Ethnicity, multipolarity and global ‘disorder’

ISIS extremists have been persecuting ancient Christian communities in Mosul, Iraq

April 29, 2015, 12:00 pm 

However, during the Cold War decades, between 1945 and 1990, discord and international ‘disorder’ driven by ethnicity and narrowly conceived nationalism were at a minimum. This was mainly because the bipolar world political order ushered by the Cold War, was dominated mainly by the ideological battle between the super powers and the accompanying Cold War proxy conflicts, which ensured that ethnicity and its ‘appeals’ were on the fringes or outside global political discourse or debate. However, considering their intellectually stifling nature, Cold War times could in no way be endorsed by progressives.

As some of the excesses and atrocities of the World Wars are commemorated globally currently, with remorse and pain by the conscience-stricken, French President Francois Hollande articulated one of the most thought-provoking of observations with regard to these recollections:’The worst could yet return.’

Hollande was referring in particular to the horrors of anti-semitism and racism, evoked by the Nazi death camps in Europe. These atrocities could indeed ‘return’, provided the civilized sections of the world guard against them and take the necessary precautions to ensure that they do not recur. One may even argue that they have ‘returned’, to a degree, if the IS-initiated violence in the Middle East is anything to go by, not to speak of the reemergence of Far Right political parties in the West and their growing intolerance of racial and religious minorities.

In a way, international politics today is evocative of those early decades of the 20th century when we had in place a multipolar global political order, accompanied by the rise of nationalist sentiment in parts of Europe and outside. In those times, essentially, an alliance system dominated international politics, which was West-centred. The First World War, for example, featured an alliance comprising, mainly, Britain, France, Russia, Italy and the US, and another featuring Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey, as the main actors. Needless to say, the same alliances, with some mutations and changes, featured in the Second World War as well.

However, Serbian nationalism was a trigger factor in World War One, while German nationalism, compounded by Natzism, was a dominant characteristic of the Second World War. Needless to say, Natzism accounted for the anti-semitic horrors of the latter war. These tragic developments should serve as a reminder that any sort of nationalism, if not handled perceptively by its proponents, could degenerate into destructive communalism and xenophobia of the most heinous kind.

It could be said that in Sri Lanka, in more recent times, communalism was allowed to enjoy a new lease of life. The proof of this were the anti-Muslim riots in parts of Southern Sri Lanka some two years ago. The then authorities seemed to be tolerating this outburst of communalism and religion-based violence by looking the other way. In this country too, ‘the worst could yet return’, provided communalism is stamped out by the government. This challenge demands of the local authorities an unflinching and frank ideological confrontation with the forces of communalism and many a seemingly ‘unpopular’ measure may have to be initiated by them to stem the rot; but this is what governance, correctly understood, is all about.

Getting back to the broader canvas of world politics, the point could be made that until the emergence of the superpowers after the Second World War, we had, broadly speaking, a multipolar world political order, on account of the fact that several power centres dominated international politics at that time. However, some of these powers happened to be grouped into alliances which tried to balance the power wielded by each other, even if it meant going to war. This was the situation in the West in the early decades of the century past.

Therefore, world politics in those years, contained in it factors of instability, which propelled the world in the direction of ‘disorder’ and upheaval. Narrowly conceive nationalism and communalism, or ethnicity, compounded these destabilizing trends and contributed to war-time excesses and atrocities, which, to this day, are regretted by civilzed sections.

Today, as the developing world commemorates the epochal Bandung Conference of 1955, it would be relevant to recall that it was broadly conceived and enlightened nationalism that motivated the Third World at the time. Besides being expressive of self-governance, nationalism was seen as a unifying and inclusive ideal which brought on to the stage of governance all ethnic and cultural groups within a country. This is nationalism as conceived by India’s Mahatma Gandhi, for instance. Nationalism, in Bandung times, did not mean governance of a country by only a dominant community. The latter phenomenon is referred to as ‘sectional nationalism’, which is basically divisive in nature.

However, during the Cold War decades, between 1945 and 1990, discord and international ‘disorder’ driven by ethnicity and narrowly conceived nationalism were at a minimum. This was mainly because the bipolar world political order ushered by the Cold War, was dominated mainly by the ideological battle between the super powers and the accompanying Cold War proxy conflicts, which ensured that ethnicity and its ‘appeals’ were on the fringes or outside global political discourse or debate. However, considering their intellectually stifling nature, Cold War times could in no way be endorsed by progressives.

With the Cold War crumbling in the 1990s, multipolarity could be said to have made a comeback to international politics. Needless to say, although US political, military and economic hegemony continues, US power is being challenged currently by multiple other powers, including China, Russia and to some extent, Iran. Accordingly, multipolarity has displaced bipolarity and its ‘certainties’.

However, even more thought-provoking is the seeming re-emergence of ethnicity-driven conflicts in mainly the Asian and African theatres. While Al-qaeda and IS-linked violence is being confronted by the West and Saudi Arabia-inspired military coalitions, the world is being rendered an increasingly ‘dangerous place’ to live in as a result of these escalating conflicts. A poser for the West is whether its military approach to meeting these challenges is helping in any way to blunt them. Ethnic and religion-based violence in the Middle East and outside is not only aggravating, but identity-linked hatreds are intensifying almost globally. Proof of the latter is the targeting of religious minorities by extremist political forces in the Middle East and in South Asia.

Therefore, the world seems to have ‘reverted’ to the ‘disorder’ of the early decades of the twentieth century. The need is urgent to inculcate in the world’s publics respect for the numerous identities cherished by peoples, which define who they are. This is a task for no less the UN than for those states which claim to be democratic. Democracy and inclusive development need to go hand-in-hand. Progress towards these twin aims could help considerably in making the world a better and safer place.