keenness to send troops to countries whose rulers
perpetrate human catastrophes on their own
people. The example of Rwanda was repeated in
Darfur, western Sudan in 2004. There are no uni-
versal peacekeepers even though there is one coun-
try, the US, more powerful than all the others.
The US neither has the resources nor is it
willing to sacrifice young men and women to act
as policemen everywhere in the world. So a
pattern is gradually becoming clearer that harks
back to the close of the Second World War. The
idea of the regional policemen, then, was that
China, Britain, the US and Russia would each be
responsible for peace in their own parts of the
world. Half a century later the ‘regional police-
men’ are more numerous. Russia still controls a
vast land of different peoples and cultures, NATO
has replaced Britain and links Europe and the US,
the European Union is emerging with its own
rapid reaction force, but China is reluctant to act
as a policeman outside its borders; it has enough
problems at home. African countries cannot do so
even if they want to unless given financial and
logistical support. ‘Ethical’ or ‘moral’ foreign
policies have not dominated international action
and are unlikely to do so in the future.
In the sub-Sahara, South Africa is another
reluctant participant; in West Africa, Nigeria has
led a West African joint effort as it did from 1990
to 1997 in Liberia and again in 2003. The West
African force, too, lacks resources but on occasion
the US will provide a logistics and financial back-
up while rejecting a leading role. There are no set
patterns in some regions of the world where no
force of ‘regional policemen’ can be formed
because they are too divided. If at the same time
it is a region of vital interest to one or more of
the powerful countries of the world the outcome
is even more difficult to predict. The most volatile
area fitting this characterisation is the Middle
East. The international vacuum is partially filled
in the Middle East by the US and partners willing
to act with it. But much will depend on the out-
come of the US-led intervention in Iraq where
the peaceful evolution of some form of demo-
cratic government is threatened by the resistance
of militant Sunnis. In the new millennium the
hope is for the peaceful resolutions of conflicts
and regional actions in line with the ideals of the
United Nations. Inevitably realities will frequently
fall short of high ethical purposes.
The dangers to peace have radically changed.
The shadow of nuclear holocaust between the
Soviet Union and the West has been lifted.
Today technological weapon advances allow small
groups of terrorists to inflict injury to every coun-
try on the globe. It will always be possible to
inspire groups to identify hated enemies and to
brainwash individuals to accept that any means are
justified to hit the targeted enemy. Martyrdom for
a cause has become more widespread, born out of
frustration and hatred from Chechnya to Israel,
New York to Nairobi. Al-Qaeda has been the
focus of the war against terror. In fact, hundreds
of groups act on their own or in loose touch with
each other. It is not a war that has a definite start
date or will end on a day with a surrender. It is
a continuous struggle on two fronts – to try
to remove the causes where there is a will to do so
and to strike against terrorists to reduce their
destructiveness. The struggle with terrorists and
their ‘successes’ makes headlines but the direct
loss of life has run into thousands over a decade
not comparable to the wars of the twentieth cen-
tury with the deaths of millions. The nightmare
scenario of the future is that a terror group could
obtain nuclear or biological weapons of mass
destruction. A foretaste was the attack by one
group with nerve gas in the Tokyo subway or
Saddam’s use of killer gas against the Kurds. For
several years before 2003 a Pakistani scientist
Abdul Khan, through a network of agents, dis-
tributed nuclear know-how and even components
to build a bomb to Iran, North Korea and Libya,
and other countries as well. More immediate is the
danger from a nuclear ‘dirty bomb’ far easier to
construct. Striking successfully against terrorists
in hiding protected by sections of the local popu-
lation has always proved to be extraordinarily haz-
ardous and difficult. Such conflicts all over the
world can continue for decades. When leaders of
countries support them, the blunt instrument of
war as in Afghanistan can hinder the terrorists’
ability to strike but not to inspire others. Sanctions
are another weapon which in the end proved
effective in Libya.954 GLOBAL CHANGE: FROM THE 20th TO THE 21st CENTURY