The world is facing growing uncertainty as the first quarter of the 21st century draws to a close. The changes are rapid and old convictions are dropping one after another. To come to terms with this uncertainty, Asharq Al-Awsat sat down with Lebanon’s former Minister of Culture, and former United Nations envoy Ghassan Salame, whose latest publication, “The Temptation of Mars: War and Peace in the 21st Century”, sheds light on which path the world is headed on for decades to come.
Nuclear ambitions
*What has changed in the world system in the first quarter of the 21st century?
Since the end of the Cold War, the world witnessed massive positive change, such as a drop in military spending, nuclear warheads and military bases in foreign countries. The Soviet Union withdrew from Eastern Europe and the United States closed several of its military bases in the Philippines and Central America. Work at the United Nations and several international agencies was also revived.
However, the situation was flipped on its head when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 because the invasion had no legal basis – certainly not from the UN Security Council – and world powers opposed it.
Moreover, the US played the biggest role in establishing the international order since 1945, starting with the UN, international funds and other organizations. So, if this country allowed itself to violate the rules it helped put in place, what’s stopping other countries from doing the same? And this is indeed what happened: Russia entered Georgia and Moldova and then Ukraine for the first time, and again for a second time. Other countries followed suit where they resorted to force to achieve their goals.
As a result, we witnessed a gradual growth in military budgets and nuclear countries, such as Russia, the US and France, began to gradually expand their nuclear arsenal. China is aiming to double its nuclear warheads from 1,500 to 3,000 by 2030.
Non-nuclear countries are meanwhile seeking to obtain them. Some 20 countries are capable of becoming nuclear in one year and I believe some will do so.
If the lack of trust between major powers, including the US, China and others, continues then the tensions will persist and escalate. Just look at how Russia changed its nuclear doctrine and Israeli officials called for bombing Gaza with a nuclear bomb. Such statements could not have been uttered in the 20 years before that.
Comprehensive South
*Will the “comprehensive South” play a role in restoring balance in the global order?
Certainly, but it will take time. Let us take a look at the scene. We have the NATO alliance which has no other equal in the world. When Russia started to move against Georgia and later Ukraine, NATO became more important and neutral European countries, such as Sweden and Finland, previously opposed to joining the alliance, have asked to become a part of it. So, this alliance mainly brings together western countries.
There is no other alliance that is similar to it across the globe. So, there is an imbalance between the West and the rest of the world because the West is reliant on an integrated alliance. There is a feeling among other countries, such as China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and India, that they are not getting their share in international organizations and that their opinions, demands and interests do not get the same attention because they are not part of an integrated alliance or unified bloc.
This is why organizations, such as the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization, were formed. These groups are still in their early stages of development and they are also victims of contrasting interests: China wants more countries to join the BRICS, while Russia doesn’t. China is speaking of an integrated global south, while Russia doesn’t want to lump itself in that group.
Furthermore, members of these groups have differences between them, such as India and China’s border disputes. The BRICS has not, and will not, in the near future transform into anything like NATO unless it sets a doctrine for itself. NATO is formed of countries that enjoy similar political systems. It is based on a free economic market and liberal constitutional system. These features don’t exist in the BRICS countries.
China and the US
*Where is the rivalry between China and the US headed? Will the years to come lead us to a bipolarity?
It is wrong to believe that China and the US are already in bipolarity. Bipolarity is a project that started 15 years ago. The US does not like multiple poles. It knows that it won’t be able to retain a large number of its allies if it were the sole pole in the world. Washington is most at ease in a bipolar world where it holds the upper hand and where fierce competition makes its allies take its side.
Between 2006 and 2007, when US President Geore W. Bush was in power, the deep state and political elite in the US sought a new rival and believed that China could be it. So, efforts got underway to form the bipolar world and for China to become the main strategic competitor. Of course, China was very comfortable with this.
When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the first foreign dignitary he met was the president of China, not of Russia or France. This elevates China’s status. So, China has become embroiled in this American project to establish a bipolar world. The project is still facing some major resistance from several countries. The question is: Will Russia, India, Brazil and others accept this bipolarity? I believe that several major countries are wary of this bipolarity because it will curb their political and diplomatic freedoms.
Tectonic shifts in the Arab world
*The Arab world is witnessing tectonic shifts, most notably with the ouster of the Syrian regime. Will the Arab world remain this fragmented?
What you are asking has to do with the conditions for political stability. Why are some countries and regions politically stable and others are constantly witnessing revolutions and lack of security?
There are several explanations for this. The common answer is the absence of the state of law, and representation of the people and their involvement in political decisions. These elements provide stability. This is the liberal explanation. Some would say that the liberal reading applies to advanced countries with low populations, not backward ones with large populations where stability can only be imposed through the forceful application of the law.
I believe the Arab world is experiencing a phase that does not allow stability. First, we have the vast inequality in incomes between neighboring countries. This will lead the poorest countries to demand that the wealthier ones share their wealth.
Other factors are the population explosion, people moving from rural to urban areas and the lack of new job opportunities. Syria, for example, has several factors that do not lead to stability: desertification, water scarcity, drop in agricultural production and a population explosion. I think Syria is the third country in the world in terms of population growth, people moving to urban areas and lack of job opportunities. Syria needs 300,000 job opportunities each year and they are mostly unavailable. I’m not even talking about politics, sectarianism, oppression and other issues.
