Connect with us

International Law

Confusing Order in Order to Order

Published

on

There is currently a great deal of speculation, some of it emotional and dramatic, by all manner of political theorists and international relations pundits about ‘world disorder’, and a concomitant attempt to set up a world government, or at least to control as much as possible. Some even think that the next world war is being prepared, in order to achieve this, just as the Great War led to the League of Nations, and the next one to the United Nations. Many opine that the current Covid fear being manufactured and spread by Big Media, as well as by Big Pharma, Microsoft and Google (owned by Alphabet) et al is part of this plan, or at least a tool, in order to control governments, in that it tends to create a sheep-like attitude among an already complacent population, which will present itself as willing cannon-fodder in a war scenario. Let us look at this more closely.

Speed

One factor which has helped to spread fear is the increasing speed of, and dependence on, electronic communication, accompanied by the ‘Twitterisation’ of policy formulation, and one deadline after another. Rather than reflect and calmly evaluate, there is an increasing tendency to believe the messages with which we are constantly bombarded, regardless of their validity. In short, many have appinions, disguising them as opinions. One British ambassador told me that policy was now worked out ‘on the hoof’.1 Those without a Smartphone are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase various goods, and to travel, exacerbated by the various lockdowns which are leading to so many deaths through lack of medical care for non-Covid conditions, as well as to suicides and depression. Before commenting on how to understand what is happening, some thought is required on the current ‘world order’, an overworked bromide if ever there was one, since it implies that there is order, as opposed to the opposite. Perhaps the phrase ‘current situation’ would be more sensible.

Short- and long-term

The length of periods of order and disorder – and whether they are regional or global – are also relevant if we are to understand what is happening now: if we look at the last three thousand years à la Giambattista Vico’s New Science,2 we can conclude that the world has gone through periods of order and disorder. But Vico was thinking mainly of the Roman world and the disorder of the Dark Ages, which then led to order again; moreover, the disorder of the Dark Ages only seriously affected the western part of the Roman Empire, while the Eastern part continued in relative order until at least 1204. Thus he was thinking of periods of hundreds of years, in a particular part of the world, whereas current analysts tend to think only of the worldwide perceived bi-polar-induced stability of the Cold War, and then the perceived breakdown of the old system following the fall of the Berlin Wall: in other words a period of some seventy five years until now. It is therefore simplistic to talk about world disorder, when that alleged disorder is often only affecting part of the world.

Predicting: theory versus practice

Predicting is a risky business, with predictions only rarely materialising in the form intended; this is because of the vagaries of human behaviour, as well as chance. The inability to recognise the difference between theory and practice is also relevant here. Francesco Guicciardini knew this five hundred years ago: ‘To pronounce absolutely, categorically, and, as it were, by the card, concerning the things of this world, were a great mistake; for nearly all of them are marked by some singularity or exceptional quality due to difference in their circumstances, making it impossible to refer them all to the same standard. These differences and distinctions will not be found set forth in books, but must be taught by discretion.’3 He goes on to write: ‘How wide the difference between theory and practice, and how many there are who, with abundant knowledge, remember not or know not how to turn it to account! To such men their knowledge is useless, being like a treasure kept shut up in a chest on terms that it shall not be drawn upon.’ 4

Such simple common sense is currently lacking in many allegedly responsible quarters at present. But many government advisors, often from the academic world, make dangerous predictions, which are then accepted, leading to preparations for war. Political scientist Samuel Huntingdon’s ‘clash of civilisations’ scenario5 is one pertinent example. His simplistic pigeon-holing of history, riddled with sweeping statements and some inaccuracies, bowled over droves of naïve students and thrusting politicians, who naturally ended up supporting the ‘war on terror’, despite the fact that it was to a large extent western military action in Afghanistan that got the ball rolling, exacerbated by the illegal attack on Iraq.

When taken literally, theory can be dangerous, as chance and the unpredictability are not taken into account. Leo Tolstoy has something to say on this: ‘[…] only Germans are self-confident on the basis of an abstract notion – science, that is, the supposed knowledge of absolute truth. […] The German’s self-assurance is worst of all, stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows the truth – science – which he himself has invented but which is for him the absolute truth.’6 Of course, it is not only Germans who may be susceptible to such thinking, but various academics who advise governments. Quite often, they recant, once they see the potential damage that the arbitrary application of their theories can cause. One example is Kennan’s containment theory, which was a prime ingredient of the Cold War cocktail. When he recanted, it was too late.

Wishful Thinking

We can see that once people, whether governments or the population at large, start believing various ideas, theories and predictions (as with Huntingdon above), they actually plan to ensure that the prediction is fulfilled. Thus the illegal attack on Iraq was supported by large swathes of, for example, the American, British and Israeli populations. Instead of supporting order, it led to instability in the Middle East, that was only partly controlled by Russia’s intervention in Syria, preventing yet another ‘coalition of the willing’ attack on the country, and then war against Iran, which could easily have escalated into a world war.

What is Order?

To start to understand what is currently happening, we need to define precisely what is meant by ‘international/world order. Some see it as a hierarchical concept, with the strongest countries at the top, with no recognition accorded to multi-polarity. This, as we see, is what the US appears to want and believe, whether Democrat or Republican. But others consider that there is a group of ‘top countries’ that balance their interests against ‘each other, a form of multi-polarity, or perhaps even heterarchy, where different hierarchies compete against each other. These views nevertheless connect to a hierarchical mindset.7 Another level of ‘world order’ is that of regional-geographical groupings, such as the EU, the Association of South East Asian Nations, and the Eurasian Economic Union on the economic front, and NATO on the military level. Then we have a universal level, such as the United Nations, and a plethora of organisations, treaties and various agreements that transcend power blocs and geography. At any event, we can see that ‘world order’ can comprise all the above concepts.

War or Peace?

So are we heading for world war, or simply worldwide wars? If the second scenario is true, then widespread war has already begun. Let us look at different factors that have caused this. First, through the eyes of mainstream America, she does not appear prepared to relinquish the predominant position which she gained by default with the break-up of the Soviet Union, a break-up which led to the NATO attack on Belgrade, the near destruction of Iraq, and – even with a revitalised Russia – the destruction of Libya. The Republican Bush Senior’s vision of a ‘New World Order’ fizzled out, perhaps because, despite his exhortation that the US take the lead in international co-operation, some of its language was too emotional and supercilious: ‘Our cause is just, our cause is moral, our cause is right’.8 A few years later, with the attack on Belgrade, a leading commentator was writing that the USA (now with a Democrat president) was ‘determined [with the UK’s strong support] to prevent the emergence of a Europe-wide security structure that could challenge its authority’,9 using NATO’S fiftieth anniversary not to bury NATO, but to expand eastwards and challenge the UN. Even Lord Carrington, ever the gentleman, criticised the Rambouillet Agreement that broke the forty-four year peace that had prevailed in Europe since the world war.10 According to Lord Wallace, it was ‘in America’s strategic interest to keep Europe weak and subservient.11

Then came the war on terror, which can be seen retrospectively as ‘a euphemism for extending US control in the world whether it is by projecting force through its carriers or building new military bases in Central Asia’.12 It can be said with reason that the US began to dismantle the international security architecture a long time before now.13 Fast forward to Trump (no space for Obama and his drones), and we have the ‘America First’ syndrome. Trump’s emphasis on ‘America First’ seems to have transmogrified, four years after his inauguration, into three strands: disengaging the U.S. from global politics, disdaining allies and befriending autocratic leaders. Whether or not Trump wanted this or not is a moot point: he recently evoked Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex: ‘I am not saying that the military agrees with me. But they, the soldiers, do. The top level of the Pentagon probably does not agree because they want nothing other than wars, allowing all these marvellous companies which manufacture bombs, aircraft and all the rest, to be happy, and to remain.’14 This does however contrast with the 2017 deal with Saudi Arabia to sell 450 billion dollar’s worth of arms. Apart from this, Trump’s America has pulled out of the nuclear deal with Iran, supports illegal Israeli territorial claims, has pulled out of various international agreements, and is fighting tooth and nail to scupper the Russia to Germany gas pipeline, confusing, in particular, its European allies.

Thus we have seen how the Trump administration has confused the world, rather than put a dampener on dangerous tendencies. To blame the enigmatic and inconsistent Trump is not however, germane since, at least ever since the assassination of President Kennedy, US presidents have been frontmen for the military-industrial complex, with their hands tied, whether or not they agree. But where does all this leave the world at the moment?

To conclude

In attempting to analyse and evaluate the likelihood of world war, we need to add two factors: the near anti-Russian and Chinese paranoia, and the EU’s inability to have an independent foreign and military policy. Both factors are inextricably linked, in that, at least since the word ‘geopolitics’ was invented, the US and Britain have fought against any serious security co-operation between Germany/Europe and Russia, the most obvious current example being the Russia-Germany Nordstream pipeline. One reason for the EU’s inability to co-ordinate its foreign and military policy is that Poland and the Baltic states are vehemently and emotionally pro-NATO and anti-Russia, thus constituting the EU’s fifth column. In contrast, French president Macron has labelled NATO ‘brain-dead’. It is the EU’s inability to stop the current instability emanating from the western world – for it is a western phenomenon – that is leading to increasing confusion, in a western world of simplistic slogans such as ‘exporting freedom’, ‘shared values’, ‘walking shoulder to shoulder’, ‘roadmap’ and ‘forces of good’,15 where common sense is thrown out of the window.

Should NATO end up in total control of the EU, and destroy the Franco-German axis on which the EU is based, then the world can expect continuing confusion in relations between states. To predict world war is risky, but to say that there are currently several wars in the world is not. In this sense, the world is already at war.


1 William Patey, former ambassador to Iraq.

2 Vico, Giambattista, New Science, translated by David Marsh, Penguin Random House UK, 2013 (first published in 1744).

3 Guicciardini, Francesco, Counsels and Reflections, translated from the Italian (Ricordi Politici e Civili) by Ninian Hill Thomson, M.A., Kegan Paul, Trench Trübner & Co., Ltd., London, 1890, 6, pp. 7-8.

4 Op. cit., Guicciardini, Counsels and Reflections, 35, pp. 21-22.

5 Mallinson, William, ‘Does the West Exist? Huntingdon Revisited’, in Images in Words: Only History Exists, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2018, 2019, pp. 34-7.

6 Tolstoy, Leo, War and Peace, translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude, Wordsworth Editions, 1993, p. 505.

7 Zajec, Olivier ‘L’ordre international qui vient’, Le Monde Diplomatique, Paris, November 2020.

8 Bush, George, ‘The Hard Work of Freedom’, in O’Tuthail, Gearóid, Dalby, Simon and Routledge, Paul (eds.), The Geopolitics Reader, Routledge, London and New York, 1998.

9 McCgwire, Michael, ‘Why Did We Bomb Belgrade?’, International Affairs, vol. 76, no. 1, Chatham House, London, January 2000, p. 14.

10 Ibid., p. 14.

11 Lord Wallace, ‘Repairing European and Transatlantic Institutions, The World Today, vol. 59, no. 5, Chatham House, May 2003, p. 16.

12 Cox, Michael, ‘American Power Before and After 11 September: Dizzy with Success?’, International Affairs, vol. 78, no. 2, Chatham House, January 2000, p. 274.

13 Bennis, Phyllis, ‘The United States is Undermining International Law’, Le Monde Diplomatique, Paris, December 1999,

14 Op. cit., Zajec, Olivier.

15 For example, the British Ambassador to Greece, David Madden, spoke to students at New York College, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, about the ‘forces of good’ – meaning the British, Americans and their partners. Such puerile and shallow language, supercilious into the bargain, is hardly becoming for an educated diplomat. See Mallinson, William, Cyprus, Diplomatic History and the Clash of Theory in International Relations, I. B. Tauris, London and New York, 2010, pp. 41 and 197.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

What Is a Sovereign State?

Published

on

Against the backdrop of the rapid collapse of the US-led world order, the question of which states will survive in the new world is becoming increasingly relevant. It is no coincidence that the President of Russia regularly addresses this problem. In one of his recent speeches at the forum of the Agency for Strategic Initiatives, Vladimir Putin defined “genuine sovereignty” as the main condition for the success of the countries of the world in the new era. 

At first glance, it may seem that we are talking about the obvious — over the past 100 years, the formal sovereignty of dozens of countries has become commonplace. However, in reality, the problem is much deeper — it is not at all evident that formally-recognised statehood indicates the viability of a state as a social organisation. 

That is why we now associate the survival of a state with its ability to independently determine its development and foreign policy behaviour. There are almost 200 sovereign countries in the world, including large, medium and small ones — but not all can be considered truly sovereign; fewer than half, in fact. This is not surprising — the entire international order after the Second World War was focused on somehow solving the problem of an ever-increasing number of formal sovereign jurisdictions. This is really a problem, because only a limited number of states have the resources to ensure a relatively independent existence. The rest had to rely on special connections with more powerful players from the start. Here there is no need to talk about complete sovereignty.

The last century was marked by three waves of emergence of states whose ability to survive independently in a chaotic system was unproven. The first set of these includes the countries that became the product of the collapse of European empires as a result of the First World War. At that time, practically all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, the former possessions of the Austrian, German and Russian empires in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, arose. The only exception was Iran, which has maintained its tradition of statehood for centuries. The small new countries of Eastern Europe existed in an incomprehensible status for two decades and, after the Second World War, actually lost their sovereignty in favour of one of the superpowers — mainly the USSR.

The second wave of sovereignty is associated with the collapse of the world colonial empires, whose metropolises are located in Western Europe. The collapse of the British, Belgian, Dutch, Portuguese and French empires led to the emergence of dozens of new jurisdictions in Africa, the Caribbean and Asia, most of which immediately came under the decisive influence of their former colonial masters. Only a few powers in Asia and a few in Africa were able to achieve true independence. India, Vietnam or Egypt owe this to their demographics — a large population made it possible to create military and economic resources for independent behaviour.

And, finally, the third round of fragmentation into small formally sovereign units is associated with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Then 14 new countries of the so-called post-Soviet space appeared at once, and Moscow’s satellites did not restore their sovereignty, but simply came under the patronage of the winners — the United States and the large countries of Western Europe. Among the countries that emerged after the collapse of the USSR, only a few still look like they are capable of independent development. Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan have unique resources — population and natural wealth — the rest cannot boast of this, and their sovereign future is in question. In some cases (Georgia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) their geopolitical position contributes to the gradual strengthening of their sovereignty. These republics behave adequately to the power composition of Eurasia because they know how to look at the map. Although in the case of Georgia, the development of this skill does not take place without the help of Russia.

As a result of these waves of sovereignisation, more and more countries have emerged in the world whose power capabilities do not allow them to be considered fully autonomous units. This means that their own contribution to global stability is minimal, if anything. However, the endowment of small and medium-sized countries with formal rights within the framework of the UN system invented by the West after the Second World War required somehow the solving of the problem of managing these rights from outside.

For several decades, the consequences of the participation in world politics of many sovereign states which are incapable of independence have been mitigated through the institutions of the Liberal International Order. This gave small and medium-sized countries the opportunity to develop within a certain system of rules and norms determined by the West, led by the United States. Scores of countries throughout the world were actually deprived of sovereignty with respect to their domestic and foreign policies. In some cases, as, for example, in the system of agreements between the European Union and groups of developing countries, the renunciation of full sovereignty was fixed in the form of obligations in exchange for access to the resource development offered by Europe. All this, however, required the West to actually share a part, albeit a small one, of the development resources that the global market economy created.

The process of depriving many countries of real sovereignty gained particular intensity after 1991, when even the elementary system of checks and balances that existed during the Cold War was destroyed. It is not surprising that it was during this historical period, the discussion about the withering away of “Westphalian sovereignty” actively began in the context of the strengthening of international institutions. In fact, these institutions were controlled, directly or indirectly, by the victorious countries in the Cold War, who themselves were in no hurry to give up their sovereignty.

However, be that as it may, even if the deprivation of sovereignty by many countries did not receive formal implementation at the level of international law, they themselves were quite ready for this, in fact, glad about quite specific benefits. Moreover, many countries from among the last “wave” of sovereignisation even associated their plans for solving the main tasks of development with the loss of independence. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, we can find a whole group of countries for which the renunciation of sovereignty has already turned out to be practically the official “key” to a brighter future within the Liberal world order. It even went so far as to introduce such a task, in a veiled form, into the national Constitutions. In other cases, such as Kazakhstan, the transfer of some sovereign rights to partners in the West is seen as a way to protect themselves from the US and allies using local corruption and social stratification as a tool to influence the ruling regimes. There were countries which were suppliers of labour, other countries were gas stations, still other countries were granaries, other countries were military bases, and so on. The partial renunciation of sovereignty in favour of the West, in addition, is considered by individual regimes as a kind of ideal “guarantee” that the bigger neighbours — Russia or China — could more insistently indicate to their small neighbours their place in the geopolitical position.

However, this international order proved to be short-lived. First, because the largest of the countries outside the narrow community of the West — China, India and Russia — were not ready for their own desovereignisation. For them, following the proposed path would be disastrous for internal reasons and, accordingly, irrational from the point of view of the state’s survival. Therefore, such powers sooner or later had to create direct or indirect opposition to the West. Second, and more importantly, the world’s leading countries themselves have run out of resources that could be exchanged for the sovereignty of small and medium-sized countries. As a result, the US and Western Europe are increasingly forced to resort to extremely repressive measures — sanctions and special trade regimes — in order to ensure that their desires are met. The most striking example here is last year’s initiative of the European Union to make the ability of external partners to trade with its states dependent on the fulfilment of EU requirements in terms of climate change.

Finally, in the international community, a fairly significant group of states has emerged that feel so confident in their abilities that they can challenge the West’s monopoly in world affairs. This behaviour became evident in the US attempts to isolate Russia after the crisis around Ukraine turned into a military-political matter. And we are not talking only about such powers as Iran or Pakistan, whose interaction with the Liberal World Order has always been strained. In recent months, more and more middle-sized developing countries have shown that they are not going to follow the instructions of the US and its allies in politics and economic relations.

The result is the collapse of the system of limited sovereignties and, as a result, the “freezing” of many countries that are internally weak and incapable of independent development. Several dozen modern states are currently approaching a choice between gaining real sovereignty or losing it within the existing territorial limits. In fact, there is an alternative to such a gloomy choice — it is the formation of foreign policy and development policy based not on the institutional features of the outgoing world order, but on an objective assessment of one’s geopolitical position and place in the regional power composition. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine now when this or that great power will seek to deprive its neighbours of formal sovereignty — this is extremely costly in all respects. There is no doubt that not everyone is given the right choice, but only it, most likely, can become the basis for survival amid modern conditions.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

International Law

An interview with Joel Angel Bravo Anduaga: Are international organizations still relevant?

Published

on

With recent developments in the international arena, and ghost conflicts from the past exacerbating contemporary global issues, it is inevitable to question what is happening with international organizations in different regions across the globe. Joel Bravo shares his insights about the importance of international organizations nowadays. Mr. Bravo is an international affairs practitioner with more than twenty years of experience managing design and implementation of strategies aimed at institutional strengthening and governance. Joel is a former electoral adviser for the United Nations to Ivory Coast (West Africa) and Timor-Leste (South-East Asia), respectively. Currently, he is a PhD candidate in Processes and Political Institutions at the University Adolfo Ibañez in Chile and a Professor at the Tecnologico de Monterrey University in Mexico. His ample experience in the field of international affairs as well as his theoretical and practical knowledge and expertise in international organizations, is crucial to help us understand the current state, challenges, and opportunities organizations faced by ongoing international conflicts.  

What is the current role of international organizations?

For starters, Joel Bravo made it clear that is very important to take into account the period we talk about when explaining the role of international organizations because different periods in time have called for different roles. There must be a differentiation between what these organizations should do and what they can do. There are two levels of analysis towards them. First, the operational level which entails the everyday actions. Second, what the mass media portrays the actions of the organizations to be. There is a lot of speculation in the media about whether the United Nations (UN) works or if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has a fair agenda, however in the operational sense they still work every day. Hence, the true answer lies within the background and the essence of each organization; circumstances and the purpose of each one are key.

From your personal experience in the peace missions of the Ivory Coast and Timor-Leste, what is your opinion about the influence of international organizations when it comes to conflict resolution?

To begin with, Mr. Bravo explained that the interests of world powers and regional powers are crucial factors. In both cases mentioned, it logically depended on the context of the countries directly involved and the external countries as well. So, it is a mix of variables that must be considered to see what the influence of an international organization in these situations truly is. Meanwhile, in Ivory Coast, at some point, the peace mission led to elections after a certain time; the peace operation from the Security Council was one of accompaniment. In contrast, the mandate that was held in the different missions in East Timor gave the United Nations more power, not only to organize the elections from a logistical and operational point of view, but also to make political decisions.

How do international organizations influence the exercise of democracy?

Joel Bravo shared that sometimes democracy can be seen simply as a concept and other times as a system or a way of living; it stretches and lengthens according to conditions and needs. Elections are a clear example of this. In the case of Ivory Coast, the efforts to hold elections started in 2005 and did not happen until 2010 because there were no appropriate internal or external conditions. On the other hand, in East Timor in 1999, when the referendum was held and then the presidential elections occurred, it was because there were conditions to do so. Additionally, it is crucial to understand what as well the underlying interest of each international organization is: to hold elections first, and then pacify the country, or pacify the country first then hold elections. Thus, the process of adaption also proves to be a strong challenge. Many factors must be taken into consideration to have a successful democracy in practice and not only in theory, understanding democracy in a broad sense and not simply from the electoral perspective.

Do you consider that international organizations are essential so that the citizens of a country can fully exercise their rights and freedoms? Why?

Initially, Mr. Bravo began explaining the difference between international organizations being essential or necessary. He claims they are not essential but rather necessary, because in many cases there have been accusations of international organizations working in favor of specific interests and being co-opted by world powers. Nonetheless, specifically for the citizens, with the idea of liberal democracy in mind, non-democratic countries would definitely need more the support of international organizations. Yet here we come to a paradox, because if a country is not democratic, thinking for example of North Korea, it is not going to allow an organization to carry out supervision, both in internal and external matters. Then, yes, the presence would probably become essential, but it is not decisive. On the other hand, these matters should be dealt with carefully because, sometimes, the media places excessive responsibility on international organizations. It is true that they help countries, and provide validation, but, at the end of the day, they are still constrained by the context and environment of each case.

Are international organizations accountable?

All organizations, or at least the most important and most robust have internal instruments, instances of accountability, of transparency; to a certain extent they self-monitor. Nevertheless, for example, security organizations such as NATO, due to their nature it is difficult for there to be proper transparency because it would be a matter of national security for the members and the region. It depends on the organization, there are some that can be more controlled. There are some that are highly questioned, for instance, the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, both which possess control mechanisms, but the question is who determines those mechanisms. Before the West was the main axis for how accountability is and is delivered; it was not questioned because there was no counterpart. China and Russia are now acting as a counterpart and there is a questioning of that order.

What impossibilities can international organizations have that do not allow them to operate as they are expected to do so in theory?

First of all, the nature of each organization is key. Nation-States are the first and focal factor. Anyhow, any international organization also considers at least two other variables, two other types of actors: economic interests represented by the companies that do lobbying and organized civil society; both of which influence decision-making and public opinion, more so in this age of social networks and cyberspace. The word international is now set too short, it would be better to called them world organizations, global organizations or regional organizations but speaking in terms of international continues to think of the Nation-State as the center, constraining its potential.

With new international conflicts developing, how does the role of international organizations change? Are they still relevant?

From a traditional point of view, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict logically has relevance, and it has been proven that international organizations sometimes fall short. Thinking, for example, of the United Nations, NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which to a certain extent could not have prevented the conflict but do have a leading role. On the contrary, if these new conflicts are unknow territory, for example, what happens in the cyberspace, then international organizations are falling behind. Current conditions are shaping up to a hyper-specialization of international organizations. They are becoming increasingly technical, focusing on what needs fixing and working to agree on very specific issues. For these reasons, international organizations are in a process of adaptation. It would seem like it is still slow due to bureaucratic processes, but their relevance is still present.

What is the future of international organizations?

Mr. Bravo answered that there will be a greater presence of regionalization in international organizations that goes hand in hand with specialization. This occurs for example with NATO: in its name it continues to apparently be regional, but it is expanding.  Also, the creation of new organizations is happening, like AUKUS, which on the one hand seems to be new, but it is a continuation of political dialogue mechanisms that were already established and that are now becoming more structured. Whilst the power structure is not perceived clearer, a global restructuring of international organizations cannot be mentioned. However, what can be mentioned is a sense of greater conformation, reactivation, and strengthening of the schemes. There is a cohabitation to a certain extent of the old, traditional organizations that come from the second post-war period that have been adapting, with the new problems and the new-old problems that evolved. Especially technology, social networks and the internet have a lot to do with these transformations.

Continue Reading

International Law

The Noble Nobel

Published

on

One of the most coveted awards in human history, the Nobel Prize was created by the last will and testament of Alfred Nobel, inventor of the “dynamite”. These are essentially personal awards from his private estate but has since evolved into something much larger. All the Nobel Prizes are awarded in Sweden except for the Peace Prize given in Norway. Alfred Nobel flourished during the Industrial Revolution, when the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway were still together, amassing his fortune making military weapons. Some argue that these prizes were posthumously conceived to improve his reputation.

Nobel Prizes are awarded in the fields of Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Literature, and the most coveted, the Peace Prize. In his will, Alfred Nobel characterized the Peace Prize to be given “to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses”.

More than a century later, has the Nobel Peace Prize lost its luster?

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway chooses the recipient. Interestingly, despite being appointed by Parliament, the committee is a private body tasked with awarding a private prize. Unless the Committee becomes inclusive, it will lose its moral authority in an increasingly divided world.

Russian journalist, Dmitry Andreyevich Muratov, drew international headlines after auctioning off the Nobel Peace Prize he had won last year for a record $103.5 million to aid Ukrainian refugees.

In doing so, he showed a level of responsibility and moral leadership that has unfortunately been lacking in the institution of the Nobel Prize itself.  This auction presents a moment to reflect on the future of the prestigious award.

Since its inception, nearly every winner of the Nobel Prize for Science has been a “white” man – as almost no scientist that were female or of any other ethnicity were deemed worthy enough to win this illustrious award. Not only this, but only four of the 200 winners in the history of the Nobel Prize for Physics have been women. The committee’s nomination and selection processes are reflected by the institution’s lack of diversity, tainting the reputation of a prize intended to celebrate humanity. This matters especially today because moral leadership is needed more than ever.

In these testing times, when the global powers are wrestling against the climate crisis, terrorism, population growth, food insecurity, refugee crisis, religious violence, Islamophobia, racism, and conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war and its repercussions on world peace, the Nobel committee must demonstrate moral leadership. And it can only do so by redressing its centuries’ old gender and racial disparities against nominees.

The Nobel Prize committee has been on shaky ground in recent times. In matters of war and peace, the stakes are higher. In retrospect, the last two times it selected a head of state were a disaster. In 2009, the committee selected then-President Barrack Obama at the beginning of his presidency. The award was given in the hope that President Obama might change the direction of his country after he had campaigned for the office in part of his opposition to previous heavy-handed military interventions in the Middle East – notably in Iraq. This anti-war sentiment was what the Nobel committee likely honed in on when selecting him for the award.

Yet, President Obama authorized a military surge in Afghanistan and the invasion of Libya. The botched Libya invasion did remove Muammar Gaddafi, but it also helped destabilize the Sahel region, instigating a state of instability and chaos that is still with us today.

The Nobel Committee was on firmer ground when it chose Muratov along with Filipino journalist Maria Ressa “for their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace.”

Ressa is considered a brave journalist, but many in the Philippines will say otherwise and even wonder if the award was given erroneously.

Furthermore, in the case of Muratov, it is worth asking if the undisclosed bidder for his Nobel Peace Prize – was, in fact, the Norwegian government. What we know for sure is that Norway recently handed 4 million Euros worth of seized Russian media assets to Muratov.

Cordell Hull, who secured the Nobel Peace Prize in 1945 for his role in establishing the United Nations, was the same person who turned away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust by redirecting their ships to the infamous concentration camps. On 5 June 1939, he returned a ship carrying 937 passengers. Over a quarter of them ended up dying in the Holocaust.

There have been some glaring omissions as well. At least one is worth noting. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most significant persons of our time. Even today he is a byword for peace activism. Yet even he failed to win the Nobel Peace Prize, despite being shortlisted five times. In 2006. the former director of the Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, said the most significant omission in the prize’s history was never awarding the peace prize to the Indian political activist Mahatma Gandhi. However, the committee’s Euro-centric inclinations kept him from receiving the prize.

The sad reality appears to be that the Nobel Peace Prize committee blurs the lines between being an independent institution guided by clear moral principles and one that is a realpolitik instrument of Norwegian foreign policy. It was only in 2017 that the committee prevented current members of the Norwegian parliament from serving on the committee. However, the membership of the committee is currently selected by Norway’s Parliament and perhaps not surprisingly includes four politicians. Two of whom are former government ministers.

With Russia invading Ukraine, China making its own bold land grab in the South China Sea, disinformation on the rise, and many democracies in OECD countries facing a populist if not putschist threat, clear moral leadership on the international stage is needed more than ever.

The Nobel Prize Committee, in this context should take several reforms designed to make the organization more representative.

Firstly, the organization should clearly establish itself as a civil society organization – not an arm of Norwegian foreign policy. The presence of former or current politicians on the committee should be limited if not removed entirely. More civil society leaders like human rights experts would go a long way here.

Second, the committee lacks diversity considering it is composed of entirely of people from white, Christian backgrounds and, of course, Norwegian. Why aren’t representatives of Norway’s immigrant communities or even the ethnic Sami people a key feature of its famed instrument of soft power?

Thirdly, the committee should not be afraid to revoke the Nobel Prizes given to individuals who later betray its principles.

Again, these are extraordinary times, and the Nobel Committee is an important institution whose peace prize is closely followed globally. With Western institutions under pressure, the Nobel Peace Prize is an entity worth saving. The choice is Norway’s.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending