In what respects has sovereignty been redefined in the post-Cold War era - Essay Example

In what respects has sovereignty been redefined in the post-Cold War era? Has this been a positive or negative development? Introduction The fierce cold war between United States and former Soviet Union created lot of tensions across the world during that period. The superiority of these political powers forced other countries to align towards either of them for their safety and security. At the same time, such polarization towards either of these superpowers was forced other countries to formulate their foreign policies and economic activities strictly in accordance with the interests of the superpower related to them. In other words, during cold war era, countries which sought the protection from either of the superpowers lost their sovereignty and they forced to support all the actions of the superpower under which they aligned or polarized. Thus the individuality, freedom, and identity of such countries were in question during the cold war era. Many changes happened in international politics during the post cold war era. Many countries which were once sidelined under the banner of these superpowers, started to breathe free air and experience freedom. For example, countries like Poland, Bulgaria and Rumania were under the Soviet banner during the cold war era and after the destruction of Soviet Union, these countries started to embrace democracy and experienced the value of human rights and freedom. Such countries started to speak in their own language on international political affairs instead of speaking in the language of communism or the Soviet Union after the cold war era. They restored their sovereignty and individuality. This paper briefly analyses in what respects has sovereignty been redefined in the post-Cold War era and its consequences. Sovereignty Sovereignty means supreme authority within a territory (Sovereignty, 2009). Sovereignty is defined in many ways because of the differences in the political spectrum existed in different countries. For example, some countries were ruled by kings, whereas some others were ruled by dictators. Many countries were ruled by democratic regimes whereas many other countries were ruled by the totalitarian administrators or communist regimes. In each case, sovereignty has been defined and redefined based on the political regimes. In short, the character of the holder of supreme authority within a territory is probably the most important dimension of sovereignty. Sovereignty can also be absolute or non-absolute (Sovereignty, 2009). During cold war era United States and Soviet Union enjoyed the absolute sovereignty whereas their allies enjoyed non-absolute sovereignty. Sovereignty definition during cold war era During cold war era, most of the countries aligned towards either America or the Soviet Union even though some countries formed a third front called non alignment movement (NAM). Apart from the NAM countries, sovereignty of other countries was interpreted as per the interests of United States or Soviet Union during cold war era. United States was a secular democratic country and most of its allies were countries which respect democracy. On the other hand, Soviet Union was a country ruled by the communist regime and naturally most of their allies were communist countries. As mentioned earlier, only United States and Soviet Union enjoyed absolute sovereignty during this period whereas others enjoyed the non-absolute sovereignty. In what respects has sovereignty been redefined in the post-Cold War era? Even though the destruction of former Soviet Union was a blessing to the communist countries in Europe, same thing cannot be said about other countries. Most of the communist countries in Europe succeeded in escaping from communist regimes motivated from the lessons they learned from former Soviet Union. At the same time the destruction of Soviet Union resulted in the supremacy of United States in world matters. The power started to centered around United States and they started to act freely since nobody was there to question their supremacy, once the Soviet Union was exhausted. Bothe, et al, (2005) have mentioned three incidents to establish negative impacts to sovereignty of countries after the destruction of Soviet Union; NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo; U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan; and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. They argued that together, these and other uses of armed force since the end of the Cold War have raised new and challenging questions for the international law and policy on the regulation of armed conflict (Bothe, et al, 2005). The 2003 Iraq war between Iraq and America has raised many controversies with respect to the sovereignty of a state. Political analysts are of the view that America did a serious mistake by attacking a sovereign state citing improper reasons. The most important reason cited by America to justify the Iraq war was about the possession of serious weapons capable of mass destruction by Saddam or Iraq. But even after 6 years from the beginning of the war, the American forces are still searching in the darkness for the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq. They were unable find out any chemical or nuclear weapons in Iraq so far. Another interesting reason cited for Iraq war by America was that Saddam is a threat for global peace. But even after the execution of Saddam neither in Iraq nor in the rest of the world, peace is not visible. American also accused Saddam for the massacres committed against the Kurds. At the same time, America is also doing the same thing in Iraq at present against the Iraqi people. According to an article by Stephen Gowans, by attacking Iraq, the US command knowingly violated Article 54 of the Geneva Convention which prohibits any country from undermining objects indispensable to the survival of (another countrys) civilian population (Abuelo, 2006) “Intimidated by the American government policy of “either with us or with the terrorists” some countries felt under pressure to support the war in one way or another” (Qasserras, 2007). America was succeeded in threatening other countries to gain support for their Iraqi mission. Even the Middle Eastern and Muslim dominated countries like Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were forced to support America in their attack against Iraq. In fact, Saudi and Kuwait did everything possible to help America by allowing the American troops to operate from their soils. It is a fact that Kuwait and Saudi have some enmity with Iraq, but they never like the American intervention in this region or the attack against Muslim community. But they left with no other option, but to support America because of the absence of another super power in the world. They have realized that when their security is in problem, there are no other countries apart from America which are capable of protecting them. Afghan war has lot of other dimensions. Apart from Afghanistan, Pakistan also forced to support America for their war on terror against the Muslim fundamentalists (Taliban) across the Pak – Afghan border. America forced Pakistan to allocate their soil for the war against the Taliban which raised many protests in Pakistan itself. Many civilians in Pakistan were killed because of America’s war on terror against Afghanistan. Pakistan is in a spot of bother at present because of America’s war on terror. They are getting huge economic and military assistance from America on one side. On the other side, lots of civilians were killed by the American troops in the name of war on terror. “The Pakistan army acknowledged that at least 45 civilians died in a military air strike targeting Taliban leaders, an admission which could fan domestic criticism of the U.S.-backed war effort against Islamic militants (News runner, 2010). Pakistan needs the American help badly for their economic progress. At the same time they are struggling to explain the killing of innocent people in the name of war on terror. In other words, American supremacy and monopoly on international matters silenced Pakistan. American troops are freely using the Pakistan soil for conducting their operations against the Muslim fundamentalists. In short, the sovereignty of Pakistan is under threat because of the American intrusion in their soil. The above two cases, Iraq war and Afghan war clearly shows the redefining of sovereignty after the cold war. Neither Iraq, nor Afghanistan or Pakistan claim that their sovereignty is intact. Their sovereignty can be explained only with the help of the American definition of sovereignty. In other words, America emerged as the sole power in defining or determining the sovereignty of independent states at present. Sovereignty has no existence without American interests. Has the redefining of sovereignty been a positive or negative development? During the cold war era, because of the strong support from the super powers; US and Soviet Union, sovereign states need to safeguard only the interests of the superpower they were aligned with. At the same time, they were free from any external threats and experienced immense freedom on their economic, social and political matters. Both United States and Soviet Union, cautiously approached the global politics and unnecessary interferences in the internal matters of the sovereign states were less. But now the immense monopoly in military and economical powers made United States to act like a dictator. There are not many resistances for the interests of US and they are enjoying and exploiting the monopoly in global politics. Apart from the interferences in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, United States is trying to threaten/ attack Iran over the issue of nuclear power. Iran is the only country now in the Middle East which resisted the US pressure successfully. But the recent developments show that America is all set to attack Iran and to silence them as well in order to establish their supremacy in this region also. In short, the redefinition of sovereignty during the post cold war era causes more problems than the benefits. During the cold war era the military and economical powers of US and Soviet Union were in a balanced state which forced both of them to respond cautiously to the global matters. But now apart from China, no other country seems to be able to question the authority of United States. China on the other hand, has lot of business interests in America which prevented them from in interfering actively on global politics and to challenge the supremacy of United States. Many political analysts believe that China will emerge as a superpower in near future itself because of their rapidly growing economies and enormous military power. The emergence of China as a superpower may again change the political equations. Many people believe that the cold war may come into the picture again with the emergence of China; this time between China and America rather than America and Soviet Union/Russia. When we analyze the recent developments in global politics, we may tempted to believe that the redefining of sovereignty during post cold war era as a negative development. Nature has a balance and changes in this balancing may always create problems. Same way during cold war era, there were a balance in the power equations which helped the world to solve most of the political crisis situations without using power. Now after analyzing the political situations in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iran, it is difficult for us to conclude that redefining of sovereignty has positive impacts on global politics during post cold war era. Conclusions Sovereignty is a controversial term. It depends on the differences in the political dimensions and hence a standard definition seems to be impossible. There are absolute and non absolute sovereignties. During cold war era the balancing of power between America and Soviet Union, eliminated or solved many controversial issues in global politics. But after the destruction of Soviet Union, the political and economical power monopoly has come to United States which seems to be a bad sign for global peace and the sovereignty of independent states. The recent developments in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc clearly show that the power concentration on a single region may definitely affect the global peace adversely. References 1. Abuelo M (2006), Iraq War in Focus”. Retrieved on 16 April 2010 from http://www.helium.com/items/1143465-iraq-war-us-surge 2. Bothe M, Ellen OConnell M and Ronzitti N, (2005), Redefining Sovereignty: the Use of Force After the End of the Cold War, Retrieved on 16 April 2010 from http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=18&pid=28085 3. Qasserras Lahcen (2007), The Truth Of the American War against Iraq, Retrieved on 16 April 2010 from http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/35629 4. News runner (2010), Pakistan Admits Airstrike Killed Civilians Retrieved on 16 April 2010 from http://www.newsrunner.com/topic/world/317360171/0 5. Sovereignty, (2009) Retrieved on 16 April 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/ Read More