Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Stumbling World Order and Its Impacts by Imad Fawzi Shueibi

Saturday, April 11, 2015 3:03
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

Despite the fact that President Barack Obama presents himself as the promoter of a New International Order organized around the NATO and certain new military pacts like the developing Joint Arab Force, the result of the public and secret military operations of the United States is breeding quite the opposite – the installation of a growing, invasive Disorder. The Syrian epistemological Imad Fawzi Shueibi analyses this paradox from the point of view of the Straussian theory of “creative chaos”, of which Daesh is the prime example
JPEG - 21.9 kb
In the interval between two world orders, there is a world war and a transitional period followed by a tightening international grip.
The West formed a World Order in 1648 following the Westphalia Treaty and the Thirty Years War. The Treaty of Westphalia laid down four fundamental principles:
- 1. The absolute sovereignty of the nation-state, and the fundamental right to political self-determination.
- 2. Legal equality between nation-states. The smallest state is, therefore, equal to the largest, regardless of its weakness or strength, or wealth or poverty.
- 3. The International Compliance with treaties, and the emergence of “Binding International Law“.
- 4. Non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.
Afterwards, a new world order was established. It was called “The One Hundred Years Peace” 1813-1914, and it shaped the International Rules of the Game; War Game, Peace Game and Rules of Struggle.
The outset of the First World War was an indication to the end of the previous International Order and beginning of a new one, and with the end of the Second World War and end of the League of Nations, a new World Order was established.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Order of Post-WWII ended and a transitional period started. during this transitional period, the United States of America considered that everything related to Post WWII was byones; i.e., the Principle of Sovereignty of Westphalia. Thus, the Westphalia Treaty was abolished “folded” and so was the right to resist the type known by France in its Resistance of the German Occupation. All that turned in the sense that the principle of sovereignty was replaced with the Right of Humanitarian Intervention and resistance was replaced with negotiations, and was even considered terrorism.
This was even more enhanced with the toppling of the trade towers in September 11, 2001 when the Neo-cons shaped the theory of their Masters Leo Strauss and Alan Bloom to form a new unipolar world order [1]. That orientation needed an operation arena, which came to be the Middle East. They started with Iraq, and proceeded to Lebanon, so the domino effect started to roll on. However, their main concern was to lay hand on Syria.
With this shift, the stage of non-polarity started.
The twentieth century started multipolar but soon it became bipolar, and with the end of the Cold War the world order turned unipolar; i.e., a world order in which only one super power dominates. The moment of unipolarity the world has known since the fall of the Berlin Wall and Collapse of the USSR was so swift; it was only a “moment” in the history. Things went on till we reached the world of non-polarity in which power is distributed over several powers.
If the order is multi-polar, it could be cooperative, and it could bear harmony among all its powers, which are though few but working according to stable rules, the violator of which shall be subject to penalty. This order could also be competitive and revolves around the balance of power. It could be more apt to struggle when this balance shakes. However, the case of non-polarity leaves no space for cooperation; rather, it leads to chaos.
There are more powers today than states themselves, yet only a few poles of these are not nation-states. In such a kind of order, the national states lose their monopoly of power. States face the challenge coming from the top and posed by regional and international organizations, in addition to the challenge coming from the bottom and posed by militias, foreigners, companies and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s).
The world of today has no polarity as an inevitable result of globalization. The latter increased the amount, speed and significance of flows across the borders as regards almost everything.
With the presence of many parties with obvious power trying to exercise their influence, it would be difficult to adopt massive responses because the world will be floating in sweeping chaos.
The more the non-polarity exists, the more non-polarity it will generate. Leaving the world today in this state of non-polarity on its own will even make it more complicated with time. The spread of disorder will make systems consisting of more than one party go towards more arbitrarily.

Risks of the International Chaos

Measuring the efficiency and efficacy of any international leadership manifests in the ability of major countries to set the rules of the International Order first then assume the role of regulating the international struggles and controlling or even preventing their occurrences with the highest levels of efficiency and the least cost. However, having experience of two decades and a half reveals a real fiasco in the effectiveness of the international leadership, which means the nonexistence of “order”; rather, an international chaotic situation. Thus, there is no place for one pole to dominate and there is not even a system that allows the world to be divided over two powers, nor is there experience or possibility to accept a multi-polarity world.
This international chaotic situation means the maintenance of severity of struggles in places used to be areas for influence test balloons, such as the Middle East, or having struggles through a third party, which will turn the who region into a fight arena.
This struggle will never cease unless the international powers come to an agreement. The emergence of ISIS (Da’esh); however, requires amendment of the struggle and fight rules, which is currently unclear.

The Scientific Dimension of Chaos:

The idea starts with the term “chaos” itself which is strangeness or unfamiliarity makes no difference as long as it is the secret behind all disasters and catastrophes that inflicted the whole world and yet to come.
This concept is related to the concept of “The Butterfly Effect” in which a tiny event may change an entire history. This is what chaos is doing; it has started the process of changing the face of history and creating what the world has never been familiar with ever since the end of the World War II.
Theoreticians of the United States today have not arbitrarily chosen the word “chaos” to mean the overwhelming and sweeping anarchy [2]. They even added the word “creative” to it to give it even a bigger connotation, creating thus a new butterfly effect that can be the cause of a big disaster inflicting the whole humanity.
“Chaos” does not mean “disorder” as long as the latter means something that could be put back to order. With “chaos” there is no possibility whatsoever to organize or put to order. It is the “state of the early existence” mentioned in the Bible from which the whole universe emerged. Without the hand of God, this world would not have been ordered, or almost ordered. That was stated in the Genesis as follows: “And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep“.
It was a real chaos before the Hand of Creator or Demiurge set it to order.
Simply, the whole issue centres around changing the world into a chaotic one with no organizing power whatsoever except for the United States.
A strange theory, isn’t it?
But it is really so.
Some Americans want the world to be out of order with the US as the only organizer, taking no consideration to the threats this situation is posing to the whole world including the US itself.
They say this is the nature of the world, and the idea comes from the cosmos and existence itself.
Didn’t the world begin from an organized point that made the Big Bang which led to the creation of galaxies up to the present time; i.e., a new galaxy is born every minute? In Macro Physics, we know it is highly organized but in Micro Physics we find it completely dispersed and in complete chaos. This is one of the modern science paradoxes, especially in Quantum Physics.
To put it differently and state it more accurately, according to the above mentioned theoreticians, existence is originally chaotic because it starts with a point considered the peak of organization from which the Big Bang starts, then it turns to be sweeping chaos. To identify with this universe, the earth should entirely be unorganized. Only the US will be enjoying a great order – like the Big Bang – while the whole earthly existence will be hierarchical in chaos; i.e., some are fairly chaotic, others an less chaotic and others are overwhelmingly chaotic.
For some Americans, the biological aspect of the Chaos Theory lies in life itself:
Isn’t a child born physically and physiologically well, and with the passage of time they grow up, and the signs of senility begin to manifest? Then, their body develops cancers, which are a type of internal chaos controlled by the brain, but when the brain loses control, those cancerous cells become destructive. They destroy the brain or invade the whole body which ends in death either by a disease that used to have no effect in the past or a heart attack that would not have formed if the body was in complete order. This is the lethal chaos. AIDS, for example, is a fatal illness that indicates lack of immunity. It is a flagrant indication that immunity may collapse and is not taken-for-granted just as order itself.


Creators of the Chaos Theory and supporters of spreading it all over the world see a physical aspect of the theory; which is the Entropy.
The ides comes out from the second law of the Theory of Thermodynamics, which states that any change that happens automatically in a physical system should be accompanied with an increase in its entropy; i.e., and increase in the levels of chaos taking place in it. Thus, to change means to suffer from lack of order or occurrence of chaos.
The question that should be raised here is: what about humans, and humanity?
Theoretician in the US say they do not give attention to this as long as all people are no more than tools, and that this is how things naturally go.
If you say people will die, they respond by saying they will die sooner or later, so why not chaotically! Have not thousands of people died since the early existence? Did not they die out of diseases in which case it is nature that says they are tools of death?
Was not there a terrifying massacre during the WWII which resulted in the death of about 80 million people and injury of about 128 million wounded and deformed? Why are you surprised then at chaos?
What is strange in this regard is the establishment of the United Nations which tries to set the world to order and lessen its chaotic nature.
If you terrifyingly inquire about this indeterminacy, they would say no one counts how many are killed in wars. The death toll is only estimated. They die in war because they are destined to, just as they are destined to die naturally. It is physics that says so.
This is not only cold bloodedness, but even cold mindedness.
Americans would say physics tells that chaos is the norm while stability and order are the exception and they would provide you with evidence from thermodynamics:
Any closed system tends to change or transform automatically with the increase of its entropy or chaos till it reaches the state of equal distribution of chaos in all its points, just as the equal temperature, density and other aspects that water has when cold and hot water is mixed. Reaching a balance in spreading chaos to all will, probably, take some time.
Thus, Americans create chaos and others adopt and apply it. The (others) receive it only to reflect it, making the whole world in a vicious circle for which no beginning or end is recognized, and no knowledge whatsoever about who has started it.


Non-polarity is the exception which might turn to be the norm. But, it has real dangers:
It could lead to armed regional conflicts that are far from being controlled; durable, viable and can swiftly spread from one place to another without regulations. Thus, it could be governed by rules of unexpected realities, the butterfly effect, the domino effect and chaos.
Non-polarity could be a stimulus to push a super power to take a military risk in a place geographically different from its own with the hope of decisively turning the state of non-polarity into a state of multi-polarity or unipolarity “even for a while”. It might also push towards a world war or coexistence with terrorism as an inevitable reality. The example of this is the coexistence with Taliban and opening embassies for it. So might coexistence with Da’esh be.
In non-polarity, there is a kind of international fluidity that might open the way up to coexistence with what used to be Terrorism and considering it as a status-quo.
The state of Lack of Certainty is the optimum now in our expectations of what is yet to come.

Fragmentation not disintegration

What is happening now in the Middle East is fragmentation not disintegration taking into consideration the big difference between both concepts. What is taking place in the region is “fragmentation” as long as there is no cohesive unity between the constituents of some countries due to the struggle. There are not even international understandings or a will to disallow that. Still there are some super powers that refuse changing the geopolitics and have not agreed on a new Yalta. Therefore, no new divisions or countries will appear in the short run unless the international scene changes, or prescription prevailed over fragmentation that there came to appear new entities. Those new entities could appear in the absence of a local or regional will to prevent them, or if there is a state of international fluidity that is absented or unable of imposing a decision or reaching an understanding about new geopolitics.
The basic caldron that erupts the contemporary chaos is the Middle East. Comparing what is taking place in the Region now to what happened during the First World War or the Cold War is not accurate, for it is resembles the Thirty Years War when that long-time conflict resulted in the destruction of large parts of Europe in the first half of the Seventeenth Century.
If you consider the situation in Europe at that time, you would know that in the years to come, there will probably be various weak states unable to control vast areas of their territories, and there will also be various militias and terrorist groups working on increasing their influence, let alone the civil wars and the wars between countries. Sectarian and societal identities will find a place and will even surpass the national identities. Local players will continue to interfere in the internal affairs of their neighbouring countries driven by the huge natural resources supplies. Foreign players, however, will be either unable or unwilling to let the region stabilize.
Thus, the bad can easily be worse in case the US was reluctant or unable of being wiser or of resorting to really more fruitful options. There is not even a one and sole solution to problems because the nature of challenges differ from one region to another and from one issue to another.
In fact, solutions of any kind can only be, at best, managed but not reached.
The Middle East is going towards disintegration and fragmentation, and the Caliphate State may become reality, thus, negotiations and recognitions can follow. This might also result in other Islamic Caliphates invoking the Archetype, and you may find out that the wealthy states are the focal point and the long-sought desire of this growingly multiplying caliphate.


The archetype is all the unconscious representations in human begins; i.e., it is everything that individuals or groups get unconsciously whether mythical or semi-mythical symbols of ancient individuals or communities. This is all characterized of being totally moral and delighting, away from being harming or materialistic. This conception of the archetype is what they seek to restore today though it belongs to the past and there is no way to test its validity.
Those who represent the archetype unconsciously and seek invoking it and reflecting it on their present reality do not read history. If they happen to read, they only read what boosts the archetypal images to revive but not to destroy them. Those people live the past in their present day and just conceive its most charming images.
With the archetype, bliss and psychological balance are achieved in the subconscious. With it, individuals or groups achieve balance in the earthly world and turn it into an angelic one. Thus, there is an escape from what is real to what is desired “by depicting it mythically”.
The archetype constitutes the substratum joined by all humans upon which individuals “within and under this construction” can build their future experiences. It is the passion that turns the idea into reality. That is why there is insistence on applying it to link it to the physical world.
In this sense, the Islamic State (IS) becomes the archetype from which the blind sweeping anarchy invented by the United States erupts. The game of looking for a place for the Islamic State will cost the region suffering long years of chaos and unrest, and will affect many parts of the world. It will be accompanied with a degrading reputation of Islam and Arabs and the consequences will be really dire.
This world is really dangerous as it is posing a threat to nations. Its consequences will reach every place on the globe unless this insanity stops. This requires the establishment of an international order that can control the impacts of non-polarity and stop it at the borders of the Nihilism theory that considers chaos an order.
[1] “Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon’s Soul”, by Paul Labarique; “The Neo Conservatives and the Policies of Constructive Chaos”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 4 October 2004 and 27 July 2006.
[2] Anarchy in the means “Absence of any form of political authority/ Political disorder and confusion”.


Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.