Skip to main content

UKRAINE, GAZA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

By Sadık Ünay

It is becoming increasingly clear with every international crisis that the world order is moving towards a more balanced and multipolar structure in which a multiplicity of actors are holding numerous instruments of influence against each other. Recent discussions on the transition from uni-multipolarity to multipolarity acquired a new twist in the light of two critical and seemingly unrelated international crises. The first one concerned the systemic crisis in Ukraine, which witnessed the collapse of concerted efforts by the U.S. administration and the EU to incorporate the country into the network of Western institutions through a wave of civil disobedience.

The unexpectedly tough response of Putin's Russia revived the conventional Cold War tactics of military invasion, use of paramilitary forces and annexation in Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine. Those who were expecting a geostrategic response from the U.S. were utterly disappointed with the muted attitude of the Obama administration in the face of blatant Russian unilateralism. Especially in the aftermath of their indecisive and unconvincing stance following the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army against civilians, the inability of the U.S. administration to display any meaningful response to a chain of carefully calculated moves by Putin exerted a serious blow to America's global image. The U.S. seemed unable to impose the direction of international developments, unless it decides to unleash the power of its unrivaled military machine.

The second crucial crisis indicating the nature of new multipolarity and indecisiveness in the global order came with the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza triggered by unprovoked Israeli aggression. The fact that the Obama administration failed to convey serious efforts to carry forward the Palestinian peace process and even failed to give a meaningful response to Israel's disproportional aggression stimulated widespread international resentment. As ever, despite strong international pressures, Turkey's Prime Minister Erdoğan led the countries in the region in strongly condemning Israel's unlawful military attacks against innocent civilians, particularly women and children. Qatar, and to a lesser extent, Iran raised similar concerns. 

On the other hand, staunch U.S. allies in the Middle East including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and Bahrain preferred to watch the unfolding humanitarian tragedy from the sidelines; with newly-authoritarian Egypt trying to play a mediocre role in intermediation by marginalizing Hamas. But indicative of the multipolar nature of the new world order, the most vocal critiques of unilateral Israeli aggression came from Latin America. Countries such as Chile, Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia all strongly condemned Israeli attacks on Gaza and suspended their diplomatic and economic relations with Israel. Yet more importantly, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff described the ongoing tragedy in Gaza as "a massacre" and despite pressures from the Jewish Diaspora, expressed that her state will give the strongest diplomatic reaction.

We believe that the Gaza incident in particular is indicative of "emerging power" responses in the multipolar global order. Both Turkey and Brazil are acting as morally astute emerging powers that react to crimes against humanity in Gaza in the face of the clear reluctance and inability of the supposedly hegemonic power to provide international leadership. In fact, the U.S. has been supporting Israel's actions via military procurement, diplomatic protection in multilateral fora and favorable media coverage. For the time being, emerging powers such as Turkey and Brazil might not have accumulated potential for effective conflict resolution in major international crises, but the value of holding the moral high-ground should not be underestimated. 

Source:  http://www.dailysabah.com/columns/sadik_unay/2014/08/02/ukraine-gaza-and-the-new-world-order

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

India-Malaysia ties and the future

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is on his first official visit to India. The main aim of this visit is to seek support for Malaysia’s application to join Brics and to fortify bilateral ties, as the country is keen to improve its connections with one of the rapidly expanding economies in Asia. In light of the increasing crumbling of the global order, particularly stemming from trade disputes between the United States and China, as well as the proxy conflict involving the United States and Russia, Malaysia is encouraged to reassess its foreign policy to uphold its neutral stance. Given India’s status as the largest democracy and the fifth-largest economy globally, along with its notable advancements in indigenous space and defence technologies, it is proposed that India emerge as Malaysia’s key partner in the years ahead. Why India is important for Malaysia The historical ties between India and Malaysia extend back several centuries, with significant Indian cultural, religious, and administ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ties that bind religion, state: Beneficial or detrimental?

Malaysia is characterised as a secular state, a principle reflecting its founding fathers’ vision. However, over the years, certain politicians from various factions have exploited religion as a potent tool to garner public support and to suppress or eliminate their political adversaries. The slogan “untuk agama, bangsa dan negara,” which translates to “for religion, race, and nation,” suggests a troubling prioritisation of religious matters over state affairs. This shift in focus by the past and present governments, which places religious issues above national interests, poses significant risks to the future stability and unity of the nation. Furthermore, the investigation into Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings, which is accused of child sexual abuse and forced labour, highlights the potential dangers of intertwining religious motivations with operational practices. Also, an examination of the present state of our government reveals a trajectory similar to that of Pakistan,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Understanding terrorism and attacks in Lebanon

Terrorism is characterised as the illegal application of force and intimidation, particularly targeting civilians, to attain political objectives. The overarching definition of terrorism encompasses the strategic deployment of violence to instil widespread fear within a population, thus facilitating the realisation of political goals. Furthermore, the FBI differentiates between international terrorism, which involves violent actions perpetrated by individuals or groups motivated by foreign terrorist entities, and domestic terrorism, which refers to violent acts carried out by individuals or groups aiming to promote ideological objectives rooted in domestic factors. Additionally, it entails the employment of violence against non-combatants to fulfil political or ideological aspirations, frequently occurring during periods of peace or amid warfare. The 9/11 attacks The recent commemoration of the 9/11 attacks in the United States marked the anniversary of what is widely regarded as the m...
Post a Comment
Read more