Nelson Mandela, the symbol of peace and harmony, has left the world and the whole world has vowed to live up to his spirit and ideals. But many countries continue to suffer from conflict and discord.
His message to the world can be summarized in three words: freedom, equality and solidarity. These three ideals are the same as those of the French Revolution and the first three universal values stated in the U.N. Millennium Declaration. Mandela’s view is that the U.N. should be the foundation of world order. All political leaders uphold Mandela’s philosophy but they fail to live accordingly. This is the main reason why once again we have failed to achieve peace on earth in 2013.
I have selected three major issues from 2013 instead of putting together the kind of Top 10 list favored by the mass media. I will focus on the Syrian civil war, the Iranian nuclear issue and the Northeast Asian security situation because they clearly reveal the true nature of domestic and international politics and portend a significant change in the international political order. They show why the political leaders of the world can hardly live up to the Mandela maxim.
The Syrian civil war began as a conflict between the government, controlled by the Alawites (a Shiite sect), and the Sunnis, who demanded a democratic government. The U.N. has made great efforts to resolve the issue but has failed, mainly because the Arab states and the five permanent members are divided into pro-government and pro-opposition groups. Among Arab states, the pro-government group is led by Iran and the pro-opposition group by Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, among the five permanent members of the U.N., Russia supports the government and the U.S. supports the rebels. China has staked out a neutral position.
Russia’s rationale is that the Syrian conflict is a domestic matter and therefore the international community has no right to intervene, while the American position is that numerous innocent citizens are being killed and therefore U.N. member states have the right to intervene in the conflict. In reality they are more concerned about their power in the Middle East than their ideological positions. Russia is interested in maintaining a bridgehead in the Middle East and the U.S. has to safeguard its hegemony in the region. Since the U.N. has been unable to deal with this conflict, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and the Arab League are trying to solve the issue through negotiations with the two warring parties in Syria.
The U.N. has also failed to solve the Iranian nuclear issue. Recently, the five permanent members, together with the European Union, have negotiated with the new Iranian government and have reached an interim agreement. Both sides in the negotiations are optimistic about Iran’s ultimate abandonment of its nuclear weapons program. But the U.S. is faced with a dilemma: Israel’s opposition to any negotiated settlement and Iran’s support for the Assad regime in Syria. The U.S. is also concerned that despite its concessions on its nuclear program, Iran will not abandon its ambition to become the hegemonic power in the Middle East.
In Northeast Asia, economic dependency and political tensions among states are both increasing exponentially. Japan and China have been accusing each other of violating their respective territorial rights over the Diaoyou-Senkaku Islands, while South Korea and Japan continue to assert their claims to Dokdo.
Most recently, a new row has broken out between China, Japan and South Korea over their respective air defense zones. The U.S. has got involved in the disputes because it is an ally of South Korea and Japan.
The disputes over the air defense zones have exposed the U.S.-China rivalry once again. China’s behavior this year has made the U.S. more nervous about China’s true intentions in East Asia and beyond. On top of China’s recent moves, Japan and Russia are also seeking to create a new regional and international order.
Japan under Abe is taking on a proactive role by reinterpreting its collective self-defense relationship with the U.S. and strengthening its military posture. On the other hand, Russia is pushing for its grand design ― a Eurasian empire. The great powers in Northeast Asia have been involved in settling the North Korean nuclear issue, but they have gotten mired in power politics instead of making concerted efforts to solve the issue.
There are two common elements in these three cases. One is that the main sources of conflicts are antagonisms between ethnic, racial, religious and regional groups and between big powers. Another is that unless the great powers are involved, there is little chance of the disputes being resolved.
Europe enjoyed peace for 100 years, from 1815 to 1915, mainly because the great powers made concerted efforts to maintain the status quo. The great powers have reached consensus on some important issues in the Syrian and Iranian cases, but they have failed to do so in the Northeast Asian and Korean cases. An important lesson is that freedom and equality are more important at the group level than at the individual level. The world order has not changed very much since the Cold War and globalization: the nation-state system is alive and well. Power matters and the great powers still lead the world order. Under the circumstances, it is up to the U.N. to serve as the ultimate source of legitimacy and play the role of global “after-service” organization (through its peace-keeping operations).
As long as the U.N. upholds Mandela’s ideas, the world will move toward peace, slowly but surely.
By Park Sang-seek
Park Sang-seek is a former rector of the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies at Kyung Hee University in Seoul and the author of “Globalized Korea and Localized Globe.” ― Ed.
