Article by Hussein Askary, Vice Chairman of the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden and Distinguished Research Fellow at the Guangdong Institute for International Strategies. Published here courtesy of the Taihe Institute.
My own dream of becoming an Olympian was crushed on August 2, 1990, when the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait. My colleagues and I in the Iraqi national handball team were preparing hard to participate in the Beijing Asian Games in September of that year. However, Iraq’s membership in the Olympic Council of Asia was suspended due to the invasion. Thus, we were prevented from traveling to Beijing. The consequent and devastating war to “liberate Kuwait” started in January 1991, in the wake of which my family and I had to flee to Iran, and later Europe, never again to play handball as a professional for my country.
Exactly two years before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, on August 8, 1988, we were celebrating the end of the absurd war between Iraq and Iran (1980-1988), a conflict driven by regional tensions and broader concerns over the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Two weeks after the end of that war, our team was allowed to travel to Syria, an ally of Iran, to participate in the Arab Championship. That was my first major tournament as a 20-year-old player, but also the last major tournament we played before the terrible events starting on the morning of that fateful August 2, 1990. It put an end to not only the Olympic dream of thousands of Iraqi athletes, but also the dreams and lives of millions of Iraqis.
“Gods of Olympus” Intervene
The 1991 war of “liberation of Kuwait,” also known as “Operation Desert Storm,” led by a coalition spearheaded by the US, basically destroyed almost all infrastructure that supported the lives of the 20 million Iraqi people. Iraq was bombed “back to the Stone Age” exactly as US Secretary of State James Baker promised in his meeting with the Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz in Geneva before the war. This horrific war was followed by an unprecedented and equally horrific economic blockade for the next 12 years, causing the deaths of over a million Iraqis, half of whom were children. Then came the criminal and illegal invasion of Iraq led by the US on March 20, 2003. In the years since I left Iraq, the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” revisited Iraq time and again. Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State in the 1990s, infamously insisted that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was a fair price for containing Saddam Hussein. This behavior by Anglo-American elites reflects an obsession with the power to control human lives, reminiscent of the depiction of the gods of Olympus in ancient Greek dramas. In epics like the Iliad and Odyssey, the clique of gods toys with the lives and destinies of the mortals below them.
Iraq is by and large still under occupation, with all its oil revenues channeled directly to a bank account in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is controlled by the American president under the illegal Executive Order 13303. Since its initiation by US President George W. Bush in May 2003, every American president has renewed Executive Order 13303, like a god of Olympus, unchallenged by the international community and the Iraqi government. Iraqi assets from the export of oil in that bank account reportedly amount to 120 billion USD, but Iraqis are unable to use that for development or reconstruction efforts. Instead, the money is used to buy US Treasury bills (worth 43 billion USD today). Iraqis basically receive a monthly allowance from the US to cover the consumer needs of the people, because Iraq’s capacity to produce goods domestically has been destroyed.
Nervous “Gods” of NATO
Despite their perceived all-powerful status, the gods of Olympus are, at the same time, nervously watching out for any potential challenges posed by the rise of the mortals who might acquire divine knowledge. The punishment of Prometheus with eternal torture for giving humans the “fire” and knowledge stolen from the gods is an illustrative case of the fragility of the gods of Olympus.
The nervousness of the leaders of NATO was expressed clearly, rather in a paranoid manner, during their Washington Summit on July 10. “Strategic competition, pervasive instability, and recurrent shocks define our broader security environment,” the Washington Summit Declaration stated. Although members of NATO have launched illegal wars either openly or in a clandestine manner in the past three decades, resulting in the deaths, maiming, and mass emigration of millions of people in the Global South, they continued to warn against imagined threats. “We will continue to ensure our collective defense against all threats and from all directions, based on a 360-degree approach,” they stressed. Pointing at China this time, NATO leaders added, “The People’s Republic of China’s stated ambitions and coercive policies continue to challenge our interests, security, and values.”
But thousands of kilometers away from the Atlantic region, China has been pursuing economic development peacefully.
China is doing something else that is considered an existential threat, as it challenges the arbitrary “rules-based order,” imposed in violation of international law and the United Nations Charter.
Who Sets the Rules?
The Peace of Westphalia, which ended the horrific Thirty Years’ War in 1648 and served as a model for the UN Charter, exemplifies a system of humane governance. The key principles of Westphalia are that nations are sovereign and equal, that nations are free to choose their religious, social, and political systems, and that nations must refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of others. Furthermore, nations are encouraged to cooperate to promote “the benefit of the other,” not egoistically pursuing one’s own interests to the detriment of peace and stability.
However, most wars that were conducted in the post-WWII period were in violation of the principles of the UN Charter, like the invasion of Panama by the United States in December 1989, the NATO bombardment campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 led by the US.
The attempts to undermine the Westphalian and UN Charter principles were launched in earnest in 1991, a year marking the emergence of the unipolar world following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Francis Fukuyama’s thesis titled “The End of History?” then became an indisputable and almost “scientific theory” in the West. This thesis posited that there will be no other political system in the world other than liberal democracy and that the West will dominate the planet, forming a key element of unipolar world ideology.
Western leaders, especially in NATO, saw the principles of Westphalia as the main obstacle to achieving global hegemony. This sentiment was first publicly expressed by NATO Secretary General Javier Solana in November 1998 in a NATO symposium titled “On the Political Relevance of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.” Solana used the situation in Kosovo to push a new policy. “The atrocities that happen on our doorstep today remind us of the cruelties experienced during the Thirty Years’ War,” he said, adding that it was his “general contention that humanity and democracy – two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order – can serve as guideposts in crafting a new international order, better adapted to the security realities, and challenges, of today’s Europe.” Solana specifically attacked the principle of sovereignty of nation-states as one of the “limits” of the Westphalian Peace. He envisioned a new security world order shaped and controlled by “the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), NATO, the Western European Union (WEU), and the European Union,” with the UN as a subordinate institution to these. He declared, “I see today a need to re-examine fundamentally the concepts around which our security has been organized. 350 years after the Treaty of Westphalia, the conflict in Kosovo demonstrates that we stand at a crossroads: where does the sovereignty of a state end and where does the international obligation to defend human rights and to avert a humanitarian disaster start?” Less than a year later, NATO launched a massive aerial bombardment of Yugoslavia. That was the first major practical and ideological assault on the principles of Westphalia.
Tony Blair Raises the Bar
Another “god of Olympus,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair, dealt the most devastating blow to the Westphalia principles in a speech in Chicago in April 1999. As NATO was bombing Yugoslavia, Blair declared, “No one in the West who has seen what is happening in Kosovo can doubt that NATO’s military action is justified.” He emphasized that “values” were the basis of the intervention, even if it meant breaking international law. This marked a critical shift toward the “rulesbased order,” where the West claimed the right to intervene through military action outside the confines of international law and the UN Charter to protect “human rights” and “democracy.” Blair stated that “non-interference has long been considered an important principle of international order,” but that under certain circumstances deemed by Britain and its allies as necessary, interference will be legitimized.
After the invasion of Iraq, of which he was a key architect, Blair made it clear that the Peace of Westphalia principles are irrelevant.
Where to Go from Here?
In the decades since Blair’s speech, the tension between the traditional principles of Westphalia and the emerging “rules-based order” has only intensified. This conflict has manifested in various global interventions, often justified under the guise of protecting universal values.
In a speech to the United Nations Office at Geneva in January 2017, Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed these issues, stating, “As modern history shows, to establish a fair and equitable international order is the goal mankind has always striven for. From the principles of equality and sovereignty established in the Peace of Westphalia over 360 years ago to international humanitarianism affirmed in the Geneva Convention 150-plus years ago; from the four purposes and seven principles enshrined in the UN Charter more than 70 years ago to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence championed by the Bandung Conference over 60 years ago, many principles have emerged in the evolution of international relations and become widely accepted. These principles should guide us in building a community of shared future for mankind.”
China has demonstrated, in the recent decades of its peaceful rise, that there are other dimensions to international governance than merely pragmatically preventing a world war. The idea of building bridges of friendship among nations and peoples is to demonstrate the fact that humanity is one big family, although nations exhibit different cultural and social colors. There is something common that nations can strive toward together. Achieving common prosperity and establishing common goals of development are key parts of this global governance system. Harmony among nations with diversity is another aspect of such initiatives as the Belt and Road Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative announced by President Xi.
Friendship and the Olympic Spirit
As the Paris 2024 Olympic Games conclude, we are reminded of the Olympic spirit during this very uncertain moment in history, where the war in Ukraine, Gaza, and West Asia generally could lead to dire consequences for all humanity. The three values of Olympism, as defined by the Olympic Charter, are “excellence, respect, and friendship.” They constitute the foundation on which the Olympic movement builds its activities to promote sport, culture, and education with a view to building a better world. It aims to “encourage effort,” “preserve human dignity,” and “develop harmony.” The goal of Olympism is “to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”
Economic and cultural cooperation falls into the same category as sports. The ultimate goal is not to undermine each other, but to lift all participants to a higher level. Seeing the other as an important complement to oneself rather than a threat is what sets apart the spirit of the Olympic Games and such efforts as the Belt and Road Initiative on the one hand and the spirit expressed by NATO in the July 2024 Washington Summit Declaration.