Did September II Change the World?Musings on th Nature of World Order

 

The gory attacks carried out by young members of a fringe Islamist group, Al Qaeda, on September 11, 2001, were an eloquent reminder of the nature of the world we inhabit. Defined by a condition of fragmentation and integration, this world referred to as fragmegration by the eminent James Rosenau, the attacks of September 11 illustrated the dialectic between fragmentation and integration. Heralded my many as the crumbling of the old order, the attacks of September 11 were held to be of world historical significance and import. It was widely believed that the attacks besides ushering in a new type of actor-the non state actor- would lead to underlying and far reaching changes in world politics and international relations.

 

The prosaic reality, however, is that September 11 was in the nature of a gory and perhaps an aberrant interlude in world politics. Whilst it did reorient the strategies of major states and focused their energies on combating terrorism and securing their homelands, it essentially changed nothing. The reference here is to the framework and underlying premises of international relations and politics. These continue to be informed by the principles and diktats of the Westphalian system of international relations. In this system and framework, it is the same old stuff that determines relations between states: the quest for security, balances of power, hegemonic competition, the quest for great power status and great power rivalries.  The direction and thrust of world politics remains set in stone.

 

The real and substantive issue of contemporary international relations and politics is the dénouement of the strategic rivalry between the sole superpower, the United States and the wannabe superpower, China. Complementing this is the trajectory and the political condition of the Arab Muslim world. The rest is mere detail. The former will determine the nature of international relations-whether it will be a multipolar , bipolar or continue to be a unipolar world with some room of maneuver for other powers. And the latter will determine the political future of peoples long in thrall of authoritarianism and will also have security implications.

 

If the future world order or the nature of international relations  turns out to be multipolar, the nature of this mutlipolarity will be different. It will not be an unstable system. The reasons for this are the nuclear arsenals available to major states and more importantly because the major states of the world are enmeshed in a complex interdependence paradigm. This complex interdependence paradigm-qualitatively different from the one prior to World War I – is likely to be the best insurance against the slide to war. The path to great power status lies through economic growth. War is no longer the arbiter of this status.  And it is economic growth and trade and enmeshment into trading patterns that can generate the requisite economic growth. It would then be irrational for any aspiring power to upset this paradigm, embark on revisionism and destroy this paradigm or order.

 

Will the competition between China and the United States pan out within the framework of economic growth? And will China graduate up the economic ladder and challenge the United States and its primacy and leave an indelible imprimatur on world politics? Or in , other words, will the result of this competition lead to  Sino centric world?

 

The answer is no. China may have grand aspirations and may even want to revert to the Middle Kingdom formulation or state, but this is informed more by wish. The reality is different. In the final analysis, China will be socialized into the international system of states and even morph into a democracy. The reasons for this optimism are premised upon the nature of the international system and its principles. This system formulated after the treaty of Westphalia has proved to be so enduring, resilient and strong that it has withstood the most vicious and sustained challenges to it: Fascism, Nazism, World Wars and the Great Depression. No other paradigm or system can supplant it. If a nation or state attempts to overthrow this order, it gets consumed and destroyed in the process. However, this system is not static; it is a dynamic and thus open to all and sundry. The only requirement is that the state in contention plays by its rules. And these rules are so powerful and compelling that they change and mutate the player or the actor playing the game. It socializes the actor into its principles and framework. There is no escape once an actor enters into the fray. No doubles games are countenanced and no short cuts possible. Revisionism within this system is a mug’s game.

 

What implications does this have on states or non state actors that are wannabe revisionists? The implications are stark. Adapt, accommodate or die. The fate of Al Qaeda- a non state actor-is a case in point. It, as an actor, has lost it’s potency-materially and ideologically. What followed September 11- albeit with a time lag- was the Arab Spring and a Middle East pregnant with the prospects of real and substantive change. It did not catalyze a broad reaction against the west or the Westphalian system in the Muslim world. It then behooves upon all states or/and even non state actors to reach an accommodation with this system. It is open to heterogeneity as long as the rules of the game are abided. Let this be taken to heart by all and sundry and instead of changing or challenging the system work toward improving the system and its lacunae. It is then that a peaceful and prosperous world will emerge.