The US may be talking more and acting less, but the post-Cold War order remains more dangerous than its predecessor, writes Amin Howeidi* When Mikhail Gorbachev initiated perestroika and glasnost, he was practically telling us that the Cold War was over. Suddenly, the old bipolar world order gave way and became unipolar. The US was there alone, calling the shots. For a while, many assumed that this was for the best. As it turned out, we were in for a rough ride. Troubles continued unabated. The North remained powerful and the South dependent. Often, much of the trouble in the South was homemade. Proxy wars became less frequent, but terror took centre stage. To this day, many confuse terror for legitimate acts of resistance. This is one controversy the world has been unable to resolve. The predator is mistaken for the prey. Villains are rewarded while victims stand trial. In a nutshell, international justice has become more selective than ever. Whatever the mighty decide is fair becomes so, but there will be hell to pay. Overwhelming force has failed to bring about stability. Small powers have been able to harass major ones to distraction. The events of 9/11 are a case in point. A handful of civilians using civilian technology inflicted unprecedented trauma on the world's greatest power. Elsewhere, lightly armed combatants ran circles around regular troops in the battlefield. In both Iraq and Palestine, resistance has proven its ability to deter. Whether you're a major or minor power, you can pick the time and place of battle. But once the first shot it fired, it is too late to go back. From that point onwards, it's all crisis management. Three years ago, President Bush told the world that major hostilities were over in Iraq. He was wrong. To this day, the bloodshed continues, with 2,600 American servicemen dead so far. Ariel Sharon, when in office, promised his people that he would end the Intifada within three months. To this day, turmoil continues. When will the guns fall silent? No one really knows. The prey and the predator are each looking for a way out. Apparently, a unipolar order was not the answer to the prayers of a war-ridden world. In the time of bipolarity, the rules of the game were clear. One superpower would step in; the other would step out, perhaps arming rebels behind the scenes. Most of the time, deals were made. The world was divided in equal proportion. It wasn't a perfect arrangement, but it worked. Now we have the US claiming that "those who aren't with us are against us" -- not exactly a helpful message. The US is using military force with or without the backing of international law. The US has developed a three-step choreography: first, it prepares the ground with accusations such as "Saddam has mass destruction weapons" and "Iran is a rogue state"; second, it tries to win public opinion at home and world opinion abroad, claiming that diplomacy has run its course; and third, it announces that it's stepping in, with or without international backing. So far this strategy has got the world's sole superpower into more trouble than it bargained for. The French, Russians and Chinese have expressed strong reservations. And many smaller nations have simply refused to play along. As a result, the US is toning down its rhetoric. Like a chameleon, the US is learning to change its colour. The US now thinks twice before it acts. It is urging regimes to change, rather than changing them. And it is asking others for help, rather than acting unilaterally. It is also talking more and acting less, which -- all things considered -- is an improvement. What I am saying is that it's always better to stay away from trouble. Once trouble starts, it's still better to talk than to shoot. As for us, we should stick together, for the world is even more dangerous than it was. * The writer is former minister of defence and chief of General Intelligence.
