Another World is Possible: Prospects for A New International System (Paper to be presented at the 20th General Conference of the

International Federation of Social Science Organizations/IFSSO at the Lyceum of the Philippines University, Batangas City on November 18-20, 2011) David Michael M. San Juan (De La Salle University-Manila) dmmsanjuan@gmail.com ABSTRACT Since the birth of the United Nations, the international system has been dominated by wealthy countries from the Global North. Such hegemony has fuelled tensions between First and Third World countries while propping up the outwardly monolithic status quo. Meanwhile, Third World leaders from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to former Brazilian President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva have strived to espouse the overhaul of the international system towards a multipolar world order. This paper aims to describe the current status of the international system by revealing the competing macrohegemonies that shepherd its contemporary evolution, as a springboard for discussing and solidifying into a coherent tapestry the contemporary events that seem to improve the prospects for the development and/or evolution of a new international system. From the 2008 International Financial Crisis to the so-called Arabian Spring, and from the resilience of armed rebel groups in the Third World to the resurgence of global social movements, this paper theorizes that a new world order is imminent and Third World countries such as the Philippines can help shift the balance of power from the Global North towards the Global South. ~~~ INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY Less than two years before the 2011 civil war erupted in Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in his first address to the United Nations (UN) strongly criticized the UN for its antiquated system whose decision-making bodies such as the UN Security Council is dominated by veto-wielding Western countries. He read portions of the UN Constitution and threw it near UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moons place to highlight his contention that the UN has not been true to its original mandate. Colonel Gaddafi went further as to demand a new UN system where each country will have one vote on every decision that the UN will make, saying that We should resort to the majority of the votes of the General Assemblyif the General Assembly takes a vote, it should be implementedand no one should say that I am above the General Assembly. Anyone who says hes above the General Assembly should leave the United Nations and be alone. Democracy is not for the richThe Security Council is security feudalism, political feudalism for those who have permanent seatsit should not be called the Security Council, it should be called the Terror Council (transcribed from a video clip posted on YouTube). Other anti-imperialist leaders such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has also voiced out his displeasure of the current international system where disputes are settled arbitrarily by the powerful UN Security Council without the actual consensus of the UN General Assembly. In the 2006 UN General Assembly, Chavez claimed that the UN system has ceased to function within the framework of its original mandate, saying that he doesnt think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The

U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless. With the same implied message, in the 2009 UN General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, another perennial critic of the US-led Western hegemony in the UN accused foreign forces of spreading "war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation in the Middle East and emphasizes that It is unacceptable that a small minority should dominate the politics, economy and culture of vast parts of the world through a complicated network and establish a new form, in fact, of slavery (transcribed from a video clip posted on YouTube). The words of these Third World leaders are reflective of the sentiments in Southeast Asia (SEA), a region victimized and oppressed by Western colonial rulers for centuries. Even in the Philippines, the most westernized country in SEA, voices against the hegemony of western powers in the international system are heard. At times, the UN Security Council itself is sidelined by stronger players such as the United States of America (USA). For example, the American occupation of Iraq was never authorized nor supported by the UN Security Council, yet such military intervention raged on for seven years (2003-2010). As then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a BBC News interview, the invasion of Iraq ...is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. Superficially, the UN is a democratic organization of states, but its inner workings are far from being democratic. Its an entity where might is still right for as long as no mighty nation challenges the mightiest one. At times, its powerful members act in unison to limit the rising power of a particular enemy state whose political system is different from theirs and seemingly threatens their dominance. Its a revised application of the concept of balance of power in which the powerful members of the UN Security Council act, not against their fellow superpowers, but against aspiring counter-hegemonic forces that seem to pose danger to the status quo. This explains why its too easy for most members of the Security Council to authorize foreign intervention in Libya, while they wont even bother to at least condemn Bahrain. For the West-dominated UN Security Council, Libya is a rogue state not only because its leader is a tyrant, but also because it was able to industrialize and utilize its petroleum resources with minimal foreign aid, thereby offering an alternative pathway to development, other than the Western formula of neoliberal capitalist globalization. Meanwhile, chances are very slim that Bahrain, despite its violent crackdown against pro-democracy protestors aided by Saudi Arabian troops, will be condemned by the UN Security Council because its ruling clan is staunchly pro-USA and it applies the Western-imposed concept of neoliberal capitalist globalization, unlike Colonel Gaddafi. Such application of double standards lends credence to the widespread belief (at least in the Third World) that the UN is West-dominated and should be overhauled if it is to exist efficiently. Weaker countries with no seats in the UN Security Council are of course given all the time to vent their disgust and frustration through the regular General Assembly where leaders can talk freely as majority of the other foreign delegates sleep or chat with other leaders. As Venezuelan President Chavez wryly notes in the 2006 UN General Assembly, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world Chavez speech culminated in a call to re-establish the United Nations through the democratization of its decision-making organs such as the UN Security Council. Former Brazilian President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva echoed Chavez complaint in the 2008 UN General Assembly: The strength of values must prevail over the value of strength. Only legitimate and effective instruments can assure collective security. The United Nations has spent 15 years discussing the reform of its Security Council. Todays

structure has been frozen for six decades and does not relate to the challenges of todays world. Its distorted form of representation stands between us and the multilateral world to which we aspireIt is also multilateralism that must guide us toward solutions to the complex problems of global warming, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Americas penchant for trampling on multilateralism has compelled academics such as Weiss (2003) to conclude that UN Security Council reforms are largely illusory. But it seems that the times they are a-changin, to borrow a phrase from Bob Dylans famous song. Vibrant developing giants, specifically Brazil and India have stepped up their campaign for permanent seats in the powerful UN Security Council, a drastic realignment naturally opposed by other countries. Aimed at countering the hegemonic bloc in the Security Council, this emerging Third World bloc can introduce changes in the international system from within to complement laudable moves from the outside. The Philippines, which is among the so-called Next Eleven zones of growth, can play a major role in the realignment of forces in this era of globalization. The Global Economics Paper No. 134 released by Goldman Sachs included the Philippines in the Next Eleven (N11) group of countries that are dubbed as the next growth zones and future economic powerhouses. Such emerging financial muscle can be utilized in drastically transforming the status quo in international affairs. Various citizens groups and international non-government organizations (NGOs) have been ceaselessly drafting plans for the development of a new international system based on the ideals of genuine democratic representation, for many years now. While it might be argued that the old West-dominated UN system remains intact, recent events and developments suggest that a realignment of powers and shifting and/or building of new alliances make the advent of a new era and a new international system imminent. In analyzing the prospects for such earth-moving transformation, it is imperative to scrutinize the various forces involved in the greater scheme of things. Using a contextualized Marxist viewpoint espoused by Antonio Gramsci (e.g. the concept of hegemony and counter-hegemony), this paper will expound on the current status of the international system by revealing the competing macrohegemonies that shepherd its contemporary evolution and as a springboard for discussing and solidifying into a coherent tapestry the contemporary events that seem to improve the prospects for the development and/or evolution of a new international system. DISCUSSION UN Security Council: Rich Nations Club The world today is in a potentially revolutionary situation, though not entirely similar to the world that heralded the birth of the French Revolution. Its a world where a certain group of nations reign supremely over other states. A closer look at the composition of the current UN Security Council will drive this point home. China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States have permanent seats (states with veto powers) in the council while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa have non-permanent seats. Among the permanent seat holders, France and the United Kingdom are from Europe, United States is from North America, China is from Asia and the Russian Federation is from Eurasia. Theres no African state among the permanent seat holders despite the fact that Africa is the second most populous continent. South America has no representative too among the permanent seat

holders. It is worth mentioning that Lebanon is the only Middle Eastern country in the UN Security Council, despite the fact that the Middle East is among the worlds most politically volatile region, especially after the Egyptian uprising led to a salvo of popular revolts against local autocrats in the Arabian world, not to mention the continuing instability of the current situation in Iraq and the state of war between Israel and the Palestinians who are yet to have their own state. Theres no permanent seat holder too from the Southeast Asian region. Socio-economically, the UN Security Council is a rich nations club. The usual Third World complaint on the UN Security Councils elitism can be bolstered by analyzing data culled from the Human Development Index, an annual UN publication on holistic human progress. Among the current members of the Security Council, the following countries are classified as having very high or high human development: France, Lebanon, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Germany and Portugal. Labeled as having medium human development are China, Gabon, India and South Africa. The sole state in the Security Council considered as having low human development is Nigeria. Such elitist composition of the UN Security Council is no accident, for the non-permanent members are elected by representatives of all nations in the General Assembly. In such elections, a crafty combination of diplomatic overtures and economic leverage is necessary to win. For example, to drum up support for its bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, India utilizes loans and other financial concessions for Least Developed Countries (LDCs). This 2011, India has sponsored a conference of foreign ministers of the LDCs where it is announce(d) a slew of concessions for the Least Developed Countries from Africa and Asia in connection with the campaign for the expansion of the UN Security Council which may lead to the granting of a permanent seat for India (UN Web Services Section 2011).

Forces of the Status Quo: Will Old Alliances Hold? Together with their allies around the globe, the permanent members of this sundry group of nations compose the forces of the status quo, e.g. those who are threatened by resurgent endeavors to upset and/or totally transform the status quo. While they have varying views on particular international security issues, they are more or less united in maintaining the status quo where they monopolize not only the control of the worlds resources but also its purportedly democratic institutions and semblances of a world government such as the United Nations, including powerful financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The more enlightened among the forces of the status quo will of course attempt to evade irrelevance and obsolescence by trying their best to repackage themselves as responsible reformers who are willing to adapt to change, for as long as theyll still have some relevance and power in the new international system but, whatever happens, these forces will try to resist any fundamental change in the international system. As the Singaporean diplomat and esteemed academic Kishore Mahbubani (2008) says the West has become the most powerful force preventing the emergence of a new wave of history, clinging to its privileged position in key global forums, such as the UN Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the G-8 (the group of highly industrialized states) Using the French Revolutions colorful rhetoric, these forces are part of the global and seemingly crumbling ancien rgime. Currently, the worlds number one economy, the United States of America (USA), leads this bloc. Through its mutual defense treaties and its vast intelligence gathering network

around the world backed with its cultural hegemony over many countries, the USA is able to lead the forces of the status quo, albeit with increasing instances of challenges from new superpowers such as the nominally communist Peoples Republic of China. It is doubtful if the USA will still be capable of being the sole hegemon of the status quo, considering that its officially the worlds largest debtor. Ironically, its closest rival in various matters, the Peoples Republic of China is its biggest creditor. This partly explains why despite its posturings in the international community, China would not want the USA to lose its sociopolitical and economic hegemony. China would of course desire to have a co-hegemony with the USA, thus it is constrained not to leave the USA like a miserable sickly old man in the cold, precisely because in the long run, if the USA collapses, China will collapse too, or the latter will at least experience a financial crisis. As Bergsten (2006) observed US-China relations are ...complex and full of contradictions, all the more so as a result of deepening interdependence between the two powers...US and Chinese interests are also increasingly complex and interwoven... American collapse may not seem imminent but some signs of a shocking economic earthquake that would instantly smash the foundations of American dominance are now at hand. As John Avlon (2011) succinctly puts it, The world's biggest debtor nation cannot remain the world's sole superpower indefinitely. The debt crisis has created a huge cleavage between the two main American political parties which further highlight their countrys internal instability which makes the USA less powerful in international affairs. As of July 29, 2011, the US government is yet to secure a bipartisan deal aimed at raising their debt limit from the current $14.3 trillion. The Republican Party advocates a two-step process to cut $3-4 trillion in spending over ten years but the Obama administration wants higher taxes with a raise in the debt cap and Obama himself warned that economic Armageddon will be the result of Americas failure to strike a deal. Ratings agencies Moody's and Standard & Poor's warned that Americas Triple-A credit rating might be subjected to a downgrade. Speculations are so ripe that America will be embroiled in credit default (e.g. it will be unable to pay its debts on time) that White House spokesperson Jay Carney is compelled to declare that A downgrade is a bad thing. A default is a catastrophic thing." The USA is yet to fully recover from the financial crisis that began in 2008, as its unemployment rate (16%) remains high. Independent analysts such as Canadian proprietor Jeff Nielson (2011) cast doubts on the economic recovery of the USA, asserting that the US economy is still mired in a worsening depression. Yet what is even more depressing is that the only "solution" which the U.S. government has come up with to deal with this economic catastrophe is to tell larger and larger lies. By lies, Nielson refers to what he thinks is doubtful employment statistics that US government agencies are providing to soothe concerns among doubters of the economic recovery. Nielson insists that, contrary to the US governments claim, there has been absolutely no recovery. Local jobs creation through the manufacturing sector remains anemic (Lambro 2011). Despite the relative increase in the jobs offered by the services sector, such employment remains vulnerable and volatile because of the wave of offshoring of services jobs from the US to other countries, a situation where (a)ccounting, payroll, indeed any activity that was internet-enabled, could in principle be carried out from afar (Bardhan 2011). Ironically, such dilemma was a result of the neoliberal capitalist globalization that the USA espoused and imposed to the world. The intensity of the US financial crisis is evident in Americas huge federal budget deficit pegged at $222.5 billion as of February 2011 (Del Giudice 2011). After spending more than $3 trillion in the Iraq War (Stiglitz and Bilmes 2010) and billons of dollars to bail-out bankrupt American financial institutions, it is now struggling to keep its social services

afloat. Huge spending cuts have been announced and/or implemented in the fields of health and education. A number of schools, museums and other institutions have been closed while thousands of workers have been laid off or have suffered from wage cuts and/or non-release of benefits. In the first quarter of 2011, the US government announced that a bipartisan deal between the Democrats (who usually abhor budget cuts) and the Republicans (who always advocate fiscal prudence through budget cuts) has been reached, enabling America to cut federal spending by at least $39 billion in the next fiscal year (MacAskill 2011). The Democratic Partys grudging support for the said huge budget cut described by House Speaker John Boehner as the largest real-dollar spending cut in American history further reflects the severity of the financial crisis that America is experiencing. In normal times, the Democratic Party fight tooth and nail to prevent budget cuts knowing all too well that the poor and the middle class (its traditional support base) will be hurt by such. Huge budget cuts on health, education and other social services have been announced and proposals for drastic cuts on military expenditures have been put forward. Some observers, such as a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst have thus concluded that the Obama administration is actually preparing for a post-imperialist America (Grenier 2011). Stripped of its creative jargon, such phrase implies that, slowly but surely, the USA is beginning to wean itself away from being the worlds hegemon due to its financial woes. Recently, even US Defense Secretary Robert Gates cautioned against US intervention via the deployment of American troops in Libya, saying that (i)t was not a vital national interest to the United States. Actually, such intervention would be also too costly, considering that America is still involved in Afghanistan and is yet to totally pull out of Iraq. Unfortunately, despite this American decline, Filipino policymakers and traders are still dependent on American markets. According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook, the Philippines main export partner is still the United States (17.6%), followed by Japan (16.2%). However, it is worth mentioning that the Philippines has a more diverse pool for its exports now, compared with its special relations with the USA in the 1940s up to the 1990s. Currently, aside from USA and Japan, the Philippines has export linkages with the following countries: Netherlands (9.8%), Hong Kong (8.6%), China (7.7%), Germany (6.5%), Singapore (6.2%), South Korea (4.8%). It is necessary for the Philippines to forge more trading partnerships with its fellow SEA nations and its fellow members of the N11 nations that Goldman Sachs have predicted to evolve as the worlds new economic powers in the next decade, so as to insulate itself from the imminent effects of the coming crash of the American growth machine. Meanwhile, the domestic situation of traditional European powers such as the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany, indicates that they cant replace USA as the hegemon. UK is also in the midst of a fiscal crisis. Its leaders currently face massive protests against austerity measures (such as social spending cuts coupled with increased fees for services such as education). Though Germany has defied the crisis with its relatively impressive growth despite the international financial crisis, its conservative leader Angela Merkel is facing strong domestic challenges in the form of a resurgent Green Party and her old nemesis, the Social Democratic Party. Thus, the current German government, busy with strengthening its domestic base in preparation for the next elections, tries to minimize actual involvement in the worlds affairs. As a whole, the European Union (EU) seems to be reluctant too in stepping in the shoes of the fading hegemon USA. Currently, the EU is attempting to manage the fiscal crises in Greece, Ireland and more recently, Portugal. On July 2011, a Germanbrokered $229-billion Greek bailout plan but a number of Germans arent too happy about what has been dubbed as the emergence of a transfer union where rich nations like Germany will always help shoulder the debts of poorer union members like Greece (Brown

2011). Its no surprise that, EU-wide, austerity measures have been announced and/or implemented too. In Sweden, universities are now charging tuition fees on foreign students. In France, the retirement age has been increased. In Portugal, wage cuts have been announced. In Spain, the unemployment rate is in an all-time high and as of July 2011, protests of hundreds of thousands of indignados (the indignants) who oppose spending cuts and condemn massive unemployment and soaring prices persist. The deepening crisis in the EU is actually resurrecting the formerly dormant and/or dead rightist groups that wrongly blame immigrants for the woes of the EU. These rightist groups have managed to win in parliamentary elections such as in the Netherlands and Sweden, paving the way for a further realignment of forces in the EU. With these things in mind, it is evident that the ancien rgime of the current international system led by the USA is in trouble. The USA is no longer capable of leading the forces of the status quo in the long run, and its European allies are unwilling and/or incapable to take its place due to their own domestic problems that need closer attention. This looming power vacuum presents golden opportunities for emerging forces in the Global South (the Third World) which encompasses the Philippines.

Third World No More: Brazil, India, China and Others The Global South generally refers to Third World countries, in contrast with the Global North, a label which generally applies to rich industrialized countries in the West. Currently, some members of the Global South such as Brazil, India and China, have managed to partly insulate their economies from the international crisis, albeit without actually lifting all their citizens from poverty. Simply put, they were able to macro-economically graduate from being in the Third World, to becoming unofficial members of the First World club, at least in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and other macroeconomic figures. Such macroeconomic growth enabled these countries to increasingly assert their influence in world affairs. Brazil is now a giver of financial aid to Third World countries, whereas in the not-so distant past, it was wallowing in debt too. Meanwhile, Indian and Chinese corporations have spread their tentacles in many developing countries. With such clout to boast of, Brazil and India are lobbying for permanent seats in the powerful UN Security Council. Currently holding non-permanent seats, representatives of Brazil and India, together with China (a permanent seat holder) generally act as one bloc in vital issues. For example, Brazil, India and China abstained in the process of voting for or against the UN Security Council resolution authorizing UN intervention in Libya. This is a preview of what Brazil and India will be capable of doing once they became permanent seat holders in the powerful UN Security Council. It must be noted that permanent seat holders have veto powers on any UN Security Council resolution. With China and another veto holder, the Russian Federation, Brazil and India could form a powerful non-West bloc within the UN Security Council, though, as explained earlier, China wouldnt want to totally terminate American hegemony because its economy is now closely tied with the economy of the crisis-battered USA. Within the context of these developments, it is an imperative for the Philippines to ink trade and other agreements with Brazil and India. These countries, unlike China, are never exposed to the USAs woes (because unlike China, they dont provide huge loans to USA). As such, Brazil and India will remain resilient even if the US economy enters another phase of recession. Forming linkages with Brazil and India is a golden opportunity for the Philippines to live up to its name as one of the N11 regions.

21st Century Socialists and/or Radicals: Counter-hegemonic Forces From Venezuela to Nepal Providing tacit support to the emerging non-West bloc are the counter-hegemonic forces around the world, nominally led by 21st century socialists and/or self-styled radicals like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. From climate change to the war in Libya, Chavez and his fellow radicals routinely attack the USA for its stance and policies in international affairs. In Ecuador, leftist President Rafael Correa expelled the US ambassador for his secret anti-Ecuador remarks revealed by the Wikileaks, an online group that has made headlines in world papers due to its online publication of thousands of classified documents on the Iraq War and secret diplomatic cables of American diplomats. In Bolivia, the pro-environment socialist regime of Evo Morales highlights the need to resolve climate change issues while condemning the USA for failing to act decisively in favor of international climate change accords. In the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea, Kim Jong Il consistently succeeds in standing up against US might (what it calls as foreign intervention in purely Korean affairs) through a constant show of force via its shocking war arsenal and nuclear facilities which were built without the assistance of the US or its allies. In Nepal, the communists won majority of the parliamentary seats and have announced their intention to chart the destiny of a new Nepal away from Western economic models such as neoliberal capitalist globalization. In Cuba, the communist regime keeps on spouting anti-US rhetoric, especially after the international financial crisis highlighted neoliberal capitalist globalizations vulnerabilities. These socialist governments that have overwhelming domestic popular support strengthen the Third Worlds case against the West-dominated international system. Time and again, without forming an actual power bloc, these predominantly developing countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa have managed to discredit the current international system, at least in the eyes of the poor and marginalized citizens of the Third World. The fact that these regimes have been able to maintain their grip on power means that, to a certain extent, their alternative visions remain credible and valid among many citizens of the Third World. It is thus not surprising that even in the First World, prominent nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and international networks have called for reforms in the international system. To further boost its chances of survival and success in these changing times of globalization, the Philippines may align with these counter-hegemonic forces. It seems that the boat of the traditional hegemons is sinking. Thus, the Philippines can become pragmatic by abandoning that ship and going to where the new powers are being born. Aside from these ruling counter-hegemonic forces, a number of revolutionary counter-hegemonic groups exist around the world. These groups wage protracted armed struggles against their local rulers who are usually (but not always) allies of the USA and other forces of the status quo. In the Philippines, the 42-year old Communist Party remains undaunted in waging a peoples war in the countryside, as socialist or socialistic legal parties make headways in Congress through party-list representation. The Communist Party of the Philippines remains one of Americas fiercest critics among the worlds resurgent armed rebel organizations. It regularly posts statements against specific US actions through its website, while calling upon the countrys citizens to support the communist insurgency, and eventually forge an independent foreign policy upon the establishment of a worker-led democratic republic as stated in the 12-point program of the communist-led National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). In Colombia, despite the setbacks it suffered under pro-US former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and his successor, the leftist Fuerzas Armadas Revolutionarias de Colombia-Ejrcito del Pueblo/Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples Army (FARC-EP) remains intact and is still able to carry out attacks against the regime of another pro-US president. In Mexico, the tech savy indigenous

socialistic Zapatista rebels persist in their campaign against US-imposed free trade and the environmental destruction that it brings. In India, the rebellion waged by the outlawed Communist Party of India-Maoist (dubbed the Naxalite movement, in reference to its region of origin) has encompassed 1/3 of the vast country (while the legal Communist Party of India-Marxist has seats in parliament and rules three states). The resilience of these Marxist or Marxist-influenced armed groups even in the so-called post-communist era has become more certain as (t)he economic crisis has spawned a resurgence of interest in Karl Marx (Panitch 2009). As these groups offer alternatives to what former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz (2011) labels as unregulated capitalism, they enjoy support from certain segments of the marginalized in almost every Third World country. While these armed struggles are domestic in nature, it is nevertheless evident that in the long run, if these armed rebel groups are able to succeed in wresting power from traditional regimes who more or less are part of the US-led status quo, they will use their power to precipitate the creation of a new international system in which the US and its major allies could no longer monopolize the decision-making powers. For example, victory of the CPP and NDFP in the Philippines will surely terminate the countrys dependence on foreign powers like America, though it remains to be seen if they are capable of winning their decades-old struggle. At the very least, it is proven that these groups are resilient enough to stay alive and relevant in the past four decades despite the repression that it suffered under various Philippine regimes.

Out of the Rubble: A New Arabian World A distinct force that will also contribute to the growing global movement against USled Western hegemony in the UN is the resurgent power of the new Arabian world. The uprisings, revolutions and massive protests that sprouted like wild mushroom in the Arabian world, mostly against US-sponsored regimes like that of Mubarak in Egypt and that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, are indirect votes of no confidence on American frameworks and strategies in the region. Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemenis and even Libyans detest local dictators and they all the more abhor US hegemony. It must be noted that the transitional governments in Egypt and Tunisia, while maintaining friendly relationships with America, try their best to steer their countrys direction away from American hegemony. Writing from Egypt, Dr. Walter Armbrust (2011), lauds the Egyptian Revolution as a victory against US-backed economic neoliberalism (which was implemented by the dictator Mubarak) and warns that (i)f the January 25th revolution results in no more than a retrenchment of neoliberalism, or even itsintensification, millions who joined the protests will have been cheated. The rest of the world could be cheated as well. Indeed, even the anti-Gaddafi rebels of Libya strongly oppose the possible deployment of foreign troops in their country, reiterating that Gaddafis ouster and the preservation of Libyan territorial integrity and independence are their basic goals. For America, the Middle East is no longer a business-as-usual zone. Finally, the Arabian world has mustered the courage to apply democracy, and when they say democracy, they mean genuine democracy which includes freedom from foreign impositions. In the long run, out of the rubble, genuinely democratic Arabian governments will rise not only to uplift their countrymen from poverty, but also to stand up against the current international system that marginalizes them and the rest of the Third World in actual decision-making. They will work for the creation of a new system where no country will be capable of monopolizing power for they know all too well from experience that too much power is too bad as to be granted to anyone or any country. The policies of accountability in domestic governance that

theyre trying to implement after their successful uprisings are in fact parallel to the global accountability and democratization of the United Nations for which the counter-hegemonic forces are actively campaigning.

Vox Populi: Global Social Movements for Holistic Democratization The current international system seems to be so full of loopholes and seems to be so indefensible that even in the First World, the Global North, the rich nations, citizens groups, international organizations, prominent NGOs, old and new radical parties and even elected government officials have joined the chorus for a new international system based on genuine democratization. For example, the World Social Forum which serves a counter-meeting to the G20 (the elite Group of 20 most industrialized countries) meetings in Europe dubbed as the World Economic Forum, aims to strengthen the United Nations power to control the financial transactions of rich industrialized countries so as to curb if not eliminate abuse. A number of organizations in the First World support the World Social Forum. Many groups such as the World Federalist Movement, the Institute for Global Policy, and the Center for UN Reform Education espouse more radical ideas to reform the United Nations. Even seemingly singleissue alliances and movements such as the global anti-war movement are also contributing to the clamor for a more just international system. The anti-war movement emphasizes that warfare depletes the worlds resources which can be spent better for the welfare of the people. It highlights the inutility of the current UN set-up in preventing unnecessary wars at a time when millions of people around the world suffer from poverty and starvation. Oxfam, Greenpeace and other prominent international NGOs have likewise protested against the rich countries unsustainable economic models which breed poverty in the Third World and environmental destruction everywhere. The global power shift enables non-government organizations and civil society groups to be around the table of power, rather than merely at the hallway of marginalized dissent as noted by Matthews (1997). In the very seats of power, new radical parties such as the Green Parties, and old ones like Communist Parties are making steady gains. For example, the Green Party won the local election in Germany, spelling trouble for German Chancellor Merkels re-election plans. In Moldova, a European country with close ties with the European Union, the Communist Party is the elected ruling party since 2001. Green Parties and Communist Parties consistently oppose Western hegemony in international affairs. At least rhetorically, they espouse an international system based on representation and solidarity. Thus, in the long run, their headways in elections signal a new era in international affairs. If these groups in the First World will be able to forge permanent coordinative ties with like-minded governments and movements in the Third World, a unique broad NorthSouth global movement for a new international system will gain momentum and may eventually bring about the desired more equitable and more democratic system. If things and events steadily progress from the way they are today, chances are good that another world where the UN will become genuinely democratic is still possible.

CONCLUSION With the economic decline of America and its traditional allies, counter-hegemonic forces in the Third World (which include ruling left-wing and/or anti-West governments, armed Marxist and/or Maoist revolutionary groups, revolutionary and/or pro-democracy protest movements of the Arab Spring, strong non-ruling radical parties and active nongovernment organizations) and in the First World (which include resurgent legal communist parties and radical Green parties and international non-government organizations) are in a better position to facilitate the birth of a new (more) multipolar international system. Third World countries like the Philippine can help tilt the balance of power by economically and politically aligning with the broad counter-hegemonic bloc which is in the process of consolidation. Instead of what Mahbubani (2008) labels as the Asian century, the new international system will be dominated by the whole Global South in alliance with counterhegemonic forces in the First World. Thus, its not just a battle between the West and the Rest, but also a struggle between the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic forces within the West/First World itself. There will be no end of history, as Fukuyuma feared (1989), for the world is now witnessing the unfolding of a new chapter in history where alternative viewpoints to Western capitalism and hegemony will flourish and eventually triumph. Another world is possible...and it maybe imminent in the months and years to come. References: Walter Armbrust, A revolution against neoliberalism?, Al Jazeera, February 24, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201122414315249621.html. UN Web Services Section, India to host ministers from LDC countries, Department of Public Information, United Nations, March 15, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/ldc/home/template/news_item.jsp?cid=24600. Muammar Gaddafi, Gaddafi blasts big powers at UN, ReutersVideo, 2009, accessed April 11, 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Q1DKwPViQ&feature=fvsr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad blasts small minority, ReutersVideo, 2009, accessed April 11, 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfoytSzizBY&feature=relmfu. Stephen Brown, Analysis: Merkel may pay high price for Greek compromise, Guardian, July 22, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/useurozone-merkel-idUSTRE76L3RU20110722. Hugo Chavez, Rise Up Against the Empire, Counterpunch, September 20, 2006, accessed July 29, 2011, http://www.counterpunch.org/chavez09202006.html. Jeff Nielson, More Fantasy Jobs From U.S. 'Recovery', Yahoo! Canada Finance, April 1, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/More-Fantasy-Jobs-FromUS-tsmf-1677197372.html?x=0. Donald Lambro, Dont Be Fooled by Jobs Increase, The Cagle Post, March 9, 2011, accessed April 11, 2011, http://blog.cagle.com/2011/03/dont-be-fooled-by-jobs-increase. John Avlon, Gang of Six' may solve U.S. debt mess, CNN, March 10, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-10/opinion/avlon.bipartisan.progress_1_nationaldebt-debt-ceiling-creditor-nations?_s=PM:OPINION.

Ashok Bardhan, In a Borderless World, Innovation Reigns Supreme, Yale Global Online, April 4, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/borderless-worldinnovation-reigns-supreme. Vincent Del Giudice, U.S. Budget Deficit Expanded to Monthly Record $222.5 Billion in February, Bloomberg, March 11, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-10/u-s-had-record-222-5-billion-monthly-budgetgap-in-february.html. Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond, Washington Post, September 5, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html. Ewen MacAskill, US government shutdown averted by late night deal in Congress, Guardian, April 9, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/09/government-shutdown-obama-boehner-deal. Robert Grenier, Obama striving for post-imperialism, Al Jazeera, April 5, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/20114573424979413.html. Joseph Stiglitz, The evils of unregulated capitalism, Al Jazeera, July 10, 2011, accessed July 29, 2011, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117714241429793.html. Leo Panitch, Thoroughly Modern Marx: Lights. Camera. Action. Das Kapital. Now., in International Relations in Perspective, ed. Henry R. Nau (Washington: CQ Press, 2010), 7983. Jessica Matthews, Power Shift, in Readings on How The World Works: Current Issues in International Relations, ed. Russell Bova (New York: Longman, 2010), 252-262. Kishore Mahbubani, The Case Against The West: America and Europe in the Asian Century, in Readings on How The World Works: Current Issues in International Relations, ed. Russell Bova (New York: Longman, 2010), 308-317. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History?, in International Relations in Perspective, ed. Henry R. Nau (Washington: CQ Press, 2010), 316-331. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations?, in International Relations in Perspective, ed. Henry R. Nau (Washington: CQ Press, 2010), 332-346. C. Fred Bergsten, Meeting The China Challenge, in Readings on How The World Works: Current Issues in International Relations, ed. Russell Bova (New York: Longman, 2010), 226-236. Thomas Weiss, The Illusion of U.N. Security Council Reform, in Readings on How The World Works: Current Issues in International Relations, ed. Russell Bova (New York: Longman, 2010), 159-168.