Panel Session 1: UNDERSTANDING THE GLOBAL (DIS)ORDER

Radmila Nakarada

Memo

The hopes that the end of Cold war will usher in an era of peaceful cooperation among states, uniting their efforts in constructive response to the global challenges, have been obliterate, particularly by the Russian/Ukraine war, and the war in Gaza. Again the dividing line between the civilized West and primitive East is retraced, between the authoritarian dictator and the world of democracy. Following the end of Cold War Russia showed explicit interest in becoming part of the West, but rebuffed, rejected and finally reduced to a country ruled by Mad Vlad, an authoritarian leader who wants to recreate the Russian Empire and who is an existential threat to Western Europe. The path leading from potential cooperative relations to the resumption of antagonism is onslaught on the Russian economic process of transition, covered by broken promises, (the promise not to expand NATO “not an inch”  toward the East), the generously financed Maidan coup in Ukraine by the West, together with the training and financing of Ukrainian army, long before the war began, the blowing up of the Northern stream, introduction of extensive sanctions, manipulation (“buying time”, A. Merkel) with Minsk agreements the West had no intention of keeping, and above all preventing the early negotiations between Ukraine and Russia that were acceptable to both sides and could have prevented the escalation of war.  The Russian demanded in the negotiations the protection of their minority in the Donbas area, which had been subjected to violence, their cultural autonomy, i.e. the right to use the Russian language, that Ukraine refrains from becoming a member of NATO, and that the status of Crimea is defined at a later date. There is no explanation why these negotiations were disrupted by the West, primarily by the UK, except that preserving peace was no the aim, and the EU was not able to act in accordance with its self-ascription as a peace project, and demonstrate its preventive capacities.  

What is essential also to point out is that in spite of the systematic provocations in the direction of a conflict, Russia should have responded to them in an unexpected way, by effective diplomacy, realignment with China and Global south, and by intensive utilization of the UN and ICC before the intervention. In other words, it also had a choice.  In addition it should be noted that besides the arrogant disregard for the sensitive Russian security issues, the huge military assistance to Ukraine in order to protect its sovereignty is occurring at the same time as the US, EU and NATO are doing their utmost to legitimize the illegal secession of Kosovo and breach the sovereignty of Serbia. (Particularly cynical is the support of the Kosovo Albanians for the sovereignty of Ukraine, a Serbian narrative in the case of Kosovo). This entanglement of dark choices, inconsistencies, speaking in two voices, has become a common feature of the new disordered World   within the realm of International law, where selectivity, double standards,  are rooted in the existing geometry of power amidst the erosion of democracy and the creation of the post truth era. 

Similar features are discernible in relation to the Gaza/Israeli war. The US and EU have extended practically an unconditional support to Israel, again not demonstrating will, competences and instruments of prevention or effective negotiations. German chancellor had proclaimed that due to the historical guilt of its country in relations to Jews, Germany is obliged to provide Israel with arms. Not mediate, not prevent destruction and the suffering of both Palestinians and Jews, but prolong the conflict. Peace is not the ultimate value that shapes the foreign policy, but the DEFEAT of the enemy. Being so morally sensitive, Germany, like some other western countries, has been censoring criticism of Israel’s policies of massacres and equated demonstration for a peace fire with anti-Semitism. 

None of the actors are able/willing to provide the conditions for a negotiated settlement, cease fire, to limit the arrogance of power that Netanyahu is demonstrating, shunning all norms and pressures. They accept that Hamas is a terrorist organization, that Israel has the right to self-defense to the extent of violating humanitarian law, and they refer to a two state solution, without any conviction, knowing it is definitely of the table, while worrying whether the fact that Israel is a nuclear power and that a showdown with Iran may ensue, throwing the world into an inferno.