‘World order’ in context of Ukraine war

Three terms — ‘corruption’, ‘terrorism’ and ‘world order’ — are highly unlikely to be defined or resolved through consensus (being contentious) on any international forum. Why? Because there’s bound to be several antonyms for each of these three words, meaning different things to different nations. ‘Corruption’ may be “subjective and biased inference” for an accused. ‘Terrorism’ could fluctuate between ‘oppression’ for the victim and the stamp of ‘freedom fighter’ for the perpetrator. And ‘world order’, being completely out of bounds, hence a joke, by a state feeling victimised by the brute force of the majoritarian club with money, muscle power and machine guns. Seen thus, one needs to delve deep into the ‘world order’ with reference to the ongoing conflict in Europe.

As is known, world history of the past 200 years shows a bewildering variety of alliances crisscrossing the diplomatic high table, wherein the stronger invariably dominated to set the conventional and time-tested route for a “world order” of the “fittest”. Despite this collective intention, however, incessant wars continued over the two centuries, which ultimately led to the establishment of the League of Nations in 1919 and, thereafter, the UN in 1945. Masterminded by the victorious (but battered) West, the aim was to create a “world without war” (at least for the developed West) through an interconnected “globalised world order”, essentially, to create, consume and concentrate the lion’s share of the wealth in, and for, the West.

But that’s not to be yet as is proved by another of the West-origin insatiable conflicts in the West-land, which menacingly drags the non-West (like the two World Wars of the 20th century) to a crisis-like situation of all-round shortage and scarcity, thereby fracturing the world’s trade, food, finance, fuel and economic foundation.

For more than three decades, the West’s over-emphasis on “globalisation” and “inter-connectivity” ignored the fact that bilateral ties constitute the core competence of every nation-state in search of stability in the proximity, rather than a far-off “world order”. Bilateral relations, thus, are the cornerstone of international diplomacy; else, what’s the logic of having an ambassador of ‘X’ in ‘Y’ and vice versa? Therefore, all multilateral agreements, diplomacy or convention can be considered as supplementary means to strengthening international relations and diplomacy through consensus and agreement.

In the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, however, a big question mark suddenly appears as to the future status and position of several multilateral agreements. All these are connected with the collective security of the West, with a broken Russia as the principal potential adversary.

So, as Moscow and Washington turn implacable foes from February 2022, what happens to the Russia-US “Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC)”, a forum established in 2010 on the “Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms”? All the more, as “its work is confidential”?

Again, how can Russia still fit into the 1992-established, 12-member “Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS)” of Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia, Sweden? Established as a “regional inter-governmental organisation” for co-operation among the Baltic Sea region states, all of 11 today are against (nay, hostile towards) Russia and trying to choke the range of the Russian gun and gas with the reach of the American greenback.

What further stands remote and far-reaching, inadvertently or otherwise, is that the West does appear to have sown seeds of a major European conflict owing to its inability to create an ambience of mutual trust, faith and confidence with its giant eastern landmass spanning from (the border of) Vilnius to Vladivostok in the Far East.

The reality is, mutual trust rarely developed between the West and Russia in every era. They only changed the names of rulers on both sides, but rarely the spirit of the formation of alliance, entente or convention. ‘Containment’, indeed, was the password for any alliance with the Communist USSR.

Thus came into existence in 1994 the Mediterranean Dialogue as a “forum for political dialogue” and cooperation between NATO member-states and countries of the Mediterranean (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia). NATO’s post-USSR overdrive was visible.

Subsequently, NATO progressed from the Mediterranean towards the Russia underbelly in 2008 with the establishment of the ‘NATO-Georgia Commission (NGC)’ to “serve the forum for political consultation and practical cooperation to help Georgia achieve its goal of joining NATO.”

The year 2008 also saw the launch of the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC) as a successor of the ‘Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe’ that was initiated by the European Union at the 1999 “conference of South-Eastern Europe”. Its ostensible purpose was to promote “mutual cooperation and European and Euro-Atlantic integration of states in South-Eastern Europe.”

In retrospect, what strikes strange is the conspicuous absence of Russia in matters relating to South-Eastern Europe, which mutually are adjacent to each other. There were six areas of discussion for the 46 participants (included in which was NATO): “Economic and social development, energy and infrastructure, justice and home affairs, security cooperation, human capital and parliamentary cooperation.” It was a virtual NATO-EU mega joint event at Moscow’s vulnerable doorstep where even Kosovo was present! But, Russia absent? Was it a prelude to our turbulent times? The sombre mood was vividly expressed on May 2 by no less than the universally revered, but distraught, Pope Francis.

That the break-up of the mighty USSR constituted a lifetime opportunity for Moscow rivals would be an understatement. Understandably, once a mighty Moscow; now one of the13 members (including Ukraine) of the “Organization of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC)” established in 1992 to “ensure peace, stability, prosperity…. economic cooperation and promotion” with its permanent secretariat at Istanbul.

Of all the West-sponsored networks, however, what stands out afresh is the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC), established in 1997 “for consultations on political and security issues, conflict prevention and resolution, non-proliferation, transfer of arms technology and subjects of common concerns.” The NUC had all NATO member-states and Ukraine as participants. The Russians saw, but had to swallow their pride, as NATO arrived inside Ukraine six years after Moscow lost power, prestige and status.

In hindsight, therefore, one can only take a cue from common sense and scholars’comments: that one factor cannot create an overnight conflict, and that it takes time to build up confrontation and a combat-like situation. War psyche bursts only when the gestation period matures.

As the conflict of the West now ravages the Europe heartland for more than three months, the January 2022 utterances of former German navy chief (Kay-Achim Schonbach) in an India meeting deserves recollection: “On the eye level, President Putin deserves respect. And giving him respect is low cost, even no cost. It’s easy to give him the respect he demands.” Was the German Admiral prophetic? Or, was the Pope correct in pulling up the West and chiding Russia? Only time will tell if the ‘mutually assured destruction (MAD)’ averts or delays the end of human race.