What Is the Alternative to Washington?
Since the end of World War II, the international political system went through two fundamental phases. The first was the bipolar system between the Soviet Union and the United States of America that lasted from 1945 until 1991, the Cold War period, the cause of many disputes. However, the balance of power between the two poles kept these disputes in order, as the world was roughly divided into two camps: the one composed of supporters and friends of Washington and the one opposed to it, allies and friends of Moscow.
The second model is unipolar, wherein the U.S. came into unrivaled power after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991. It was expected that the European Union would one day take the place of the United States. The idea of the European merger was an attempt to revitalize the ancient deep-rooted tradition in Western civilization, with the aim of returning the center of civilization to European hands once more. The existence of European leaders who are completely convinced of the centrality of European civilization and its overwhelming superiority reinforces this idea. This is just like when Turkey tried to revive Islamic identity in modern republics after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Whether it was in Central Asia or the Balkans, it imagined the birth of a new Turkish world, attempting to present another formula from among the other civilizational shifts. For it is possible to offer a civilizational alternative that is totally capable of competing with the West.
Something completely unexpected befell this political debate: the events of Sept. 11, 2001, which had severe repercussions for the world and the Middle East especially. September’s events took part in making strategic calculations extremely difficult and complex. More extreme and isolated than the unipolar system — especially so after the American military intervention in Afghanistan and occupation of Iraq without falling back to the United Nations — a new reality emerged in the international system. Likewise, a large civilian and military presence soon followed in the region, advising many nations in re-evaluating their foreign policy. Contrary to expectations, reckless American actions led to the exhaustion of the unipolar system, both militarily and economically. Most international relations experts agreed that Washington’s policies after the events of Sept. 11 incited hatred against it in the Middle East and increased opposition to its global dominance. Matters began to turn gradually eastward, to China and Russia, where one could say that the global system, for the first time in a decade, clearly faces a multipolar system.
From the beginning of 2011, the Arab region has gone through a state of internal conflict and popular movements, perhaps being witnessed for the first time by its countries. It became clear after the Libyan crisis that the U.S. was not ready to play a leadership role, as it left the matter to France, the United Kingdom and the rest of NATO. Likewise, this matter was made abundantly clear after the Syrian crisis, when from its first moments, Washington announced its stance, in a clear and frank fashion, that it was not ready for direct and active military intervention to end the conflict.
It held onto this stance despite the continued deaths of thousands of civilian victims and the Syrian regime’s use of all types of weapons for the entire world to see. The U.S. attempted to protest Russia and China’s resistance by not taking a crucial international stance. Meanwhile, the truth of the matter is that it is reassuring for Russia and China to refuse issuing an international decision that would lay a foundation for military action because Washington is not ready to take leadership in these actions or their consequences.
In front of University of Virginia students in February 2013, even U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry admitted to America’s role winding down in the world by saying: “American diplomacy faces new challenges in the future, and the American administration is working with what is within its power to confront these challenges.”*
Despite it becoming clear after Aug. 21, 2013, when Bashar al-Assad crossed that most important of red lines Washington had laid down — the use of chemical weapons — President Obama surprised the world by his acceptance of the Russian initiative and communication with Tehran, which established previous certainties that “engaging Iran in solving the Syrian crisis is an American matter.”
The rift in U.S.-Gulf relations is deepening, as was clear during the Syrian and Egyptian crises and only increased after Aug. 21. The important question now is: What is the alternative to Washington?
*Translator's note: Translated accurately, this quote is unverifiable. The article's author may be paraphrasing. Kerry's speech is here: http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/02/205021.htm
The second model is unipolar, wherein the U.S. came into unrivaled power after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991. It was expected that the European Union would one day take the place of the United States. The idea of the European merger was an attempt to revitalize the ancient deep-rooted tradition in Western civilization, with the aim of returning the center of civilization to European hands once more. The existence of European leaders who are completely convinced of the centrality of European civilization and its overwhelming superiority reinforces this idea. This is just like when Turkey tried to revive Islamic identity in modern republics after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Whether it was in Central Asia or the Balkans, it imagined the birth of a new Turkish world, attempting to present another formula from among the other civilizational shifts. For it is possible to offer a civilizational alternative that is totally capable of competing with the West.
Something completely unexpected befell this political debate: the events of Sept. 11, 2001, which had severe repercussions for the world and the Middle East especially. September’s events took part in making strategic calculations extremely difficult and complex. More extreme and isolated than the unipolar system — especially so after the American military intervention in Afghanistan and occupation of Iraq without falling back to the United Nations — a new reality emerged in the international system. Likewise, a large civilian and military presence soon followed in the region, advising many nations in re-evaluating their foreign policy. Contrary to expectations, reckless American actions led to the exhaustion of the unipolar system, both militarily and economically. Most international relations experts agreed that Washington’s policies after the events of Sept. 11 incited hatred against it in the Middle East and increased opposition to its global dominance. Matters began to turn gradually eastward, to China and Russia, where one could say that the global system, for the first time in a decade, clearly faces a multipolar system.
From the beginning of 2011, the Arab region has gone through a state of internal conflict and popular movements, perhaps being witnessed for the first time by its countries. It became clear after the Libyan crisis that the U.S. was not ready to play a leadership role, as it left the matter to France, the United Kingdom and the rest of NATO. Likewise, this matter was made abundantly clear after the Syrian crisis, when from its first moments, Washington announced its stance, in a clear and frank fashion, that it was not ready for direct and active military intervention to end the conflict.
It held onto this stance despite the continued deaths of thousands of civilian victims and the Syrian regime’s use of all types of weapons for the entire world to see. The U.S. attempted to protest Russia and China’s resistance by not taking a crucial international stance. Meanwhile, the truth of the matter is that it is reassuring for Russia and China to refuse issuing an international decision that would lay a foundation for military action because Washington is not ready to take leadership in these actions or their consequences.
In front of University of Virginia students in February 2013, even U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry admitted to America’s role winding down in the world by saying: “American diplomacy faces new challenges in the future, and the American administration is working with what is within its power to confront these challenges.”*
Despite it becoming clear after Aug. 21, 2013, when Bashar al-Assad crossed that most important of red lines Washington had laid down — the use of chemical weapons — President Obama surprised the world by his acceptance of the Russian initiative and communication with Tehran, which established previous certainties that “engaging Iran in solving the Syrian crisis is an American matter.”
The rift in U.S.-Gulf relations is deepening, as was clear during the Syrian and Egyptian crises and only increased after Aug. 21. The important question now is: What is the alternative to Washington?
*Translator's note: Translated accurately, this quote is unverifiable. The article's author may be paraphrasing. Kerry's speech is here: http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/02/205021.htm