It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


PINR: "The defining of international order"

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 04:29 AM
PINR: "The defining of international order"
Printed on Monday, March 17, 2003 @ 01:14:25 EST ( )

Power and Interest News Report (PINR)

(PINR) -- In the next few weeks, the future of international order will be determined. If the Bush administration chooses to invade Iraq after failing to secure United Nations approval, a precedent will be established encouraging states to pursue unilateralist rather than multilateralist policies. The failure of the U.N. to restrain the United States may spark a new wave of nationalism, where states no longer feel secure under the symbolic umbrella of international treaties and agreements. This will weaken global cooperation and increase the possibility for conflicts around the world.

The United States, formerly a public proponent of U.N. cooperation and multilateral arrangements, has shifted its national policy toward unilateralist action where the perceived interests of the U.S. are held sacred above all else. Withdrawing from the 1972 anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, rejecting the protocol to the bioweapons treaty, refusing to participate in the International Criminal Court, abandoning the Kyoto protocol and threatening preemptive warfare are all products of U.S. nationalism and unilateralism introduced by the current administration.

The upcoming decision about whether to invade Iraq will be paramount to the future of international order. If the United States invades Iraq without securing a Security Council resolution specifically approving an invasion, it will be following a nationalist, unilateralist policy rather than an internationalist, multilateral policy. Once the United States abandons multilateralism, other states will react in kind in order to secure their interests that are no longer protected by international agreements and alliances.

North Korea's bellicose foreign policy reflects this change. Pyongyang no longer feels secure by international assurances and is now attempting to strengthen its military by producing a large nuclear arsenal capable of deterring the United States from possible aggression. Iran has also reacted to the U.S. threat to operate outside of international restraint institutions like the United Nations. Tehran expressed its desire to control every aspect of its nuclear energy program, including the reprocessing of its spent fuel -- a procedure that can be used to develop nuclear weapons. If other powerful states also abandon multilateralism, global alliances will be replaced by smaller alliances, following the pattern set by the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing."

Larger powers such as France, Germany, Russia and China are against a U.S. invasion of Iraq because they do not want to abandon multilateralism. The reason that powerful states do not want to abandon multilateralism is because the United States stands unprecedented in its level of economic and military supremacy. Other states will have a hard time securing national interests in a world that is dominated by a colossal power that has abandoned international institutions.

However, if the United States actually does abandon multilateralism, by invading Iraq without U.N. approval, powers such as France, Germany, Russia and China may also abandon multilateralism in order to secure their interests against a power unrestrained by international agreements.

This danger is already becoming evident in the European Union. The initial plan for European integration was to bond all of Europe together. However, in order to weaken the unity of the European Union's resistance to U.S. plans in Iraq, the Bush administration divided the continent by splitting it into "Old Europe" and "New Europe." By rallying prospective E.U. member states behind American policy, the U.S. undercut E.U. unity, causing these future E.U. states to side with Washington rather than the rest of the Union. This undermined the current member states and caused E.U. policymakers to reassess the idea of further European integration; afraid to lose control over E.U. policy to U.S. interests that are no longer synonymous with their own, a reawakened French nationalism is now attempting to preserve their control over the body.

Therefore, the current debate over Iraq is merely a power struggle set on the world stage. Multilateralists such as Colin Powell would rather have the U.S. secure U.N. support, or an otherwise broad coalition before invading Iraq. Powell's purpose for this is that he does not want the U.S. to blatantly abandon multilateralism because it may hurt U.S. interests in the long term. The so-called "hawks" of the administration associated with the Pentagon are indifferent to the U.S.' failing to secure international support. These nationalists would like to see a U.S. unrestrained by international agreements, solely pursuing its own short-term interests even at the expense of other powerful states. As of now, the "hawks" are in control, expressed through U.S. willingness to attack Iraq with or without U.N. support.

If the U.S. continues to express its nationalism and invades Iraq without U.N. approval, nationalist sentiment could quickly spread throughout the world. If this occurs, it will increase the chance of future conflict as international institutions will be weakened and there will be a higher potency for the collision of nationalist interests between states.

Erich Marquardt drafted this report.

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. PINR seeks to inform rather than persuade. This report may be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, All comments should be directed to

[Edited on 19-3-2003 by truthdrug]

posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 01:30 AM

IMO, it looks like most of Europe & Asia may even try to band together to stop the new "Fourth Reich"...

Thanks a $#|+load for destroying America's future, Shrub!

posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 06:55 PM
Im surprised so few have commented on this great piece of social commentary.

posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 07:25 PM
More drivel that is all about One World Order and nothing about nations having individual sovereignty.

The U.N is made up of nations that openly despise the U.S. Nations that are jealous, nations that think we are nothing but a welfare office, nations that would delight in seeing my family suffer and die simply because they think we deserve pain because of our prosperity.

The commentary is a bunch of attempted brainwashing, but it is only good against those who are uncertain, and this American does not fit that category.

I know why nations like Germany, France and Russia are against us exercising our sovereign right to defend our people, and it has nothing to do with multilateralism. They have no desire to have their little oil-slicked and commercial boat rocked, even if it means my son or wife or elderly parents die by way of VX or smallpox released by those who hate America, provided by Hussein, who also hates America.

Most of the drivel was anti-American liberalism. Take the 1972 ABM withdrawal nonsense. The agreement was with a government that no longer exists even. The importance of it is obvious considering North Korea. Oh, that means nothing to the rest of the world as the rest of the world isn't the one that is the deterent against N. Korean aggression against its neighbors, is it? No, America is the hated wall between North and South Korea. What? The U.N. will protect them, you say? Yeah, sure, it has proven its worthlessness, and its run by thugs and tyrants. Who would lead the way to sound the alarm? Libya, the leader of the U.N. Human Rights Farce? Tell me another lie, I feel gullible today.

Kyoto was nothing more than a back-door way to harm America, placing undue burdens on us. You want to clean up the world? See if Mexico and China might would lead the way. Maybe Russia could lead by example, and as I've been to Europe and know it isn't the Clean Air Capital of the Universe, don't mind if I prefer not to take advice from them, either.

Those who hate us continue to worry about this peace-loving nation taking over the world, and only offer lipservice to the real threats. But as the real threats are only against my family and to help would cost the other nations, screw it.

Well, you want to know my opinion on the little editorial? Here it is: It's a bunch of garbage. And whether or not it is the opinion of the rest of the world, I couldn't care less, what must be done for our family's safety is what must be done. We can't afford Chamberlain's blunder, there is no friend with the industrial capability, manpower and moral character to come to our rescue when we are pushed into the corner, and if we were occupied as France was, instead of coming to our aide, I fear she would now attempt to repurchase the Louisiana Territory from our occupier.

posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 07:32 PM

Originally posted by truthdrug
Im surprised so few have commented on this great piece of social commentary.

This is a very sensible and accurate analysis of the facts.

A Manifesto !

btw there's evidence for your analysis just popping out of the media : Khadafi is on a tour through Africa where he's being hailed as a liberator

posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 07:39 PM
Point in case. I don't think I could have done it better had I hacked into Karl's account and posted it for him!

posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Point in case. I don't think I could have done it better had I hacked into Karl's account and posted it for him!

posted what for me ?

posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 08:55 PM
Thomas, do you believe there is "Anti-American liberalism" ?!?

posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 09:09 PM

The Power and Interest News Report is currently down until further notice.

How long has this site been down?

We have changed from a planet whose primary source of income was been weapons, to one which must now accept the reality our recources are becoming more limited. This report seems to present the argument
that because of what happened with the UN in respect to the conflict with Iraq acts as justification in reasserting a world order based on a military build up.

One can say the US supported the UN but reality dictates that such a statement has very little merit to it. When taking into account the vast number of Nations which is a part of that Institution. It is more appropriate to realize that it has always been the other way around.

Clearly something has changed in respect to how the world in general responds to American Decision. And to be honest, I am taking into account the protest and concern over what the US is about to do. Without any doubt and by far, what is plainly obvious is that no country is prepared to defend Iraq militarily against the United States and the forces of Britain.

By far, a precedence has been set and while 10% of the world population is in fact protesting the idea of war (in general). Not even a 1000th of a percent, of the world population will be traveling to Iraq to take up arms against the US and Britain. To be clear the most prolific objector to US intent (France) is prepared to take arms against Iraq. If it does in fact use WMD against the forces of the United States and Britain.

The world is not made up cowards Gentlemen when it is clear that a cause is just, we fight wars against each other. As well world is not made up of idiots and if the consensus of the world is not prepared. To stop the US and Britain from what they are doing by supporting Iraq militarily, then it is because doing so is not an act which can be considered in any way a cause that can be considered just. Whatever reasons exist and however the conclusions were drawn, no leader of any country on this planet. Is prepared to send troops in support of the sovereignty of Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein.

I would say the world is more unified than it has ever been in human history. As we speak it is being announced in the news that both Japan and S. Korea will provide the US and Britan with suport, in its conflict with Iraq.

Need I say more

[Edited on 19-3-2003 by Toltec]

posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 09:16 PM
Why ask stupid questions, Karl?

And, before you get around to it, yes, I believe there is a sun and a moon, I believe there is a God, left is left and right is right, but, no, I have no idea what the price of eggs in China is (Estragon, could you help me out on that one?)

In America, it has been taken to a new level of self-loathing that is downright sickening.

posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
In America, it has been taken to a new level of self-loathing that is downright sickening.

Honest answer, thanks!

Have you ever read Descartes, "A treatise on method" ?

new topics

top topics


log in