Global processes and outlines of the new world order
Caliber.Az interview with Ali Mammadov

INTERVIEWS  26 May 2022 - 17:04

The author of dozens of articles on the modern global issues, with a Master's degree in International Affairs at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Ali Mammadov analyzes some factors and mechanisms for the reconfiguration of the world geopolitical system and the onset of the next era of turbulence and the formation of new coalitions, in an interview with Caliber.Az.

- Today, many talks about the redistribution of world order, about the onset of a new era. What contours of the new world are visible now, and which are predictable according to implicit characteristics?

- The international order is a dynamic concept that is continually changing. Occasionally the changes are little, but sometimes they are significant, particularly after a great conflict or the collapse of a major international player. The last big change in international order occurred with the demise of the Soviet Union. This radically altered power relations, establishing the United States as the sole hegemonic force. Today, there are some indications of a gradual shift. One of them is that emerging countries and middle powers are attempting to play larger roles. Some are taking sides and pursuing more assertive foreign agendas. Also, the world is becoming more globalized which leads to greater dependency between states.

There are also more areas for states to cooperate on, such as climate change. However, since the biggest challenge to the current state of the world order comes from China, those who are usually claiming that the world order is changing usually refer to China’s challenge to US dominance. If that is what we mean by the changing of the order, I think that view exaggerates the situation and misses the big picture. Although China is becoming a greater power, especially in terms of its economy, the US outperforms in terms of many essential components of power. It is more powerful not only in terms of the economy, military, and population, but also in terms of reputation, scientific innovation, migrant attraction, and resources.

America’s military capabilities and economic wealth are the highest in the world. Every year, it spends the highest amount of funds on the military and has the highest GDP in the world. The US has the largest wealth in the world and that indicates that it has the greatest latent power, which it can actualize if needed. Its military capabilities are 3-4 times higher than China’s. Even though China is doing well in terms of economy, it is not certain whether that growth is sustainable in the long run. America’s soft power, meaning its reputation and its ability to make others comply with its requests without using force, is greater than China’s too. But because those aspects of power are not quantifiable, they are not mentioned when measuring power. So, I think unless a major war or a major change occurs, this trend is likely to stay for a long time. It should also be mentioned that the outcome of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine is going to affect the world order too. Depending on the outcome, the security system of the world, especially in Europe, and alliances may change in the long run.

- How do you see the further development of events in the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace settlement? What position does the United States occupy in the Karabakh issue?

- Despite multiple disagreements and countless episodes of minor armed confrontations on the border, regional parties have been attempting to maintain permanent peace in the region since the signing of the 2020 ceasefire. Major roadblocks have been lifted, but there are still significant hurdles ahead. One of the major problems was the status of Karabakh, which is no longer on Armenia's agenda. It demonstrates that Armenia has already accepted and does not resist the region's new reality.

Armenian and Azerbaijani officials have already committed to moving quickly toward signing a peace treaty, improving relations, and establishing a joint committee on border delineation and security. However, it is obvious that Armenia and Azerbaijan have been at odds for the past 30 years, and the two nations' views toward each other are unfavourable. Even if a peace treaty is reached shortly, Azerbaijanis and Armenians may take a long time to fully integrate. But in any case, all sides of the dispute want permanent peace in the region. As a result of the elimination of blockades, stability and peace attract investors, encourage economic growth, expand collaboration opportunities, and assist diversify trade channels. Given that regional and international actors have already accepted the region's post-war reality, it is reasonable to expect them to continue striving to raise the possibility of durable peace.

The United States is likewise interested in long-term peace in the region. First, the US recognizes that the presence of frozen wars in the South Caucasus allows Russia to exert influence over the region's states. Given its rival's geographic advantage in the area over the US, it is obvious that the US has few alternatives other than keeping stability to fight Russia's dominance in the region. As a result, it is in America's best interests to seize that opportunity from Russia. Furthermore, because of its strategic location and contribution to energy security, peace in the South Caucasus benefits everyone, including the United States.

- The countries of Maghreb and the Middle East, which are familiar to you, took the neutral side and abstained from voting against Russia. There are no questions regarding Syria. Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, obviously, do not want to sacrifice the tourist flow from the Russian Federation. Algeria - apparently, because it cooperates with Russia in the sphere of military-technical cooperation. And in your opinion, what is the reason for the neutrality of the UAE, which has always been a traditional ally of the United States?

- When considering the UAE's recent trends in ties with Russia and the US, the UAE's abstention was not surprising nor inconsistent with its present foreign policy. Although it has traditionally been considered a US ally, ties between the two countries have lately deteriorated. For example, although Russia supports the UAE's designation of Yemen's Houthi rebels as a terrorist organization, the United States has already removed the rebels from its list of terrorist organizations.

Another sign of deteriorating ties was the UAE's decision to halt negotiations with the US over the purchase of F-35 fighter fighters. Later, it agreed to purchase fighter planes from China. Meanwhile, the UAE's connections with Russia have become stronger. The UAE receives a large number of visitors, purchases a large amount of wheat from Russia, and has defence partnerships. Furthermore, the US' gradual departure from the Middle East, which began under Obama's administration, has brought Russia and the UAE closer together on a number of other regional concerns. Given these considerations, it is reasonable that the UAE does not want to aggravate ties with Russia by voting against it.

- What major role does the UN play in ensuring global security today? And does the UN need for a certain pre-building of the mechanisms of interaction between member states, taking into account the modern geopolitical situation?

- The UN continues to play a vital role in making the globe a safer place. True, there have been and continue to be examples of the UN's incapacity to avoid armed conflict and secure security. However, in order to really comprehend the UN's importance, one must first envisage the world without the organization. Without the UN, the world would undoubtedly be more chaotic and dangerous. The organization's most essential attribute is its capacity to respond to security threats such as terrorism and mass atrocities in a coordinated manner.

But the major issue with the UN is that, like most international institutions, it occasionally falls victim to political games. It is neither surprising nor unexpected, given that the UN is made up of independent states with diverse national interests. As a result, it's understandable why states occasionally put their interests ahead of the law and vote against a valid and essential resolution. The P5's misuse of veto power is an even more significant issue. Permanent members of the Security Council may exploit this power to shield themselves and their supporters from criticism. Situations like this can impede the UN from passing effective and necessary resolutions.

Although various aspects may be improved, I believe that reforming veto power could be beneficial. However, it is equally important to note that veto power is exercised on occasion. The permanent members value their reputations and will attempt not to veto a necessary resolution unless it clearly contradicts their interests.

A sensible method to keep the P5 governments from putting their personal interests above what is essential would be to demand explanations for vetoes which is what the UN is planning to do. Only if the rationale is compelling and genuine can a veto decision be accepted. Furthermore, one of the key complaints of non-permanent members and observer nations is that they are not represented equally. Because the UN provides a forum for all of its members, those states should be given opportunities to have a bigger say as well.

- What kind of role does Turkiye play in global politics?

- It can be said that Turkey is destined to have an important role in world politics because of its strategic location and its historic past. As a direct consequence of its location, Turkey is in the middle of all the processes Turkey's geographical location allows it to wield power throughout the Middle East, Caucasus, Central Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean area.

Turkey has recently begun to strengthen connections with African countries as well. Its role as the Ottoman Empire's successor state throws significant responsibilities on it and dictates its foreign policy to a major extent. The fact that much of the Middle East and the Balkans were under Ottoman power or influence motivates the majority of Turkey's diplomatic ambitions in those regions. Another facet of its worldwide significance is its desire to be the leader of the Turkic nations. This is an essential position since Turkic nations encompass the entirety of Central Asia.

Relations with NATO and Russia are important aspects of Turkey's involvement in the global system. Because Turkey is both a NATO ally and a strategic partner for Russia, it may act as a bridge between the West and its biggest adversary. However, there is always a quandary about which side to take in conflicting matters. Turkey has been able to manage and even benefit from such situations. The competition between the West and Russia over Turkey helps it get the upper hand in certain issues.

Another distinguishing aspect is Turkey's position as a mediator in regional crises. The continuing crisis in Ukraine is a recent example. Since the commencement of the war, Turkey has served as a mediator. Other instances include its efforts to mediate in Palestine, Iraq, the Balkans, and the nuclear accord with Iran.

- Against the backdrop of the latest events, some Ukrainian politicians call for the exclusion of Russia from the UN Security Council. How real is it at all?

- The UN framework renders such an option very unlikely. The Soviet Union was a founding member of the United Nations, and Russia inherited the USSR's seat on the Security Council. Because the removal of a founder is against the nature of the organization, the entire organization or the world order must completely shift for it to occur. Furthermore, it is not technically possible because there is no mechanism in place to dismiss a member of the Security Council.

The only alternative is to expel a member from the UN, which remains unthinkable in Russia's situation. The Security Council itself makes the proposal for removal from the UN, and if one of the permanent members' objects, the removal does not take place. Because Russia is one of the five permanent members, it has veto power and may thus prevent the General Assembly from voting on the removal. It's logical to assume that Russia would utilize its veto power to avoid being eliminated. As a result, it is impossible to expect Russia to be removed from the UN Security Council under the current conditions, presuming Russia wishes to remain in the Security Council in the first place.

It's also not very desirable. The United Nations, particularly the Security Council, is one of the few remaining forums for Russia to interact with the rest of the world. Even if the removal were possible, increasing isolation of Russia would cause more harm than good to the international community. A more isolated Russia would be more ready to disregard international community criticism.

True, Russia has already been barred from some platforms, but the Security Council's importance outweighs theirs. Losing such an important position would almost certainly lead to a more reckless and aggressive Russia. It should be highlighted that one of the primary reasons for nations' conformity with international standards is that they consider the norms as valid governing laws of that community. States believe that "uncollaborative" individuals of the community are penalized by a tarnished reputation and get fewer future cooperation opportunities as a result of their untrustworthiness.

Major actors value their reputation more since their acts receive greater attention. However, the more they are isolated from the community, the less concerned they are about the negative consequences of non-compliance on their reputation. In other words, as people become more isolated, they have fewer stakes to lose as a result of reputation-damaging behaviour.

The dissatisfaction produced by isolation and the inability to have a say in significant choices contributes to the causes that lead to more aggressive policies, particularly in revisionist states such as Russia. When isolated and dissatisfied states come together, the problem worsens. So, while isolation can be an effective punishment to some extent, it should not be used in such a way that the punished state feels it has nothing to lose, so it takes more risks and combines its capabilities with other like-minded isolated states. That would just exacerbate the situation.

Caliber.Az