Thursday, August 28, 2008

The End of the New World Order


"If there were any doubt that the rules of the international game have changed for good, the events of the past few days should have dispelled it. On Monday, President Bush demanded that Russia's leaders reject their parliament's appeal to recognise the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Within 24 hours, Bush had his response: President Medvedev announced Russia's recognition of the two contested Georgian enclaves.

The Russian message was unmistakable: the outcome of the war triggered by Georgia's attack on South Ossetia on August 7 is non-negotiable - and nothing the titans of the US empire do or say is going to reverse it.

That this month's events in the Caucasus signal an international turning point is no longer in question.

What is clear is that America's unipolar moment has passed - and the new world order heralded by Bush's father in the dying days of the Soviet Union in 1991 is no more. The days when one power was able to bestride the globe like a colossus, enforcing its will in every continent, challenged only by popular movements for national independence and isolated "rogue states", are now over."
You can read the whole of Seumas Milne's brilliant Guardian article on the significance of recent events in the Caucasus here.

And then, folks, it's time to pop the champagne corks.

5 comments:

Jock McTrousers said...

"it's time to pop the champagne corks."

Some cheap red wine, at least. You'd probably get hell for saying that on any of the Trot blogs. Sure, there's plenty wrong with Russia, but any successful resistance, from any source whatever, to the NWO of the boot of Wall Street stamping on the human face forever, is good news for human faces everywhere. Cheers!

Neil Clark said...

Absolutely, Jock. No one is saying they want to see Russian global hegemony, only that it's great to see a bit more balance returned to international affairs. As Seumas himself puts it:

only the most solipsistic western mindset can fail to grasp the necessity of a counterbalance in international relations that can restrict the freedom of any one power to impose its will on other countries unilaterally.

olching said...

Neil, if I may, I was actually quite disappointed by Milne's article. Not so much in its general gist, but in its conclusions.

The conflict in Georgia and the ramifications thereafter are not the end of our current paradigm, merely a welcome set-back.

The 'freedom & democracy' campaign is still in full flow; in fact I would suggest it's gathered more momentum again, particularly (and I will duck for cover) with Obama as a possible president. Why? It will easier to unite Europe again (and we are witnessing this right now) and bring them in line with the 'progressive' American crusade of promoting 'F&D'.

NATO is still seeking to expand; Europe is still being turned into a consumerist themepark; the US is about to regain international credibility and thus more power again. Obama will fundamentally follow the same mantra of spreading 'F&D' around the globe. He won't be as brutish as Bush or Hillary, but that is the essence of American politics.

I found Milne's conclusions odd and off the mark. I fear we will see a more united neoliberal front with a less idiotic and more seemingly credible administration in the White House (across Europe and beyond).

Roland Hulme said...

The fact that Olching mentioned 'freedom and democracy' in any article referring to Russia is laughable.

"The days when one power was able to bestride the globe like a colossus, enforcing its will in every continent, challenged only by popular movements for national independence and isolated "rogue states", are now over."

Actually, with Russia's unilateral military dominion over the region, I'd say they've only just begun.

olching said...

Roland, read through my post again and try to make sense of it.

F&D refers to the bullshit rationale the 'west' has been putting forward over the last two decades.