The old order convulsed out of shape
Only time will tell how the international system shaken by seemingly uncontrollable events settle down
Few analysts — not even Henry Kissinger, the wise man of America’s foreign policy establishment — saw the rapid crumbling of the old political order that kept the world in relative peace for 60 years. When historians look back at this period, they will see it beginning with 2014 when some of the pillars on which the structure was built began to weaken. This weakening sent tremors through the system. The old order was constructed as the Second World War was ending in Europe and those who had emerged as victors were determined not to make the mistakes their forbears made after the earlier conflict, the one in 1914-18.
The new order had a leader — the United States — and a set of international institutions the new dominant global power could use to guide the world towards economic and financial stability and sustained development. An international meeting at Bretton Woods, a small resort in the mountains of America’s state of New Hampshire, founded the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to ensure that financial difficulties, if faced by the countries that sought membership in the new order, would not have them deviate from long-term trends. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) was established to fund the recovery of war-torn Europe. A third institution for regulating international trade took another 50 years to create. When the World Trade Organisation was finally born in 1995, it was tasked with regulating the movement of goods and services across international boundaries.
The United States, having placed itself at the apex of the new order, was of the view that it could offer not only finance to run the system it had helped to create. It had also built a political structure that was inclusive. It allowed all segments of the population full participation in the making of public policy. This approach was described as representing ‘American exceptionalism’ and many in the country’s policymaking position believed that Washington had the responsibility to convey its political values to other nations — in particular to those that were engaged in developing their political systems.
This order was challenged by the rise of the Soviet Union which, operating from behind what Winston Churchill called the Iron Curtain, was able to offer an alternative political and economic development model to the new nations emerging from centuries of colonial rule. In retrospect, the Soviet challenge to the second World War political order was at best a temporary obstruction in reaching what were accepted as goals for all people.
What convulses established systems is the convergence of a number of challenges. This is precisely what began to happen in 2014. The United States had in place a leader — President Barack Obama — who was prepared to recognise that his country was no longer the most prominent global power. In fact, new estimates by the IMF suggest that China has overtaken the United States in terms of purchasing power parity as the world’s largest economy. China was also under the leadership of a more assertive person who was not reluctant to create what it regarded as its legitimate space in the global system. Paired with Barack Obama whose party had suffered a humiliating defeat in the mid-term elections of November 2014, China’s Xi Jinping seemed to have a more commanding presence on the world stage.
Intense political conflict between the Democrats and Republicans in Washington had made the American political system seem dysfunctional, eroding the confidence that the United States had developed a political order all countries should emulate. This loss of confidence was particularly high in the rapidly developing parts of the Asian continent. India, long held out as an example of a functioning democracy in the emerging world, was now under the command of a man who looked wistfully at Beijing’s ability to be decisive in economic matters. Then there was the rise of extremism in the Middle East and the establishment of a state that had no time for the separation of the state from religion. How will the international system thus shaken by seemingly uncontrollable events settle down? It is only with time that we will find an answer to this question.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 8th, 2014.
The new order had a leader — the United States — and a set of international institutions the new dominant global power could use to guide the world towards economic and financial stability and sustained development. An international meeting at Bretton Woods, a small resort in the mountains of America’s state of New Hampshire, founded the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to ensure that financial difficulties, if faced by the countries that sought membership in the new order, would not have them deviate from long-term trends. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) was established to fund the recovery of war-torn Europe. A third institution for regulating international trade took another 50 years to create. When the World Trade Organisation was finally born in 1995, it was tasked with regulating the movement of goods and services across international boundaries.
The United States, having placed itself at the apex of the new order, was of the view that it could offer not only finance to run the system it had helped to create. It had also built a political structure that was inclusive. It allowed all segments of the population full participation in the making of public policy. This approach was described as representing ‘American exceptionalism’ and many in the country’s policymaking position believed that Washington had the responsibility to convey its political values to other nations — in particular to those that were engaged in developing their political systems.
This order was challenged by the rise of the Soviet Union which, operating from behind what Winston Churchill called the Iron Curtain, was able to offer an alternative political and economic development model to the new nations emerging from centuries of colonial rule. In retrospect, the Soviet challenge to the second World War political order was at best a temporary obstruction in reaching what were accepted as goals for all people.
What convulses established systems is the convergence of a number of challenges. This is precisely what began to happen in 2014. The United States had in place a leader — President Barack Obama — who was prepared to recognise that his country was no longer the most prominent global power. In fact, new estimates by the IMF suggest that China has overtaken the United States in terms of purchasing power parity as the world’s largest economy. China was also under the leadership of a more assertive person who was not reluctant to create what it regarded as its legitimate space in the global system. Paired with Barack Obama whose party had suffered a humiliating defeat in the mid-term elections of November 2014, China’s Xi Jinping seemed to have a more commanding presence on the world stage.
Intense political conflict between the Democrats and Republicans in Washington had made the American political system seem dysfunctional, eroding the confidence that the United States had developed a political order all countries should emulate. This loss of confidence was particularly high in the rapidly developing parts of the Asian continent. India, long held out as an example of a functioning democracy in the emerging world, was now under the command of a man who looked wistfully at Beijing’s ability to be decisive in economic matters. Then there was the rise of extremism in the Middle East and the establishment of a state that had no time for the separation of the state from religion. How will the international system thus shaken by seemingly uncontrollable events settle down? It is only with time that we will find an answer to this question.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 8th, 2014.