Thomas Friedman of the New York Times explains the importance of the New World Order: "The new world system is also bipolar, but instead of being divided between East and West, it is divided between the World of Order and the World of Disorder. The World of Order is built on four pillars: the U.S., E.U.-Russia, India and China, along with all the smaller powers around them. The World of Disorder comprises failed states (such as Liberia), rogue states (Iraq and North Korea), messy states — states that are too big to fail but too messy to work (Pakistan, Colombia, Indonesia, many Arab and African states) — and finally the terrorist and mafia networks that feed off the World of Disorder. "There has always been a World of Disorder, but what makes it more dangerous today is that in a networked universe, with widely diffused technologies, open borders and a highly integrated global financial and Internet system, very small groups of people can amass huge amounts of power to disrupt the World of Order. Individuals can become super-empowered. In many ways, 9/11 marked the first full-scale battle between a superpower and a small band of super-empowered angry men from the World of Disorder. "The job of the four pillars of the World of Order is to work together to help stabilize and lift up the World of Disorder. [SNIP!] [Friedman makes pointed reference to China's neglect of these facts, combined with its dependence upon world export market, especially the US' 40% share of it.] "One more 9/11, one bad Iraq war that ties America down alone in the Middle East and saps its strength, well, that may go over well with the cold warriors in the People's Liberation Army, but in the real world — in the world where your real threat is not American troops crossing your borders but American dollars fleeing from them — you will be out of business. "Now which part of that sentence don't you understand?" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/opinion/16FRIE.html --Orson
by the way I think this thread describes the polarization that I see taking place most succinctly. What is hard for me is that I may fear the "world of Order" just as much as the "world of disorder." Don't get me wrong, the ideologies and actions of Hussein and Bin Laden are clearly evil. However, I fear that the "world of Order," in order to win this war, may have to consolidate too much power and strength in singular areas to win (i.e., the US, EU, etc.). If the "world of Order" wins this "war," will the world we are left with have room for religious freedom and toleration? How much freedom? How can the holy land be tamed without a fine-tuned brokering of religious freedom in that area by a large power such as our "world of Order"? At that point, has not this "order" become a religion in itself? Chris
Anyone who enjoyed the perspective of this article will also enjoy Friedmans book The Lexus And The Olive Tree: Understanding Globilization . Jack
Re: by the way My fears too, Chris. But if failed states and terrorism are today's security threats, and the UN proves useless at handling both, what's is the alternative? One possibility I'd love to see articulated somewhere is a revival of the old Euro vision of sphere's of influence--only this time as expanded mutually assisted state policing. Clearly, India in South Asia--Europe/EU/Nato in Europe and Northern Asian...China? well--it gets sticky because poorer nations often border the problem regimes and lack means and the moral authority necessary to do the job, e.g., how could Russian prevent Turkomen genocide after Chechnya--who would trust them in any Muslim nation? Perhaps it's a naive alternative....But knowing so still would simplify coalition building for the US or other policing authorites. At one time the UN Security Council was envisioned as somthing like this, but as presently constituted its time has passed. (Elsewhere Friedman rightly suggests that India ought to replace one of the old powers--France, I believe, was his choice.) --Orson
