NEW WORLD DISORDER

A spectre is haunting the world - the spectre of instability. Processes that originated after the events of September 2001 have reached their climax. Contrary to expectations, the resolution of political disputes over "peaceful and civilised" methods has become diametrically opposite in nature in the modern world as violence grows.

What we have now - from the Occupy Wall Street actions to the riots in the Middle East that marked the end of the post-colonial political system in the Arab world - is a hysterical aggression and instability. Developments are cropping up in different countries, not always related to each other, and it is naive to rely on the impermanence of these processes. Moreover, political tsunamis leave very deep wounds in the tissue of countries of their origin and, as in the cases of Libya and Syria, result in catastrophic damage. It looks like a computer virus that gains strength and spreads by cloning.

We are witnessing social unrest in Brazil and Turkey, while the Balkans, Southeast Asia, Latin America and Central Africa are also agitated. And one should not forget about the situation in Egypt, bombings in Iraq and Lebanon, which have already become the attributes of everyday life.

Despite the formal resemblance, each of these processes is unique. However, the developments involving two of our neighbours in the former Soviet camp can only be viewed as extraordinary.

Quite a lot has been said, is being said and will be said about the recent events in Ukraine. In the context of this article, it would be good to mention that what happened was that a crowd of people, consisting mostly of the representatives of one part of the country, overthrew the incumbent president with broad support from the Western powers and financial assistance of local oligarchs. But "nothing ends so simply with the Slavs," as a well-known humorist noted. Making use of complete chaos in the country, the neighbouring state, which has for many years spoken about brotherhood and inseparability of the two peoples, stated that the lives of its fellow countrymen were at risk and, using the resources of its military base, annexed a part of Ukraine's territory.

Of course, the Western powers made intimidating statements and threatened with sanctions, to which Russia replied hinting that "you are the idiot one". Moreover, Moscow has not failed to remind the West of relatively recent precedents: double invasion of oil-rich Iraq; years of war in Afghanistan where the production of opium raw material has reached a record high after the US intervention; the use of drones to punish terrorists whom nobody had ever seen; a series of bombings in Serbia leading to the emergence of Kosovo on the political map of the world the recognition of which has over the last 15 years been extorted by the US from more than a hundred countries by "arm-twisting," and a revolution in Libya that resulted in actual disappearance of it as a state.

Of course, one can assume that the world is returning to the bipolar system, as was the case until the end of the 20th century. However, there is a significant difference here. In the last century, there were two world superpowers, and all other countries were associated, in one form or another, with either the socialist or the capitalist camp created by the Soviet Union and the United States, respectively. Now Russia is still far from being a world power, even if Russian jingoists celebrating the "taking" of Crimea think otherwise. On the other hand, the United States is gradually losing its position as a world superpower too. According to analysts, after a bipolar world of the 20th century and a unipolar world that set in towards the end of the 20th century, the era of a multipolar world is unfolding. So it looks like precedents are merely being created for regional countries, such as the invasion of France in Mali, the "restoration of order" by the Saudi Special Forces in Bahrain, etc.

Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, we have: (a) socio-economic and political instability in many parts of the world, and (b) outrageous behaviour of individual countries. Does it mean that the world is entering a period of acute violence, uncertainty and anarchy? If so, what prospects do these processes offer to mankind?

The system of global governance has become ineffective. One of the reasons for the mounting instability in various regions of the world and unwarranted behaviour of the states is a growing loss of functionality and meaninglessness of the traditional methods of the system of global governance, as well as growing doubts in its legitimacy as a whole. The world community has no definite position on this or that issue. Policy of double standards has become the hallmark of the world powers and organisations.

Often, it is not clear who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter, what is the difference between "brining democracy" into a country and simply occupying it, restoring order in the country and "losing legitimacy" (the latter concept is particularly fashionable), etc. These concepts lose their original meaning depending on who interprets them and how they are interpreted.

A similar situation is also observed in matters of ethnic and regional conflicts. Suffice it to mention biased policies of the world powers and organisations in relation to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which has remained unresolved for 25 years already. All international mediators are unanimously speaking of the need to comply with two fundamental principles of international law in resolving this conflict, which are the territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination. Meanwhile, it is not entirely clear how to resolve a conflict based on the principle of self-determination, if the party that provoked the conflict has already self-identified itself by creating its own state called "Armenia." The above seems to be a paradoxical interpretation of international law, does it not?

The situation with nuclear weapons is also ridiculous. Certain countries have assured themselves of this "grace" and now they are extremely wary of any nuclear developments in other countries, vehemently emphasising the issue of world security. The question arises: if a nuclear weapon is an evil, why only certain countries are entitled to use it? And if this is not an evil, then why do others not have similar rights to acquire it?

The United Nations was established in 1945 with the purpose of maintaining and strengthening international peace and security and developing cooperation among states. However, in less than twenty years, this organisation transferred its main functions to the UN Security Council, which only includes 15 states; five of them are permanent members and have the right to veto any decision of the Security Council. The UN itself has become a kind of international folklore and cultural centre. Since 1965, the fate of the world is decided by as few as five countries. But how is it decided? Judging by the events of the last twenty years, the permanent members of the UN Security Council themselves repeatedly stepped over the line of what was permitted. The most vivid example of the ineffectiveness of the global political system is the situation in Syria, where hundreds of thousands of people have already been killed, while the state members of the UN Security Council cannot agree among themselves, torpedoing one international conference after another.

On the other hand, the global financial crisis that began in 2008 has weakened the power of the United States and European countries. Such formations as the Group of Twenty (G-20) are not sufficient to meet the needs of developing countries, which gave rise to the emergence of new approaches and various groups. A deep crisis pulling countries out of the liberal market economy undermines the credibility of the model of market capitalism, which was too fetishised after the Cold War.

The purpose of political liberalism gets lost under conditions of high uncertainty and crisis. Elites of both Western and developing countries are not very persistent in the development of political liberalism.

Tension as a result of global solutions and regional implications of various conflicts can have a serious impact on international peace and security. Due to inactivity of the UN and other international institutions competition and the likelihood of confrontation between states-regional players is growing. Taking a realistic view, one must admit that the international system is sinking into anarchy at an increasingly faster pace. Compliance is reduced; the struggle for power is becoming more violent and immoral.

Chaos is approaching. The question arises: who is interested in all this anarchy and who needs a global chaos? After all, nothing has ever happened without a reason in the entire history of the world, let alone in the last century. It is also obvious that the world is not slipping into chaos spontaneously, but is being guided by someone's skilled hands. So, however paradoxical it may sound, the movement towards chaos and the impending chaos itself seem to be fully controlled processes.

Qui prodest?

It is known that any war, whether local or global, is a very profitable business. After the intervention in Iraq, all of the rewards of the war were reaped by global oil companies, which to this day extract oil in this already impoverished country and gain super profits, relying on private armies in protecting their own facilities. The same can be said of hydrocarbon deposits in Libya. Arms trade is thriving simultaneously with the development of production. In other words, transnational corporations are the main beneficiaries of all wars and conflicts.

However, this is only the economic aspect of the issue. There is no less important political component. Experiencing continuous fear for their lives during the turmoil and mayhem, people are usually willing to lose freedom, hoping to get an iron hand and strict governance in return. Need proof? Consider the adoption of a federal law, better known as the USA PATRIOT Act, in the United States immediately after 11 September 2001, when the US society was overwhelmed with fear and chaos. In fact, the law gives the government and police broad powers in conducting surveillance of their citizens. Despite the fact that it contradicts the principles of the constitution, a sense of own security has forced the population to treat the developments with understanding and even with admiration in some cases. However, the matter did not end there. The 11 September attacks gave rise to the practice of implanting microchips in the human body as US citizens were concerned about their own safety and the safety of their children. By now, chips have been implanted in thousands of people in the United States. Those wishing to implant a chip under their skin are lining up, as they believe that this will enable them to render information about themselves to rescuers and doctors in case of any accident, and it is very convenient at that - a chip can replace all the necessary documents such as a passport, a credit card, a wallet. Government officials assure that the security of the citizens of the country is above all else for them, and so they are willing to spend any money on this project. It turns out that, first, you got scared and then, being already terrified of what is happening, you pretty quickly agree for implantation of a microchip by means of which intelligence agencies can and will constantly monitor you. And what if the entire world becomes an arena of terrorism, chaos and war? Wouldn't people dream of a single government and a centralised, rigid system of control?

And what will this government consist of? Nation states that are gradually losing their sovereignty? Certain "charismatic" politicians, who are selected in recent years from the sphere of sport or show business, and if they are not, then they behave in such a manner as if they were? Or maybe some religious sects organised and controlled by security services? No. This will be the global oligarchy - the prime mover of world history over the last centuries. In other words, multinational companies that are just steps away from world domination. All in all, they stand to benefit most from the destruction of the world's political and economic system, chaos, wars and conflicts. For them, humanity is just a community of chipped batteries that can be disabled at will whenever one wishes.