Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, & World Order
A Study of the international System
In the early 1990s, the Cold War ended, and U.S. President George H.W. Bush’s vision of a “New World Order” based on multilateral cooperation through international organizations reintroduced collective security as a paradigm governing dispute resolution. For idealists, the wave of democratization sweeping the globe signaled that human civilization was progressing towards what scholar Francis Fukuyama called “the end of history.”
The euphoria was short-lived.
In the decade that followed, international peacekeeping failures in Central Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere deflated the prospects of collective security. Instead, the end of the East-West conflict resulted in an unprecedented number of self-determination movements, giving rise to a new generation of ethnic, religious, and communal conflicts. The U.N. recognized over 30 newly created nation-states amidst a rising number of failed states unable to enforce laws and provide public goods and services to their citizens.
Three decades later, there is still no stand-by international peacekeeping force capable of pre-empting or responding to interstate or internal threats to peace and security. Nor is there a global organization capable of facilitating a post-war transition to democratic governance.
In the 21st century, climate change and an artificial intelligence arms race have accelerated instability, exacerbating the largest-ever refugee movements around the globe. The 2020s have witnessed the West’s dismal failure to deliver democratic transitions in the Middle East, irredentist wars in Europe, and large-scale violations of minority rights in Asia and Africa, resulting in millions of deaths.
Many scholars predict that we are heading into an extended period of instability and that World War III may result in a new international system ushered in by a non-Western civilization with alternative perspectives on human development and democratization.
This raises the following question: are we deemed to repeat history, or can World War III be averted?
As a new generation of government leaders comes to power, they confront another rising stakeholder. Many big technology firms that control data and information networks have a greater influence on international peace and security than many heads of state and international organizations. Disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence and unprecedented access to global capital sources create opportunities for paradigmatic change led by these non-state actors whose allegiance is to their shareholders rather than national governments or citizens of any country.
These discontinuities represent an existential threat to the future of humanity. But they may also give rise to a new generation of global citizens who see the benefits of spearheading a multilateral system for peacekeeping and peacemaking while there is still time.
Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, & World Order
A Study of the international System
In the early 1990s, the Cold War ended, and U.S. President George H.W. Bush’s vision of a “New World Order” based on multilateral cooperation through international organizations reintroduced collective security as a paradigm governing dispute resolution. For idealists, the wave of democratization sweeping the globe signaled that human civilization was progressing towards what scholar Francis Fukuyama called “the end of history.”
The euphoria was short-lived.
In the decade that followed, international peacekeeping failures in Central Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere deflated the prospects of collective security. Instead, the end of the East-West conflict resulted in an unprecedented number of self-determination movements, giving rise to a new generation of ethnic, religious, and communal conflicts. The U.N. recognized over 30 newly created nation-states amidst a rising number of failed states unable to enforce laws and provide public goods and services to their citizens.
Three decades later, there is still no stand-by international peacekeeping force capable of pre-empting or responding to interstate or internal threats to peace and security. Nor is there a global organization capable of facilitating a post-war transition to democratic governance.
In the 21st century, climate change and an artificial intelligence arms race have accelerated instability, exacerbating the largest-ever refugee movements around the globe. The 2020s have witnessed the West’s dismal failure to deliver democratic transitions in the Middle East, irredentist wars in Europe, and large-scale violations of minority rights in Asia and Africa, resulting in millions of deaths.
Many scholars predict that we are heading into an extended period of instability and that World War III may result in a new international system ushered in by a non-Western civilization with alternative perspectives on human development and democratization.
This raises the following question: are we deemed to repeat history, or can World War III be averted?
As a new generation of government leaders comes to power, they confront another rising stakeholder. Many big technology firms that control data and information networks have a greater influence on international peace and security than many heads of state and international organizations. Disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence and unprecedented access to global capital sources create opportunities for paradigmatic change led by these non-state actors whose allegiance is to their shareholders rather than national governments or citizens of any country.
These discontinuities represent an existential threat to the future of humanity. But they may also give rise to a new generation of global citizens who see the benefits of spearheading a multilateral system for peacekeeping and peacemaking while there is still time.
Archway.com