World View: Kofi Annan opened this year's General Assembly session on Tuesday with an insightful speech on the future of world politics. It raises many issues needing further discussion, arising directly from the Iraq war and its aftermath, writes Paul Gillespie.
Recalling that states have generally sought to deal with threats to the peace "through containment and deterrence, by a system based on collective security and the United Nations Charter" since the UN was founded 58 years ago, he described how a doctrine of pre-emptive intervention has emerged to deal with new threats linking terrorism to weapons of mass destruction.
Without mentioning the Bush administration by name, he said this logic presents a "fundamental challenge" to those previously dominant principles. "If it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification".
For this reason, he said, "we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded".
Annan went on to say it is not enough to denounce unilateralism; it is also necessary to show those who advocate it that their concerns can be "addressed effectively through collective action". These would include developing "criteria for an early authorisation of coercive measures" by the Security Council to address certain types of threat, including terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction, genocide and other massive violations of human rights. This should be accompanied by a new agenda of Security Council reform.
George Bush's speech, following Annan's, repeated his justifications for the war and the Manichean dichotomy between the forces of good and evil around the world from which he says it arose. But he did signal the new urgency in US policy to seek political, economic and military help in tackling the comprehensive mess that is post-war Iraq, and which is finally travelling relentlessly up the US domestic agenda. European and other states are not inclined to help if the US retains power, and there are some who say it is better to let Bush stew in his own juice, lose the election and then deal with a more willing US partner. But a compromise seems possible, based on an agreed timetable to draw up an Iraqi constitution and hold elections over the next year. Annan seeks to turn this moment to advantage by restoring UN-based multilateralism.
This is an intelligent and potentially fruitful approach, as was acknowledged by the Taoiseach in his speech: "More effective than striking pre-emptively, of course, is to pre-empt the risk of conflict through a wide range of steps in the diplomatic, economic, humanitarian and other areas". A similar point was made by Javier Solana, in an article in this newspaper last Tuesday, based on a policy of "preventive engagement" by the European Union - "we must be ready to take appropriate action when the principles of the United Nations Charter are violated".
These exchanges highlight the nature of power and order in international politics today. Is the United States a hyperpower, a hegemon or an imperial power? Does this crisis signal the start of its decline or a new phase in its dominance? Is the European Union developing in a similar fashion to match or equalise that power, or is such a comparison quite miscon-ceived? Can the United Nations be anything more than a framework reflecting these inter-state and inter-bloc relations of power, or can it effect and change how they operate?
The question of whether US power is imperial is no longer conducted mainly on the left-wing margins but has come to the centre of established debate. In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, for example, the conservative British historian Niall Ferguson reviews a comparative study of Britain from 1846-1914 and the US from 1941-2001 in the light of his own recent book Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power. He argues that the imperial analogy works, despite American reluctance to use the term.
Empire has never meant exclusively direct rule over foreign territories without any political representation of their inhabitants. It can be direct or indirect, formal or informal, so that the US can be classified as an imperial power that prefers indirect and informal ways of ruling. He points up some significant contrasts between the US and imperial Britain. While the US is decisively more powerful militarily and economically than Britain ever was, it suffers from three deficits which make its power vulnerable. Whereas Britain formally ruled a quarter of the world's territory and population, the US has a mere 14 direct dependencies. Compared to the 15 to 20 million (mainly Celtic) British subjects settled in its empire, fewer that four million Americans now reside abroad. And while Britain was a net exporter of capital, the US is a net importer of capital on as large a scale.
Joseph Nye, dean of the Kennedy School in Harvard, believes the term imperial is inaccurate and misleading if applied to the US, since "the paradox of American power is that world politics is changing in a way that means the strongest power since Rome cannot achieve some of its most crucial international goals acting alone".
He says the agenda of world politics has become like a three-dimensional chess game in which one can win only by playing vertically as well as horizontally.
On the top board of classic inter-state military issues, the US will remain dominant for years to come. But power is already multipolar between the US and the EU, for example, on the softer middle board of interstate economic issues, while on the bottom board of transnational issues, power is widely distributed, chaotically organised and certainly not subject to US control.
This suggestive approach opens up ways in which Kofi Annan's ambitions for the UN could be developed, involving a new configuration of co-operative action between the most powerful blocs and the rest of the world. The alternative could be a dangerous "proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force", as he warned.
pgillespie@irish-times.ie