When we understand the international order, we actually get an idea of the issues that we face every single day. So, ethnocentrism is actually a part of the international order and it cannot be ignored.
It’s one aspect of the order itself, but studying it and analyzing it is very important. Because if we do not understand ethnocentrism, and you know, its impacts, maybe we will not be able to understand why the world order is quite shaky, or frivolously interesting these days.
And it’s not as so-called peaceful as it was in the 1990s and the 2010s. Actually, even 2010 was not so peaceful, but still, I think the world order recovered a lot.
So, after the formation of the UN, the organization which actually was hoped to be better than the League of Nations, it was, you know, was imposed scholarly assumptions by a few class of people that the global order will be quite constructed, protected. And, you know, a myth was shared that the Kantian and Kelsenian idea of international law will prevail.
But the issue is not with Emmanuel Kant. Or, you know, there’s no problem with Hans Kelson’s works on international law because the work of international law you know, preserves on it is not just American; it’s European and somewhere down the line Russian as well. At the same time, there are certain considerations that actually make the international order special.
So, from any particular system of international law, if you read the initial works by the International Law Commission, the reports from 1945 to 1950, you will understand that most of them, which had even started towards the liberalized approach had political ramifications. So, some of the propositions which were made by the international law commission members or maybe by the member states of the UN, General Assembly, maybe will not implement or you’re not even researched for, for example, there’s the UN Charter, and if you go to the UN Charter, there is the Article 102, especially para. 2, which has not been ever interpreted by the International Court of Justice.
Now, it has never been interpreted and this is not my claim, this is what the UN and the Audiovisual library of the United Nations claims. So, interestingly, this is somewhere down the line and interesting example itself, because, beyond the question of international legitimacy, there are always certain questions which the international government does not answer.
Now, in the tradition of international law and international relations, there have been dynamics you know, people usually come with binary theories.
They sometimes do not come with binary theories, they can triangulate and even can form quaternary ideas as you know, which may be diverse. But how people understand that and how they interpret and make it to happen is always a bigger question.
Like the Soviet Union had its own understandings. Although the mythical beliefs that the Soviets had on communism, and actually self-evident. The Cold War was a self-reflective time for the world order, because not just Americans and the Russians, but also the Middle Easterners Africans and Asians, you know, had an opportunity to understand that the world order needs a proper reflects of concern. It is not required mere imposition of ideas, because something like the second world war did not happen. And it should never happen, which is true and certain.
But what actually has happened after Barack Obama and David Cameron, is that without a proper, coherent agenda, the West cannot resist itself and become a relevant superpower bloc because it’s not a problem whether the West is dominating due to their Semitic values or maybe due to their ideological or another kind of complex issues. It is due to the very simple reason that the West is very revisionist, and it learns better in many ways, although it happens that when the United States of America was not so much involved in international politics in its early years after the independence, their involvement was strange and funny. That’s the same trend we saw with respect to the People’s Republic of China. However, the People’s Republic had its own geographical strangulations, the US did not have that much because of its own principles and considerations. They were a democracy, an imperfect one and they have been following republican principles in their own accords. That’s what the idea of Lady Liberty and constitutionalism is all.
So, the US itself is different, and so is China.
But the idea that the multilateral order will cripple well, in reality, is not so true. The multilateral order will not cripple but will reform although the United Nations will not suffer like the League of Nations, because while the world order was still under European Centralism that you know, most of the world orders considerations were based on what Europe was suffering from, which I consider as blatant propaganda in the 21st century in the case of the global order itself. It must be understood very clearly, that the world order is very complex. It was aristocratic during World War One. It went a little tormented and centralist centralized due to Europe. And the rise of Hitler and Mussolini in particular, coupled with the Japanese in World War Two.
The influence was a market of its own.
After the Axis Powers’ loss, that the world order needed to act a little internationalist that actually gave the United States a room of opportunities, with a lot of space, that politicians contributed deeply in the conceptions of shuttle diplomacy and democracy. I believe that the Cold War is not something inspirational but at the same time, but at least it gives us the reflection to the global order that we are not perfect, but we get a lot of learnings from the bit-by-bit created situations based on ideological obfuscation because it geopolitical obfuscation is dangerous.
And if this is not understood properly, it will not let culture or religion die.
And so, let the ideals of secularism and liberalism die because a secular liberal order can still exist with nations having concerns towards identity and race. Now, identities can be of any kind. They can be racial, they can be ideological. They can be geographical, they can be territorial, they can be civilizational. They can be cultural and even lingual. Also, this is very complex because when you go to Africa and Asia, you’ll find that the complexity of civilizations has been beautiful. And that is the reason why the ASEAN region is usually called Indochina as well because it’s a culmination of Chinese and in Indian values.
And now what we see in Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, the Korean Peninsula is, you know, the self-creation of new identities and new ideas which is good which is healthy, completely against A ridiculous theory by Francis Fukuyama that the world order will end because it will never do.
Secondly, on the claim that there’s some Neo-Nazism coming because of the issues of white supremacy, Islamophobia, Hinduphobia and so forth, we must understand that, yes, there are certain supremacist fringe groups, which will always exist. They have always been there and they believe in that, but the question should be whether we can generalize them as anarchists or not, because anarchism itself, sometimes is a hoax, sometimes, as what I understand from philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who believes that the Left can do nothing but become a mere shaker of the status quo.
However, The potential of liberalism must not be considered shallow, as actually has been made, thanks to the international media and the hypocrisy of the left-liberals. But the left-liberals do not represent liberalism completely, because neither of them understands religion nor they even intended to lay a reason to believe that they ever would intend to understand. You know, the founders of the United States and the real liberalism, which for the world loved it. They even did not understand that beyond Magna Carta and the Indus Valley Civilization, which should be the real turning points of the liberal aspects of the world order, popular virtues actually have a bigger role in this society. So, if that is completely ignored, then this is nothing but an unfettered, disloyalty to the liberal choice and opportunity mechanism, which is rendered by leaders and visionaries, and masses across the world, whether they are Taiwanese or Hindu, or British, or American, or Mexican, or even Israelis, because of the simple reason that they resemble diversity.
And we already have an example which is the vision of India.
The simple fact is that there’s a difference between globalism and globalization. It’s not bad to have an ideology like cosmopolitanism on globalism. But we have examples of international law where the Cultural Rights conventions by the UNESCO and other international organizations committed to the idea of culture (I consider culture-centric intergovernmental bodies, not NGOs). The criticism of these conventions has been on the simple aspect that they’re not realistic. And they just believe in the binary theory of nationalism and globalism. In international cultural law, what we say is National Heritage or Sovereign Heritage and Global Heritage are two branches of the sovereign imperatives.
Yes, sovereignty has a value it will always have one.
We have values which should not be defeated as mere ideas just because some philosophers think that the role of NGOs has been reasonable, even during COVID-19, which is not so true, to be honest.
However, if you ignore that international law and international relations brought together are nothing but a culmination of the world orders, physic, aesthetics and flirtations with the past, present and future, in a chivalrous, direction, ludicrous way, then maybe the problem is deeper among the people who just don’t understand how the international order works.
The idea is that once the concepts of security and restriction which were given a backdoor or a backseat, under the pretext of an Americanized liberal order, we cannot change.
So there’s no such reasonability left in the international order if it does not mature and, you know, presents itself in a relevant way. Being immature does not make you a better entity. And that’s what the international order is currently having as a problem. The truth is that, yes, under Donald J Trump’s America is not guiding the world order to something relevant. But Donald J. Trump is not America. If you closely look at Mike Pompeo, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, and even the Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP senators and politicians along with the Silicon Six, you will understand that the republicans are not as bullishly fooled like the Democrats, and this is something which is a very interesting perspective you can find in the US politics.
Now, interestingly, Republican senators from the US, Conservative Party members from the UK, some Japanese Members of Parliament may be some Canadian senators formed a kind of group an initiative known as Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China.
India has not participated in that so-called parliamentary alliance of people. But certainly, as a multi-regional initiative or multi parliamentary initiative, it’s a good step to start with. Because if we understand the Westosphere, and not just the pure, white saviour-minded West, which is Atlantic in Europe, the Westosphere is very revisionist, and that’s what makes the western sphere reasonable.
Like there are certain characteristics of the world if you wish to understand the world order into certain binaries. You can do that, like the Global North and Global South classification; the First World, Second World and Third World classification. Another classification can be between Westosphere and Eastosphere.
I believe that sometimes, even between the Westosphere and Eastosphere, where there are always nations, which act like a compass, a multidimensional one, where it is not necessary to have a compass in the form of a circular rotation, it can have a circular rotation in various dimensions, which makes the rotation of the composite selves, very complex and decentralized.
For example, if you understand some of the key allies of the West, that is India, Japan, Bangladesh, Singapore, South Africa and even Israel, you will find that each of them resembles diversity.
India, for example, is a moralist country or follows more or less diplomacy based on historic and cultural moralities, but due to its Britishesque-Socialist Bureaucratic Dilemma and years of austerity and politically strange problems, it has not earned its position which it deserved.
And you may associate India with religion and nationalism, but Indian conservatism do embrace constructive changes. In fact, that is the only reason why the Indian constitution is regarded as the flawless document. But thanks to the Supreme Court’s Judges, who endorsed ideological obscuration for years as usual. That is a significant reason why India’s judicial diplomacy has not been good. But we do not find that in Israel and Europe because when Europe stands for its concerns and doctrines on European liberalism and human rights, it does have some standards.
We have the UK Supreme Court, which took action on the propagation of the UK Parliament in October 2019 where the judgement was learning of interest. And it showed that it just in the name of anything, you cannot impose your virtues on people.
And at the same time, secular considerations in Europe need some stop of reasonability which has made Europe.
So, what’s next for the world order?
Well, it’s a recollection which needs to be answered and I do not find myself the perfect person to answer this. But I certainly believe that the world order will go through maybe certain terrible changes by but in the long run, it will be beautiful and It will not be ethnocentric anymore. It won’t be central to communism as well, because communism is dying now. It’s in the last stage anyways. He will actually grow towards plurilateralism and strengthen the constitutional virtues of multilateralism without believing in a sham, which is transparency by face (not by place value).
On matters of international terrorism, populism and so forth, transparency in international law has to shift from the idea of face value to place value. And there is no dichotomy between place and face values. Because both of them are not poles apart but stages where one stage is consecutive to another.
Therefore, if the world order fails or the idea of common innocence thing that the world order is getting into some kind of the difference of virtuosity, and it’s a case of place value to face value, then it’s a completely wrong assumption because place value does not exist in a very strategically fragile world order for which we should thank the United States and the Russian Federation at the same time. It is the responsibility of the USSR and Americans that 50 years of the Cold War led to all of this. We still have not come out of the Cold War-mindedness, the shoddy mindedness that led the tragedy of Libya, Iraq and so, Eastern Europe in many ways The Baltics are yet to emerge strongly. We have not seen the rise of Vladivostok and the Far East Russian territories economically. And China is facing its own economic fragility is despite the fact that it may turn out to be dominant for a while.
And at the same time, Africa needs to recollect its identity and understand that it cannot rely on the Chinese just because most of the African nations are underdeveloped. The same applies to India. In simple comparison, India cannot rely on a sheer model of modernism which holds no water. It cannot be shallow for Indian diplomats to ignore that the global order needs reformed leadership.
In reality, India’s acceptance as a non-permanent member in the UN Security Council proved that Narendra Modi and S jaishankar are capable politicians and they have accorded India’s participation in the international community in a very stronger and resilient free this in basic terms, the void order is going to tremble But it can come out of its cold war mindedness very easily when it understands that and concepts of technology, privacy, human rights and artificial intelligence, it needs to recalibrate the ideas of conservatism and liberalism from anarchists, communists, and those obfuscated people who are anti-ethnonationalism, because of the simple reason that believing in ethnicity or believing in faith does not stop science from growing. We must never forget the innovations made by India and various people from the Rajputs to Raja Raja Chola to Shivaji.
It works for the Renaissance period when Newton, Copernicus, Shakespeare, and a whole lot of Europeans contributed to new ideas. Yes, Europe had faced a time when Machiavelli-Madison-Hobbes ideation which culminated within conservatism and triggered a foolish sense of liberalism, which was ultimately robbed by socialists and Marxist but now so socialism will not have any face value, either. Because of the simple reason that American capitalism is failing to a limited extent, the world order will see a change. And it will be the best time for the world order to consider the role of sustainable development goals, not for the purpose of PR or climate change, volunteerism, which undoubtedly under Greta Thurnberg and other climate activists miserably failed. But we’ll focus on a more anthropomorphic model, which focuses on human transformation and understands that mass collectivism and transformation of individual choices exist each other, they co-exist forever.
Once that is understood properly, the world order will resize In a beautiful manner, something which not even Roger Penrose or even Ramanujan would have expected.