfant prodigue ; the currency of power = la notion même de pouvoir ; a trend = a tendency. Questions: 1. Which are the new threats and the new challenges and stakes in the world nowadays? There are several new threats in the world nowadays: - terrorism first as the places mentioned in the cartoon show. Indeed, tall buildings, the pentagon, the Middle East, Bali, Indonesia, Asia, Al Jazeera are all places where terrorists attacks occurred or where terrorists group are supposed to be located. The mother also refers to the aspect and the means used by terrorist when it talks about planes and Man with long bears. Terrorism is also mentioned by G.W. Bush in the State of Union Address on 2002 when he said we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. The countries that protect terrorist are named the axis of evil. 6/7
By these words, G. W. Bush targets Islamism: Islamism, after having tried to take the power in the Moslem worlds, today uses the way of the terrorism to destabilize the Westerners in particular the United States. It derives towards the fundamentalism by trying to federate those who behind Bin Laden appear as the defenders of a Moslem community victim of the disparities of wealth and a cultural standardization on the western mode. - Nuclear threat : since the end of the CW, we ve assisted to a proliferation of the nuclear weapon. At the end of the CW, a lot of countries expected that the nuclear weapon wouldn t proliferate but it s not the case. The nuclear countries are numerous than ever with the entry of Pakistan, India, and North Korea in the nuclear nations. Iran tries to realize it. We can see it on source 3 : They come too amidst concern about the proliferation of missiles (some sold by North Korea to Iran and Pakistan) and the alarming erosion of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime or on G.W. speech : North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens and Iran aggressively pursues these weapons. - Challenge on economic and technology : small groups could use new technologies to blast some facilities. Non-state actors could be as strong as states at war like Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda. 2. How do the nations react in front of these threats, and especially the USA? There are many kinds of reactions: - sending troops under an international coalition : case in Afghanistan after September 11 th, 2001 - sending troops to set up democracy and to wipe out regimes supporting terrorism : case of the war on Iraq from 2003 to nowadays. That s the new action of the USA: the preventive war. - International resolution from the UN to embargo some countries because of their actions in front of terrorism or nuclear weapons as on Iran or on North Korea => international pressures to make these country react or to make them back. - Developing some fear: see cartoon. Those fears are so developed that laws to control populations were edicted in many countries such as in the USA. In the USA, in January 2002, the American congress voted the Patriot act which authorized to arrest any people suspected from terrorism, to arrest it and to put him in jail, without any form of trial and without any penalty time. This law also authorized to search every car or house without mandate in case of suspicion of terrorism. This law is completely opposed to the principle and inalienable rights mentioned in the American constitution of 1787. 7/7