American political commentator Thomas Friedman says that the world has entered a phase of ‘post-post-Cold War.’ This phase is witnessing a contest between what he calls an ad hoc “coalition of inclusion” and a “coalition of resistance”. The former is dominated by democratic countries while the latter is led by Russia, Iran and North Korea. Interestingly, Friedman believes China is straddling between the two given its economic interests. Not everyone agrees with Friedman’s formulation.
British Russian historian Sergei Radchenko argues that “the assumption that the United States can drive a wedge between China and Russia is flawed.” If history has taught Russia and China anything, Radchenko explains, it is that “it’s much better to be good neighbours than to be at each other’s throats.” One of the biggest challenges today is how to define the present world disorder which is only growing.
American writer Robert D Kaplan describes the present age as “comparative anarchy”. What the world is facing is a much higher level of anarchy compared to that of the Cold War and post Cold War periods. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterrez too maintains that we are now living in an increasingly chaotic world order. If we are to believe former UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps, we are moving “from a post-war to pre-war world”. The Economist magazine goes a step further suggesting that the liberal international order is slowly coming apart and that “its collapse could be sudden and irreversible.” Undoubtedly, the international order is fraying.
That explains the failure of the UN to bring the Ukraine and Gaza wars to an end. Many believe an escalation to global confrontation is more likely now than at any time since the end of the last world war. Joseph Stiglitz predicts that as the Gaza situation evolves, there is likelihood of international agreements and the very idea of international rule of law becoming spent forces. The international community must heed Mr Gutierrez’s warning about the world “edging tow – ar ds the unimaginable, a world of impunity where violations and abuses threaten the very foundation of international law and [the] UN Charter.” Post-war institutions are collapsing.
The International Criminal Court was established in 2002 as a court of last resort for ending immunity for the perpetrators of heinous crimes. Less than a quarter century later, its legitimacy has been eroded by powerful countries’ selective approach to justice and actions that speak of their double standards. The establishment of a permanent international criminal court with jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes of fer ed a glimmer of hope for the victims and survivors of in – ternational crimes. Some hailed it as a milestone in promoting individual criminal accountability for international crimes. That hope only flickers now. The West’s double standards are on display on its stand on Ukraine and the Gaza war. The European Commission president Ursula Von Der Leyen was prompt in condemning Russia’s attacks against civilian infrastructure in Ukraine as “war crimes”.
But when it comes to Israel’s actions against the Palestinians and a daily bombing of Gaza, silence is a preferred reaction. Legal experts maintain that what Israel is doing to Gaza including collective punishment of Palestinians, attacks on civilians, forcible transfer of a civilian population and the bombardment of civilian localities, and its failure to allow humanitarian relief into Gaza are far bigger war crimes. As American philosopher Judith Butler has argued forcefully, “if the dominant frame considers some lives more grievable than others, then it follows that one set of losses is more horrifying than another set of losses.”
The West’s behaviour towards the less worthy has followed a pattern. It dehumanises some people making them less worthy of public sympathy, thereby making violence against them more acceptable. The West’s duplicity is deplo – rable. In its contention, Israel is the victim of an unprovoked terrorist attack. It has the right to defend itself. The West fully stands with Israel against the “barbaric” violence of Palestinians. Western hypocrisy on how it has responded to Russia’s war in Ukraine is equally palpable. Human rights bodies and individual states can be blamed for selective application of international law. However, the double standards of the Global North over the Ukraine crisis and the Gaza war are too brutally obvious to deny, too difficult to obfuscate and too arbitrary to rationalise.
Western leaders have crossed all limits of decency in defending the indefensible. Former Defence Minister of France Jean-Noel Barrot said that “to accuse the Jewish State of genocide is to cross a moral threshold.” As if to correct himself, he said later that it was for the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court to decide.” As the UN Chief has said, “Gaza is more than a humanitarian crisis. It is a crisis of humanity.” The West’s Holy Empire is crumbling with the rise of the Global South. But it refuses to see the writing on the wall. Its imperial behaviour runs the risk of global governance relapsing into a neo-Hobbesian state of nature characterised by a dangerous cocktail of confrontational politics and zero-sum games. History loves unintended consequences.
The US-led West, Israel included, is seeking to take advantage of the post-imperial chaos. It believes the questions of right and justice apply only to relations among equals in power. For others, ‘the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.’ This is precisely what we are witnessing in the Gaza war. If the West continues to behave this way, it may clear the ground for a post-west global system. It will of course be preceded by post-western chaos. The US’ role as a global leader, a major pillar of international security and centre of the global economic and political order is unsustainable and unacceptable. The values that made the West great have been sold on to the rest of the world.
(The writer is director, Institute of Social Sciences, Delhi)