The world order in times of turbulence

Henry Kissinger in his New York Times Best seller book, World Order, defines world order as a concept held by a region or civilisation about the nature of just arrangements and distribution of power thought to be applicable to the entire world. He also emphasises that any such system would rest on two important components: balance of power and rules that define the limits of permissible action.

The nature of the just arrangement and the balance of power of the current US driven world order of liberal internationalism is hugely contested by both Russia and China. The East-West division of the world is more pronounced than ever before and whereas the US supports and promotes a democratic world, the authoritarian world, the core of which is built around Russia and China, supports a world in order and not the world being driven on the clumsy road of chaotic and uncontrolled democracy.

Liberal internationalism has failed to prevent states from blundering into costly conflicts and has instead proliferated economic nationalism, protectionism, trade disruption, slow growth, supply chain disruption, energy crisis, inflation and populist nationalism. If the key to the management of the world in this turbulent time is collective action then those that need to share the burden of action must also share more of the decision-making. The US has spent over two decades as an uncontested world hegemon and has failed to unite the world to come together and fight against common challenges. There is a sharp decline in the world order and the international system is almost fractured. There cannot be order in the world if the powerful and populous countries like China and Russia are kept out of the international system.

The rising geopolitical conflicts during the unipolar moment of the world only suggest that there is something drastically wrong in the international management in this turbulent time. The US mismanagement of world affairs as a global hegemon is best understood in how it has dealt with three powers that it blames for the rising global insecurity: Iran, China and Russia.

President Trump unilaterally abandoned the JCPOA agreement with Iran. This agreement was abandoned in March 2018 and Iran is much closer to producing a bomb than it was four years ago. Not only this, but if Iran ever acquires a nuclear bomb, its neighbours may also decide that they also need one. Will this not initiate a mad race to acquire nuclear weapons and make the world more insecure? If the US had stood by its commitment, it could have lured in Iran for subsequent negotiations, more concessions, more sanctions relief and better diplomatic relations. President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian regime failed to give results. Both the US and Iran made a deliberate effort in limiting the rise of escalation and calibrated their response to each other’s aggression. Iran’s response to assassination of General Qasim Sulemani by executing non-lethal missile attack on Iraqi bases housing American troops and Washington’s choice of not retaliating to the downing of an American reconnaissance drone by Iran in June 2018 were both acts of individual restraint. The US may trumpet the growing potential of Iran to cause and participate in multiple conflicts in the world; but in management of international relations if today Iran is a geopolitical threat, it is only because Washington failed to give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

China is accused by the US of militarising South China Sea, increasing pressure on Taiwan, crushing democracy in Hong Kong, initiating border clashes with India and economic coercion of many world states. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken describes the current US administration’s approach to China as competitive when it should be collaborative. This language is more egocentric and does not reflect the ground reality of China being globally considered as the potential power which can displace the US from key geographic spaces and eventually replace it as the global power and hegemon. But China and Russia which have both embraced a ‘no limits’ partnership collectively face the western threat and military aggression, and the West’s aggression against both of these powers must be viewed collectively.

The likely formulation of G-12 with the inclusion of Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and EU in the existing forum of G-7 is a new strategic intergovernmental forum to pressurise the authoritarian world led by China and Russia. G-12 will represent over one billion people and 60% of global GDP and global military spending. Considering that Japan is planning to double its military expenditures and Germany which after the Russian invasion of Ukraine has already increased its military budget to become the third largest military spender in the world, the Western world will be able to add further $150 billion on annual military spending. In the authoritarian world, both China and Russia together are more populous than G-12 countries. Both represent 20% of world’s economic output and 17% of its military spending. The other countries that surround the core of this authoritarian world are many which are driven by their resentment against America in a world increasingly dominated by the concept of nationalism, populism, protectionism and anti-Americanism. BRICS countries have all refused to condemn the violation of Ukraine’s identity and have even declined to back the US sanctions. Their tilt in a US divided world between democracy and authoritarianism is very apparent. This tilt is being guided more by their national interest than by any other factor.

Washington is also apprehensive about Russia and China leading the group of dangerous states — Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. The word dangerous is also an amorphous frequently used by Washington to describe these countries only to serve Washington’s geopolitical interest and purpose. Both Iran and North Korea’s estranged history with the US has a bitter past: in case of the former, the US executed a regime change and installed its puppet government there; and in case of the latter, the US carried out a military aggression following which it still maintains a huge military presence in South Korea. Pakistan has been manipulated and exploited during the overt and covert wars that the US fought in Afghanistan. No wonder both Russia and China don’t see smaller powers as sovereigns and equal in the existing world order in which a global hegemon like the US can easily exploit them.

The world is in a new world order building moment. At this stage it needs ideas; and one big idea that can help build and shape a new world order is that the US must embrace multipolarity as the given reality of coming world order. It should focus on building democracy at home and stop interfering in internal matters of outside world and abandon policies of seeking to transform Russia and China. Both these powers will continue to be defined by autocracy, controlled democracy and commitment to secure their sphere of influence. The authoritarian world will not stop reacting if Washington continues to mess up with its goal setting.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 15^th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.