What type of world order do we want?

When the Americans invaded Iraq, the international community wondered what type of world order we wanted for the future. It seems to me that this question still exists today, almost a year after the beginning of the war. This suggests that the Americans need to think about this question more seriously, and debate with their European counterparts over the new world order.

Americans and Europeans debated thoroughly whether Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world order, and whether the best way to confront this problem was war. The majority of Americans responded "yes" to both questions. However, the European majority responded that Saddam was not a direct threat to world peace and in no way was the war the ultimate and best solution. These disagreements reflect that the debate over Iraq was about two different world visions. The differences over Iraq were over the first principles of international affairs.

I believe that Americans and Europeans do not only disagree over the role of international law and international organizations, but also over the legal basis for any international action. As German Chancellor Gerhardt Schr?¶der put it, "America is very different than Europe." This reality is even more evident today. In a time when the threats and crises progress so rapidly, these differences can have horrible consequences. What happens when these differences deeply affect the transatlantic relations of the Liberal West?

In the realm of international relations, the majority of liberal scholars would argue that liberal democracies do not have the motives to question the legitimacy of each other. Every conflict in the past managed to divide the West from the rest of the world, but never managed to split the West itself.

In the case of the American invasion in Iraq, it is doubtful that this hypothesis is valid, since the doubt of the legitimacy of the action has divided Americans and Europeans today along with their respective visions of world order. The majority of Europeans today, for the first time since World War II, question the legitimacy of the global leadership of the United States.

In my opinion, Europeans today want a more important role in world affairs and in the U.S. exercise of power. I believe that Europe -- provided that it receives this enhanced role -- can offer the legitimacy that the United States lacks.

The Americans, on the other hand, do not want and cannot discard this proposition. The invasion and the reconstruction of Iraq without help from Europe have not been so far a pleasant experience, although it might eventually succeed.

It is true that the United States is a hegemonic power in today's world. However, to be able to address global threats, America needs the legitimacy that Europe can provide and that Europe may deny to grant. In a world where threat comes from networks (like terrorism), and not specific countries, it is very important to maintain a common world vision between Americans and Europeans.

One cannot fight against a network or an organization with the same means as against a specific country. Europe has an important role of checking and restricting the extent of an American power that is in danger of exercising more authority than it is entitled to. The contribution of Europe is important for maintaining the balance of power in the international system.

Theofanis Exadaktylos is a senior majoring in international relations and economics