In focus: Filling the vacuum Galal Nassar reviews the consequences of two terms of US unilateralism Most political conflicts emerge from a power vacuum. Once there is a vacuum any number of forces will rush to fill it. Until someone finally succeeds chaos will prevail. This is what we see today. The current vacuum is not just the outcome of the collapse of US power. For some reason no other country is willing, or seemingly capable, of stepping into the vacuum, at least not with the zeal the Soviets once exhibited. China is minding its own business. Russia has too many things on its mind. And Europe doesn't seem to care. The current vacuum exists because the world's top power cannot keep world peace or fight its wars unaided. Several US and non-US officials have been talking about this new situation. Speaking at the NATO defence ministers meeting in October 2008, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the current economic crisis, the opium trade and infighting among Afghan warlords are all helping Taliban and Al-Qaeda regroup. Obviously, the US needs international and regional partners to help it fill the vacuum that emerged following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. But partners are not easy to come by and the Bush administration failed to court them in earnest. The Obama administration is willing to work with others. But many questions need to be answered first. For example, we all know that in today's world the US is number one, but where is number two, or number three for that matter? What is the new power structure in today's world? Where do India, Brazil and Indonesia fit in? The world is aware of the need to answer these questions. In February the UN held an extraordinary session to discuss reform of the international order. The G20 summit will convene in April to examine the global economic situation. At almost the same time NATO leaders will meet to discuss future strategy. The answers they come up with will influence the future of the planet for years to come. You cannot seek to restructure the globe and ignore the Arab world. Controlling the Arab region has been the desire of every major power for decades. Control of the region grants the West access to oil and financial wealth. It also relieves the Western sense of guilt towards the Jews which is why Arab affairs are on every international agenda. Combating terror, the quest to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, concern over religious fundamentalism -- these are just different ways of saying that the region matters. This interest in the region creates considerable difficulties for its inhabitants. With its unilateralism, pre-emption, chauvinistic extremism, and crusader-style passion, the Bush administration heightened conflicts. During the Bush era the region was hostage to the ultra-right aspirations of men such as Ariel Sharon and Avigdor Lieberman in Israel, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and Elliott Abrams in the US. The Bush era may be over but the Arab region has yet to recover from the bashing it received. Conflicts arising from differences of opinion have escalated into bloody confrontations. The Bush administration did not invent Arab conflicts but it changed them beyond recognition. Egypt and Iraq had often competed for leadership but their rivalry was benign. Each believed that it could lead the region to better times. Neither sought to bring down the entire Arab system. The US invasion of Iraq did two things. First, it gave rise to schemes aiming to redraw the regional map and bring the entire region under Israeli and US control. Greater Middle East plans are a case in point, as were former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's ideas about a pact of moderates in the region. The war also upset the balance of power in the Gulf so much so that, regardless of when and how the Americans pull out, Iran will end up having a strong say in Iraq's affairs as well as leverage across the Gulf. As I said before, vacuums get filled.
