New world disorder

The United Nations failed to vote on a second resolution on Iraq, which France had threatened to veto anyway. But investors voted with their pocketbooks, giving the "coalition of the willing" a vote of confidence to go ahead and zap Saddam Hussein out of the Iraqi desert. From Hong Kong to New York and Paris, markets were up, with even airline stocks rallying. Why, even our own stock exchange was buoyed by the prospect of an approaching end to uncertainty over Iraq.

The dollar went up (which meant, unfortunately for us, a weaker peso) while oil prices that have been skyrocketing in recent weeks slumped. Will local pump prices follow?

Those were reassuring news as Filipinos braced for what President Arroyo described as "collateral terrorist attacks." On Monday night, as text messages warned of the outbreak of war, some motorists rushed to gas stations to fill up in anticipation of higher fuel prices. But yesterday the excitement seemed to have died down. I dropped by a major supermarket and saw no sign of panic buying. I guess we don’t scare easily. (Or else we don’t have money for panic buying.)

Even when bombs are going off in Metro Manila, Filipinos get on with business as usual. Malls are full, traffic is bad, and during weekends everyone rushes to the same resorts and recreation centers. As we wait for the war of the 21st century to reach us live by cable TV, I bet thousands of Filipinos are flocking to the Iraqi borders – to get a ringside seat in the "great confrontation."

* * *

Yesterday Australia effectively joined the coalition of the willing by committing 2,000 soldiers to the war effort. Prime Minister John Howard, who just last year mourned the loss of scores of Australians in the terrorist attack in Bali, Indonesia, understands George W. Bush when the American president invokes the United States’ sovereign right to defend itself from security threats wherever they are found, with or without the United Nations’ imprimatur.

As of late yesterday afternoon, only Japan had added a vote of support, with its prime minister saying Bush’s decision was unavoidable. Is South Korea not far behind?

Bush has completely upset the international order. Decisions with global repercussions are supposed to be made collectively by a body called the United Nations. At no other time has the UN and the Security Council looked more irrelevant. Shown to be helpless when the world’s lone superpower makes up its mind, the UN at least has decided to get out of the way of coalition troops. UN arms inspectors, who could have served as human shields for Saddam, started leaving Iraq yesterday.

Even before Bush gave Saddam and his two sons 48 hours to go into exile or face war, the alliances formed after World War II were already badly frayed by the crisis in Iraq. The future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is just as uncertain as the UN’s.

As for ties between the US and France, the two countries still aren’t expelling each other’s diplomats, but both are going to consider March 17, 2003 a day of infamy in their bilateral relations.

* * *

Some quarters have started calling it a new world disorder. We are all confused. Should we now side with Dubya, who warned that either you’re with Americans or you’re against them? Should we side with the Chinese, French, Germans and Russians? Do they constitute another side in this conflict when they’re not sending troops to turn back the US-led coalition and defend Iraq? Is it wrong to just sit in the sidelines as part of the coalition of the undecided? Is it immoral to stay neutral in this conflict, to refuse to endorse war but to do nothing that would impede it once it is launched?

The world’s most powerful army, backed by the Brits, Spaniards and Aussies, is ready to move into Iraq. Even if the Chinese, French, Germans and Russians wanted to stop the US-led coalition, it’s too late to assemble any credible opposition to this looming attack. And even if the world is ambivalent about the justness of a war to take out Saddam, who will send troops to defend him? Even his Arab neighbors want him out.

If the market’s performance were a gauge, the world has decided to simply sit back and nag the Americans to get this over with ASAP.

Even as we sit back and watch, however, the globalization of terrorism is forcing a redefinition of national sovereignty, self-defense, credible threat, clear and present danger. There are fears that Bush’s preemptive strike doctrine will be used and abused not just by the US but also by other countries.

Fears of American hegemony could also trigger a new arms race. Despite all the jokes about the wimps in the French army (what French army?), remember that France remains a member of the nuclear club. And remember that only a few years back, Paris also thumbed its nose at the international community when it went ahead with its nuclear tests in the French Polynesian atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa.

* * *

Yesterday afternoon President Arroyo convened the National Security Council, whose members decided, after a three-hour meeting, to remain undecided on the war. The President urged Saddam to do everything to avert war but fell short of telling him to step down. As the world lamented the failure of diplomacy, Malacañang said it was pleased that there was still a window of opportunity left for diplomacy to work. Palace officials probably consider Bush’s ultimatum a final act of diplomacy.

With Bush making up his mind, nations are now considering the consequences of deserting Washington in its moment of need. For all the hemming and hawing in the UN, there seems to be little doubt that the US-led coalition will succeed in toppling Saddam – hopefully from within, if Bush’s inducements to Iraqi soldiers work, but more likely from the coalition’s bombardment.

After Iraq, which country is next in the line of fire? North Korea? Iran? This is the dilemma for the international community even as governments start lining up behind the move to oust Saddam. If the coalition of the willing succeeds, what will stop Washington from remaking the world according to Bush?