New World Order vs. Just World Order

In the 21st century where means of communication and transportation have gone beyond all expectations and cross cultural awareness has become widespread after the collapse of communism and and consequently the soviet union and many other communist countries, proposals were presented urging the adoption of universal laws values and morals with relationship among the people of the world should be governed.

Recently, the idea of a so called New world Order was proposed through the united nations in order to prescribe values and impose laws on people of various cultures. The question that will immediately emerge in whose values, laws and ways of life should be adopted?

Because the United States is, presently, the ‘only super power’ among all the nations of the World, as well as the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, it seems a forgone conclusion that the American way of life will be the only choice presented to the globe. Charles Krauthammer, an influential American columnist, wrote in The Foreign Affairs that a Uni-polar moment had arrived and that a confident united states should learn to accept it’s new role, aggressively imposing it’s own vision.

Given the natural richness and military power of the U.S., why have it’s values not provided happiness and peace of mind to the billions of Americans whose lives have been wrecked by Alcoholism, Violence, Drug use and other family and social Dilemmas? Can such a way of life that has failed to uproot discrimination against blacks and other minorities bring equality among the social castes of India? Can the American way of life that has resulted in grave failure when attempting to solve the problems of poverty in South America or Africa?

Such Questions should be raised. Nobel prize winner V.S Naipauls’ claim that western civilization is the universal civilization that fits all men. david Gergan, editor at large of U.S. News and report has candidly uttered his doubts:

            The united states cannot achieve order in it’s streets or even in it’s capital, much less in the rest of the world.”

Some might say that the new order does not have to be that of the American, it could be that of the British, the French, the Russians or the Chinese: all are permanent members of the Security Council. Nevertheless, these governments have never claimed to bring happiness nor security to their own nations or the rest of the World. Nonetheless, no nation in the whole world would willingly choose or suggest a way of life detrimental to their own interests. Any system of life selected as the basis for the new world order is almost certain to serve the interests of the people proposing and sponsoring it. People can only adhere willingly and peacefully to a system of their choice.

Gergen(1993) shows the level of self-interest felt by the people of the World’s most dominant country regarding their care for other’s nations.

The American public told pollster from the Chicago council of foreign relations that the most important priorities of U.S. foreign policy should be first, protecting the interest of American workers abroad and third securing adequate supplies of energy. Defending Allies preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and advancing human rights were seen as less important. Helping to spread democracy to other nations was 15th on list of 15 priorities.

Samuel-Huntington refers to the standards western nations apply to their interests in the World:

The west in effect is using international institutions, military power and economic resources to run the World in ways that will maintain western predominance protect western interests and promote western political and economical values.

Accepting these new order premises as way of life means full submission to the Teachings and rules that such a system puts forward. Naturally, the result of such acceptance is a materialistic and secular view of life.

The probability that such a new World order will be accepted or applied is extremely remote. It has as much chance as such old orders as colonialism, Communism, dark ages theology, and modern capitalism.

The well known American Writers and senior advisor to three American Presidents, Patrick I Buchannan, thinks that demanding that the Muslim world withit’s Great cultural and moral treasures should accept the western ideology is the ”irony of ironies. He writes:

Today, an aging, dying Christian west is pressing the third world and the Islamic world to accept contraception, abortion, and sterilization as the west has done. But why should they enter a suide pact with us when they stand to inherit the earth when we are gone?

There is a dire need among the majority of the worlds’ population for a way of life that can solve their problems and answer their unanswered questions about existence and destiny. With escalating rates of immorality and violence in the World, increasing numbers of people have been searching for a way out. many have found suicide to be the easiest and probably the fastest solution. No wonder our world is wading in a state of chaos. it has tried so many ideologies and applied countless socio-economic theories, but have proven to be quite right. That which has been tried again and again. Surely, the time has come to ask questions if there is another way, an alternative system that could be adopted by the whole world.

Nominating a system to bind the people of all nations into one single nation is a serious undertaking. It is imperative that everyone s’ freedom of choice is safeguarded and that their inherent beliefs and concerns are respected. Any Universal doctrine, law, System or way of life should take into consideration the natural characteristics of humankind. Such a system should have the following attributes among it’s major principles:

1. Non-Discriminatory: It should emphasize equality and reject all types of racism and discrimination. it’s basic Teachings and values should be stable and should be equally and justly applied to all people with no discrimination because of their colour, ethnicity.

2. Tolerant: It should tolerate the existence of difference in belief, language and cultural diversity among people of the World.

3. Ethically progressive: it should not oppose advancement in science and technology, but rather provide universal ethics to ensure the consequences of such advancements are positive.

4. Provide working solutions to pressing Problems: It should provide solutions to humanistic problems, such as, alcoholism, drug addiction, the breakdown of family and social systems, unrestrained sexuality, rape and molestation of women and children.

The beauty of Islam as the only universal alternative way of life for humanity has been misrepresented by some of the un-islamic malpractices by some Muslims and the misconception brought up by people of little knowledge about Islam or through prejudiced views. Terrorist activities launched by a very insignificant number of people, in the name of Islam is unjustly blamed on the over 1.3 billion Muslims who have never approved of such activities. They themselves suffer such irrational and irresponsible actions.

Islamic principles of equality, tolerance, solutions to problems facing humanity and position towards sciences and advancements shall be compared to a number of contemporary ideologies and religions that may aspire for universality.