Geopolitical Analysis

by K.N. Pandita

Now-a-days much is said about the new world order. Everybody has his or her own perception of the new order. It means there is no one final definition of the term.

The term became common after the end of the cold war in 1991. Politicians and professors of political science began using it extensively in their speeches and writings. Surely, each of them had his or her individual perception.

Let us focus on it. Did the new order appear after the implosion of the erstwhile Soviet Union, which supported and propagated a particular social and political system for nearly seventy years after the World War II? Was the new concept born out of incredible revolution in science and technology in the post World War II? Was the concept a cumulative lesson derived from the disastrous conflicts that appeared in the post World War II setting? Questions like these are part of the discussion we propose to open.

One would like to point towards a very important phenomenon while discussing the subject matter. We have seen the rise of demand for recognition of identities over the decades that followed the World War II. There are religious, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and other identities that have raised their head.

Communist movement of early 20th century divided the entire humanity into two major groups the haves and the have-nots. Entire communist ideology was tied down to this division. The propagators of that ideology brushed aside in one sweep all other perceptions human society could be capable of. History has shown that this was a wrong concept and could not be sustained.

The Soviet Union, during its power, was confronted with the question of new social dimensions that its ideology failed to come to grips with. The simmering ethnic problems in the federating units of the erstwhile Soviet Union were sought to be thrown under the carpet. That was in no way the right approach to deal with them. The conversion of regions into autonomous regions (Nogorno Karabakh etc.) within a State was only a half hearted solution to an issue of much gravity. Nogorno Karabakh was only an indicator of more trouble to come up with the passage of time.

An important question that has now cropped up is that of identity. A people want to be known by some special characteristics, geographical, territorial, historical, cultural, linguistic etc. Inherently, there is an urge in the people to enjoy the right to identity and personality notwithstanding its numerical complexion or geographical feasibility.

But the urge for individuality does not in any way deny the possibility of cooperation with larger units and segments of society. Some short sighted politicians today consider the demand for identity as a cover effort of separatism and isolation. This is not a healthy way of looking at the issue. It is an irony that scientific and technological development makes individuals and societies both more independent as well as dependent. The prospect of independence is in relation to the suppression and discrimination they have suffered over a period of time and now want to reverse that story. And the prospect of dependence results from growing consciousness of inter-dependence of modern society drawing its strength from scientific and technological advancement.

The precise question before the contemporary world society is how to reconcile the two trends without damaging one or the other or without promoting one at the cost of the other. The primary thing to do is to recognize that units have the right to identity and individuality. This means that all symptoms that indicate the suppression or denial of the rights of the units have to be removed. A just and equitable system must prevail. The affected people must feel that their suppression is no more the truth and they have the space to move freely, physically as well as intellectually.

Also comes up the aspect of the integration of the identity into the world order. This has a very strong component of economy. Unless world economic system is redrawn along just and equitable lines, integration of identities within a global fold cannot be imagined. Therefore it is for the actors on economic front who must devise methodology and mechanism of drawing the identities into a world system.

Lending monies through recognized outlets is not the only solution. A new mechanism needs to be initiated to help the identities to self-generating economy. Investment is not to be conditioned in a way that returns make the investors richer. A social order must evolve to see to the equitable distribution of wealth.

Should the sources of energy be monopolized? Should those countries who have enormous hydrocarbon resources within their possession be the sole masters of the wealth when it is required by the huge majority of world population as a means of survival? Should the administration of energy sources remain confined in the hands of a few powerful nations and leave the rest look to their good will and good mood? This question is closely linked to the new world order. In our opinion no new world order can shape in the way desired unless the enormously important hydrocarbon resources are shared by the entire humanity. How can that proposition work is the subject that needs to be discussed.

I hope this write up raises many issues and the readers will feel prompted to enter a debate on them. Through a healthy and pragmatic discussion of issues we could perhaps come to a conclusion that would benefit the mankind at the end of the day.