Wednesday, September 03, 2008

NYET TO A UNIPOLAR WORLD

"Unipolarity is unacceptable, dominance is inadmissible. We can't accept a world order where all the decisions are made by one country, even a country as serious and authoritative as the US. This kind of world would be unsteady and conflict prone."
~ Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.


CNN recently interviewed Russian PM Vladimir Putin. Videos of the complete interview are shown below, along with the one that aired in the West:











Here's what was aired on CNN for Western consumption:





CNN transcript here.

The world's power structure is shifting. In mid-August, as a result of the conflict in Georgia, Turkish PM Gül said that the US must share power with the rest of the world, and the message trickled down to others who are now beginning to say that "what is clear is that America's unipolar moment has passed--and the new world order heralded by Bush's father in the dying days of the Soviet Union in 1991 is no more."

As Putin said in February 2007:


The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.

The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?

However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.


Over the weekend, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing during an interview in which he outlined the five points of Russian foreign policy:


First - Russia accepts the superiority of the fundamental principles of international law which determine relations between civilised nations. And within the framework of these principles and this view of international law, we will develop our relations with other countries.

Second - the world should be multi-polar. Unipolarity is unacceptable, dominance is inadmissible. We can't accept a world order where all the decisions are made by one country, even a country as serious and authoritative as the US. This kind of world would be unsteady and conflict prone.

Third - Russia doesn’t want a confrontation with any country, and has no plans to isolate itself. As far as we can, we will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States and with other countries.

Fourth - protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens is an absolute priority for us, wherever they are. This is where we’ll be starting from in our foreign policy. We'll also be trying to protect the interests of our business community abroad. And it must be clear to all, that if anyone attempts any aggressive action, they will encounter a response.

And fifth - just like other countries, Russia has regions where it has special interests. These regions include states with which our country has had particularly warm and friendly historical ties. We will be working very closely with these regions, and developing our friendly relations with these states, our close neighbours. This is what we will be basing our foreign policy on. As far as the future goes, it doesn’t just depend on us. It also depends on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.

These priority regions are of course the border regions, but not only these.


Russia will not accept a unipolar world and it no longer has to:


In Syria, Libya, even Turkey (a US and European friend) politicians and analysts have noted the consequences of the Georgian crisis - not for what Russia has done but for what the US, EU and Nato have been unable to do: exercise their power to protect an ally.


And while US taxpayers have been volunteered to generously hand Georgia $1 billion for reconstruction of damage caused by a mini-conflict that Georgia instigated--at whose behest?--Dick Cheney is on the ground in the region looking for ways to ensure "additional routes for energy exports that ensure the free flow of resources." In other words, to undermine Russia's growing dominance in the energy industry.

At an SCO summit on 28 August, the organization issued a mild statement over Russian action in Georgia, which was most likely the result of China's influence in the organization and may well work in China's favor.

As I have said before, Kurdistan must start looking to the East for its future. Turkey is doing so. Iran is doing so. Syria is doing so. The clock is ticking; it is almost too late.

7 comments:

hamo said...

Interesting comments from the Russian PM Putin but they are no more than a death man's reflexes who have no life at all. Russia accepted USA's superiority and power when they voluntarily ended Soviet Empire or USSR. I must add that whomever (country) sides with Russia will lose because they are no way match with the west economically, politically or militarily. I don’t think Russia made any positive move around the world towards to oppressed nations to win hearts and minds of ordinary people.

Mizgîn said...

Hamo, the American economy is in the toilet and ready to be flushed. The US has an army that's been stretched too far for too long. They can't field anyone anywhere else any more.

The balance of power is shifting and there is nothing the US can do to stop it.

Forget about the US. It's time to look to the SCO because that's an organization of states from the world's greatest land mass. Check Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard.

Anonymous said...

You've got to be kidding me. And I have to assume that this is the PKK's new strategy -- to align itself with Russia? Well, I guess it shows, at the very least, that someone in the PKK ranks has been convinced by Charles Krauthammer's opinion posts in the WP.

As for the US economy being lousy -- yes -- but the economy is cyclical so I find it hard to justify the assertion that it will remain lousy forever. And as for the military being stretched too thin, maybe, but despite the naysayers I think the American military made a convincing statement of their fortitude and resilience in the face of highly unfavourable conditions. They held their own and didn't come home after the 10th body bag which is definitely not how the Islamists had portrayed them -- that the soldiers were simply empty, hedonistic thrill seekers who would come home once the going got tough.

Nistiman

hamo said...

According to recent agreement USA army will be back home on 2011 at latest. I have no idea why they are still in Iraq waiting to be killed. I guess US commander's would have a lot to answer in the near coming future.

By the way jash bastard S.O.B masood barzani and his clan members finally realised that even Saddam offered them more in Iraq then this recent puppets in Iraqi parliement. I wonder if the Kurds in Iraq have any other choice rather then rulled, harrased and finally genocided by these tribal clans in the power?

Anonymous said...

Hamo, I would suggest that you start a daily journal or your own blog to write about your views on the Iraqi Kurdish leadership since you seem to have a lot of pent-up frustrations which compel you to leave strikingly similar profane slogans/posts almost daily on Mizgin's site.

This has been a public service announcement.

~nistiman

hamo said...

Thanks nistiman,

I will consider your suggestion but please do not count on it...

Talibani and Barzani are not just on my own most hated list but if you check their past and present records they are the enemy of Kurdistan and the Kurds. Big Time!

Regards,
hamo

Anonymous said...

Re: "the enemy of Kurdistan and the Kurds"...

As I'm sure you'd agree, if you'd number the enemies of Kurdistan and the Kurds it would make for a pretty long list, Hamo...I only wish there were just two individuals on it. I'm merely suggesting that you not discriminate against the others on your List. That would be an injustice.

~nistiman