The Need for an International Order

Introduction

The need for an international order was felt ever more importantly in the period after the
Second World War. It was felt so more because of the devastating impact of the two World
Wars of the 20th Century. International relations had to be redefined and needed a drastic
transformation into a more co-operative order. Global security proved to be at stake due to
the modern warfare as experienced during the Second World War, particularly in the wake of
atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The traditional inter-State system dominated by
Western power harped on Eurocentric struggle for balance of power, violence, realist
diplomacy and imperial nationalism. However, after the World War II there was an
increasing realisation on the part of the global powers to pursue a new international order for
the sake of security of humanity, de – colonisation, peaceful resolution of disputes and parity
in development. The formation of United Nations Organisation in 1945 provided a strong
foundation towards such an international quest.

Background

The Treaty of Versailles, 1918, that resulted in the penalisation of Germany was
simultaneously followed by isolationist approach of the United States and Soviet Union
which equally proved unhealthy for international peace. The post-First World War era
diplomacy revolved around the cult of powerful countries like Britain, France, Germany,
Italy, United States and the Communist Soviet Union. There was extensive reliance on
‘balance of power’ approach. Explaining the inherent situation of ‘balance of power’ in inter-
State relations, Kenneth Waltz in his book The Theory of International Politics argues that
because of the ‘self-help’ attitudes, states do not have a world government to resort to in a
situation of danger, and they try to increase their capabilities relative to one another through
groupism and realignment with other states. An interesting aspect of the approach was that
the states generally involved in ‘setting the terms of intercourse’ while monopolising their
self and group ‘legitimate use of force’, says Waltz. States harped on ‘balance of power’ in
two significant ways; one – by trying to enhance their own power and, second – by aligning
with like-minded and satellite powers.

Search for a New Order

Hans Morgenthau who is regarded as the father of ‘realist school’ holds the view that nations
are guided by their national interests when they involve in international politics. The colossal
impact of such a design was the outbreak of the First and Second World War as the bitter
power struggle and ideological partisanship that had little respect and concern for inter-State
co-existence continued unabated. The two wars left the powerful States highly weakened and
devastated. With the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the League of Nations loss
its relevance. And, majority of the nations were beginning to accept the need for containing
‘balance of power’ and ‘realist’ conception of international relations by giving way to a new
global order which popularly came to known as ‘new world order’. There began a search for
collective world order where issues and problems of global nature were to be addressed
collectively. The idea of ‘new world order’ initially was floated by Woodrow Wilson as a
part of peace proposal towards the closing of the First World War. The idea was re-floated in
the years that followed the Second World War.

The Actual Pursual of New World Order

With the defeat of fascist forces and growing insignificance of the League, there was a
growing void in the international system that signalled for the need of a new world order. The
creation of the United Nations Organisation (UNO) in 1945 filled the void left by the World
War II. The formation of UNO provided a perspective and ray of hope for a peaceful new
international order. The principles of UN Charter reflected several aspects of new world
order. With the growing emphasis on equality of nations, right to self-determination and
peaceful resolution of conflict on the horizon, the imperial scramble of the European States
was beginning to become obsolete.

Emergence of several new States

The movement for liberation in Asia, Africa and Latin Americas gained momentum. The end
of the Second World War was marked by ripening of national liberation movements. The
formation of UNO and incidental weakening of the hitherto powerful colonial powers
strengthened the cause of nationalities seeking self-determination. India achieved its
independence in 1947, Burma in 1948, South Africa in 1961and the Korean in 1945. The rise
of several of these non – industrial nations produced new contours of political diplomacy
against the backdrop of ideological bloc politics, particularly under the leadership of
Yugoslavia, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. It came to be known as the Non-
Alignment Movement (NAM). Under the abled leadership of Tito of Yuguslovia, Naseer of
Egypt and Nehru of India, the idea of NAM was on the cards since 1955.

The idea was originally flagged off during a discussion that took place at Bandung Asia-
Africa Conference in 1955. With the growing acceptance of the idea, the first NAM Summit
Conference took place in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in 1961. Subsequently, the Havana
Declaration of 1979 declared the objective of NAM as to achieve ‘the national independence,
sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of the non-aligned countries’. NAM had the
vision to ensure collective disapproval of imperialism and neo-colonialism. It viewed
Apartheid in Africa and underdevelopment in oriental nations as intricately linked to
prolonged subjugation.

The philosophy of NAM coincided with the visions of UN system that was ideally in favour
of international co-operation, equality nations and peaceful conduct of nations. For example,
the NAM members advocated for reformation of UN system, particularly the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC) system. The main concern of NAM was to save UNSC from the
excessive monopoly of the US and Soviet. The 17th NAM Conference (2016) resolved to
demand for democratisation and fair representation in the UNSC.

Despite the challenges confronted by NAM, the question of disarmament, ethnic conflicts,
issues of migration, displacement, global climate change, etc., continue to be relevant. Two-
third members of the UN are today constituted by NAM leaning states. NAM undoubtedly
cushioned the ideas and vision of UN towards global peace and co-operation, cultural
diversity, fighting global terrorism, protection of human rights sustainable development, etc.

As of 2018 April, NAM’s membership had grown up to 120 with a regional distribution of 53
from Africa, 39 from Asia, 26 from South Americas and the Caribbean, and 2 from Europe.
With its vast support base, NAM provides an ideal alternative political diplomacy that not
only impressed upon the new nations which were looking for neutrality in multilateral
engagement but also for regional peace and development. One of the main objectives of
NAM was to stay away from the cold war trap. It was an innovative commitment from the
new nations for promoting mutual understanding and global co – operation not only among
the non-aligned states, but also to appeal to the nations already in conflicting ideological
battles. NAM not only provided a thesis of co-existence of nations but also deepened
democracy in the formulation of foreign policies.

The ideational foundations laid down by NAM legacy helped the UN in essentialising global
peace. UN ethos and NAM commitment proved supplementary to each other. The
establishment of UN system provided a new chapter in global politics so as the NAM. The
objective of achieving an ideal inter-state relationship through the liberal democratic values
of the UN, however, was destined to witness a newer dimensions of inter-State struggles. The
apparent power vacuum after the Second World War was soon replaced by the ideological
predilections of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan of US was both an
economic and political project aimed at the ‘containment of communism’. On the other hand,
the Soviet Union reciprocated with similar mobilisations for ideological allies across the
world. Many East European and Asian countries came under the influence of the Soviet. The
emergence of China as a communist power in 1949 gave further strength to Soviet political
ambitions. Due to such a growing ideological positioning of the two great powers, a new era
of simmering conflict in the form of ‘cold war’ unfolded. Subsequently, USA initiated
several bilateral outfits like North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and SEATO with
anti-communist leanings. The Soviet hardly laid back as it also fostered Warsaw Pact with its
like-minded entities.

Complexities of international relations

The fall of fascist forces with the end of Second World War led the optimist to foresee a less
competitive power play amongst nations. They were hopeful of a decline in realist power
play amongst the nations. The formation of UNO, birth of new nations and formation of
NAM marked a new beginning of international relation that envisioned to escape
conventional ‘balance of power’ politics. The post-world war II optimism were soon caught
in complex web of ideological bloc politics and arms struggle amongst nations. The
bombings on the two Japanese cities was to have lasting impact on the course of future
nuclear armament. Since the mid - 1950s, the struggle for acquiring nuclear power began to
generate animosity amongst countries thereby threatening the security of the planet. The
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been labelled as more of a ‘ploy’ of the powerful
countries than a love for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Between 1965 and 1968,
the UN Committee on Disarmament initiated several negotiations in this regard. As of 2016,
191 States consented to the Treaty while four UN member countries, including India, have
denied acceding to the Treaty. NPT has made commendable inroads into engineering a new
world order that is devoid nuclear expansionism. However, the developing countries have
resisted the protocols of NPT on the grounds of inducing a nuclear divide.

In the words of Max Lerner, the so called super powers like the US and USSR enjoys the
capacity of ‘over kill’. The ultra-modern weaponization harmed the UN mandates as the
world’s politics descended into another phase of super power centric politics. Peace,
therefore, often appeared on the horizon of international relations as a mirage. International
relations changed its nuances due to the transformation of traditional notion of power and war
into a fragile context of nuclear powers that carries the potential extinction of human
civilization.

Heading towards a New Order: Omissions and Commissions

The idea of a new order was complex. It came to signify an onset of a new journey for
international peace. On the other hand, it equally marked a redefinition of traditional power
system. The traditional notion of balance of power was no more relevant as there was a
preponderance of nuclear power states over the non-nuclear power states. The system of
balance of power was substituted by a new order of ‘balance of terror’. An outbreak of a
nuclear war is to result into mass destruction. Devastating wars like the First and Second
World War exposed the unsustainability of militarism amongst nations. There was a
realisation that national interests were integrally linked to one another. The interdependence
was to become instrumental for any prospective cooperation amongst nations.

Since the establishment of UN, the inter-State relations were extensively defined by scientific
and technological agenda. The functional objectives of the multilateral organisations started
to commit itself to revolutionizing the global political economy mainly emphasising on the
digitisation of communication, industry and defence. The populism of ‘think global, act local’
started to signify the contemporary inter-state relations. The growing revolutionization of
political economy was evidently seen as a global new order with the disintegration of Soviet
Union and re-ignition of neo-liberal agenda. The new order, however, was not without
discontents due to the increasing disparity between the technologically advanced countries
and less developed regions.

The world order as it stands today

The proverbial challenge of ‘prisoners’ dilemma’ marred the international politics for long.
Despite the significant contribution of the UN, several regions of the world were locked in
conflicts. Cooperation and peace provide the only hope to safeguard humanity from any
further onslaught. 193 UN members began to prefer ‘open diplomacy’ by doing away with
the conventional secret diplomacy while the call for making globalisation more humane
continue to be a main agenda. The call for redistribution of power has come from nations
asking for the expansion of UNSC. The countries like Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, also
known as G4, and South Africa are the biggest contenders for reformation of UN ‘veto
system’. The world’s order has been changing from time to time. The collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991 resulted in the rise of a new world order where bipolarity was converted into
unipolarity. The rise of China has rather ensued another form of contestation for military and
economic expansion. The struggle for power in South-China Sea has led to the militarisation
of India-Pacific regions. Surge in the geo-political ambitions of powerful nations have
produced volatile regionalities and unresolved armed conflicts thereby further jeopardising
international order. Such contestations have jeopardised several global agenda pursued by
UN. The retrenchment of US from Paris Climate Consensus, Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA) and World Health Organisation, etc., has made a dent in the hard-won hopes
of global multilateralism.

Conclusion

The quest for a prospective peaceful international order would require abandoning of the
inherent assertion for balance of power and unilateralism. The call for making UN more
representative has been a significant concern since the collapse of Soviet. Under the aegis of
UN, the North-South cooperation would require revitalisation. The unilateralism of US and
China needs to be transformed in favour of sustainable global peace and development. The
World Economic Forum held at Davos resolved to re-direct global efforts on deepening a
‘New World Order’ with a pursuit for ending social inequalities, poverty, energy imperialism,
etc. Despite the herculean challenges, a sustainable New World Order that is to herald inter-
State co-existence in the sphere of economy and technology should become the core of future
diplomacy and inter-State political transactions. The idea of inclusive sustainability and
equity as enshrined in the UN ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ to be achieved by 2030
needs to be essentialised by one and all, more particularly by the countries with greater
resources today.

GLOSSARY:
New world order: The idea of ‘new world order’ initially was floated by Woodrow Wilson
as a part of peace proposal towards the closing of the First World War. The idea was re-
floated in the years that followed the Second World War.
Balance of Power: It refers to the traditional inter-State system dominated by Western power
harped on Eurocentric struggle for balance of power, violence, realist diplomacy and imperial
nationalism.
Peace-Building: The UN interventions are aimed at peace building while dealing with inter-
State relations. Peace building ensures a win-win situation for every involved party. For
example, the ECOSOC work on peace-building objectives through an intergovernmental
advisory body that supports peace efforts in countries emerging from prolonged violence and
conflicts.
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): NAM was to achieve national independence, sovereignty,
territorial integrity and security of the non-aligned neutral countries against the backdrop of
the Cold World War. The idea was floated by India, Indonesia, Egypt and Yugoslavia.
Sustainable Development Goals: It was declared by UNO in 2015 with 17 goals to be
achieved by 2030.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

Q.1. What is new International Order?
Ans. The idea of ‘new world order’ initially was floated by Woodrow Wilson as a part of
peace proposal towards the closing of the First World War. The idea was re-floated in the
years that followed the Second World War. It was meant to get rid of excessive isolationism
and protectionism while intending to bring in international political peace and economic co-
operation.
Q.2. What was the significance of establishing the United Nations Organisation in view
of the rising new International Order?
Ans. The establishment of United Nations Organisation in 1945 helped in cushioning
interstate relations. A sustainable New World Order that is to herald inter-State co-existence
in the sphere of economy and technology should become the core of future diplomacy and
inter-State political transactions. The principles of UN Charter reflected several aspects of
new world order. With the growing emphasis on equality of nations, right to self-
determination and peaceful resolution of conflict on the horizon, the imperial scramble of the
European States was beginning to become obsolete.

Q.3. What is ‘balance of power’?

Ans. The traditional inter-State system dominated by Western power harped on Eurocentric
struggle for balance of power, violence, realist diplomacy and imperial nationalism.
However, after the World War II there was an increasing realisation on the part of the global
powers to pursue a new international order for the sake of security of humanity, de –
colonisation, peaceful resolution of disputes and parity in development.
Q.4. Discuss the significance of Non-Aligned Movement in shaping a New World Order.
Ans. Under the abled leadership of Tito of Yuguslovia, Naseer of Egypt and Nehru of India,
the idea of NAM was on the cards since 1955. The idea was originally flagged off during a
discussion that took place at Bandung Asia-Africa Conference in 1955. With the growing
acceptance of the idea, the first NAM Summit Conference took place in Belgrade,
Yugoslavia, in 1961. Subsequently, the Havana Declaration of 1979 declared the objective of
NAM as to achieve independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of the non-
aligned countries.

Q.5. Discuss the growing demand for reforming the United Nations Security Council.
Ans. The 193 UN members started to advocate for ‘open diplomacy’ by doing away with the
conventional secret diplomacy. Several countries began to demand for making globalisation
more humane. The call for redistribution of power has come from nations asking for the
expansion of UNSC. The countries like Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, also known as G4, and
South Africa are the biggest contenders for reformation of UN ‘veto system’.

References:
Hans Morganthau and Kenneth W. Thompson, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace, McGraw-Hill Education, 7th Edition, 2005.
Naveen Tomar, Navroop Singh and Himja Parekh, The New Global Order, Bookbaby, 2017
Richard Little, Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths and Models,
Cambridge University Press, 2007
Rumki Basu, The United Nations: Structure and Function of an International Organisation,
Sterling Publications, 2019
Wang Gungwu and Zheng Yongnian (ed.), China and the New International Order,
Routledge, 2008.

Web Links:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/we-need-to-build-a-new-international-order-here-s-
why/
https://academic.oup.com/cjip/article/14/1/1/6177699
https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/10/responding-to-china-s-complicated-views-on-
international-order-pub-80021