Tag: New World Order

Trump And The New World Order

By Jasdev Singh Rai

Around the world, countries, small and large, are recalibrating their approach to international relations and perhaps most importantly to the United States of America. The Zelensky-Trump meeting which descended into confrontation and Zelensky was almost marched out of the White House has entertained but also got politicians and diplomats wondering what next. Europeans are berating somewhat loudly that the ‘rule-based’ world order is dead or dying and that the Trans-Atlantic treaty is breaking apart. They are scuttling around in a huddle to see what remains of the order and how it can be saved.

The real question might be was there really a ‘rule-based order’ or a hegemony that Trump sees as past its date. When power shifts, it can get violent as the Europeans seem to prefer or as Trump seems to want, it can be transitioned without wars.

Much is being said about Trump’s personality and style of rule or rather lack of ‘rules’. What seems to be happening is that Trump may be as much navigating a new order of international relations and global politics as everyone else. Being President of the most powerful country, he is aware that he is helping to set the mode of direction. Trump appears to have realised that staying on the so called ‘rule based’ order is a route to economic decline, unnecessary financial burden to feed a fantasy and further loss of power on the world stage.

The emerging world order in fact started nearly two decades or so ago. The Occident may just not have grasped it, smug in the belief that its dominance in international institutions can continue to ensure hegemony. It is Europe that is still catching up and lashing about.

So, what exactly was the ‘rule-based’ world order? It was a world order instituted by the victors of World War II. It was mostly Britain, France and United States. Russia got a bit of say and China the least. Countries like India were still under colonialism.

International institutions were developed on the lines of Occident’s liberal democracy. Financial institutions, such as World Bank and IMF were set up to help development around the world in favour of the Occident.

ALSO READ: Trump, Tariffs And The Turmoil

The world was redrawn with new borders especially in the colonised world. In Europe too, the defeated were forced to accept new boundaries. Much of the colonised world was divided into administrative units without much regard to ethnic, cultural or sometimes even linguistic and natural habitats of communities. The Occident told the world, ‘this is it now’, we made you the boundaries and you stay as it is. The idea was based on Westphalian system and was neocolonialism manged remotely.

Sovereignty became the new idiom of international order. Organisations such as the United Nations were set on a path to promote liberal democracy and individual rights and sustain the boundaries unless the Occident said otherwise. The gurus or rather gods of this post-war order were Europeans, essentially the British and the French, with the USA pushed to the front to spend most of the money and the forces. The Occident benefited by predictable markets and investment opportunities. The USA was flattered and told it is Pax Americana. The USA benefitted the most financially.

Human Beings have been playing God from time immemorial to create the perfect order and peace. This is another experiment titled ‘rule-based’ order, whatever that means. There were and remain many flaws. Many decolonised countries are not natural borders, either geographically or culturally. They have largely been the result of the administrative convenience of the colonial power and generally configured around the largest or majority tribe.

Post-colonial order hasn’t been peaceful. Each country has tried to forge a ‘nation’ along the European idea of the ideal nation state. Countries seek identity based on language, ideology, culture etc. Perhaps the two most tragic examples are India and Pakistan that are still desperate to have an ‘identity’. Their internal unity is guaranteed by the use of the armed forces against their own people and continuation of colonial repressive laws.

But it is the larger world stage where hegemony was instituted with force. Almost all ancient mythologies around gods are based on the narrative that rules are for mere mortals but when they don’t suit the gods, they rise above them and do what they want. This has been evident since the ‘rule based’ world order started. Coups have taken place where a country tries to escape the orbit. ‘Revolutions’ have been instigated. And the ‘gods’ have broken the very principle of sovereignty a few times by finding excuses to invade countries that they claimed were usurping the ‘rule-based’ order.

The USA largely paid for this with increasing debt, increasing body count and a faltering respect around the world. Much of the world saw US as the bully. While it was triumphant in the beginning, it met challenges in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and a few places in South America. The USA-led Occident saw the counter narrative of Soviet Communism out, but it couldn’t quite engage confrontationally with a non-adversarial China.

China, like India, has been very smart. Much smarter than India. It has avoided any direct confrontations with small and big countries. It has pushed the boundaries of sovereignties and controversially claimed sea and Islands. It is now confronting the Occident’s ‘rule-based order’ of sovereign countries by actively pursuing a policy of trying to swallow Taiwan. China has invested widely and helped many countries around the world to raise their GDP, industry and education though direct loans and investments rather than installing pro-China regimes through coups. While the West was busy fighting bloody wars, China has increased its support around the world, its economy has become second to USA and it hasn’t really lost men in wars except in some skirmishes with India. Under China’s quiet rise a number of other countries have started to move away from the so called Occidental world order. A new currency system is beginning to compete with the dollar, led by BRICS.

It seems Trump and his advisors have understood the world has changed. Trump also realises that the old way of maintaining hegemony through imposing a so called ‘rule-based’ order isn’t getting anywhere. There have been three wars in the last twenty years. The USA has come out worse in them. There was Iraq, there was Afghanistan and now there is Ukraine.

Trump is realigning the USA to the emerging real world balance of power. There are new giants now. Boundaries are going to be redrawn as they do every few decades or centuries. Europe is clinging on to a period of hegemony that is whittling away under their feet. Ukraine is part of the waning history of the Occidental order.

Trump’s message to Europe is clear. The world is changing and will exact ever increasing financial layout and human sacrifice for those trying to sustain the Occidental hegemonic order. Trump’s America isn’t interested in maintaining something that will eventually give way. He is saying to Europe, if you want to continue with your dream, you pay for it and you send your armies, we are no longer going to be used for your indulgences.

It is that simple. There is nothing more mysterious or unpredictable to him. It only appears unpredictable because America under him is no longer following the post-war script written and crafted by Europeans. Europeans have been left standing with their ‘rule-based’ hegemony in tatters. Ukraine that put itself as the last frontier was in a way the last stand of Pax Occidentadalis. Sensing change the USA has dumped the ‘rule-based’ order, distanced itself and is seeking new lands to expand into. Whether the transition is peaceful or violent depends on Europe – in disarray currently – and its willingness to let go of its ideological hegemony.

Russia-Ukraine War Will Script A New World Order

By Asad Mirza

It seems as if the Russia-Ukraine war has rendered the seminal work by Samuel Huntington The Clash of Civilisations, as completely wrong. As the narrative painted by him 30 years earlier, and which occupied the central place in the world politics particularly by the western liberals has not happened. Instead of a clash of the civilisations, it is now a clash within the civilisation i.e. white, European and Orthodox Christians fighting amongst them. In an interview to George Eaton for the New Statesman, political theorist Noam Chomsky describes the on going war between Russia and Ukraine as “monstrous” for Ukraine.

Chomsky, who has never condemned any anti-Western government, unhesitatingly denounces Vladimir Putin’s “criminal aggression”. But adds that to answer the question, one has to plumb the recesses of Putin’s twisted mind and try to analyse his deep psyche.

“The other way would be to look at the facts: for example, that in September 2021 the United States came out with a strong policy statement, calling for enhanced military cooperation with Ukraine, further sending of advanced military weapons, all part of the enhancement programme of Ukraine joining Nato. You can take your choice, we don’t know which is right. What we do know is that Ukraine will be further devastated. And we may move on to terminal nuclear war if we do not pursue the opportunities that exist for a negotiated settlement,” he further said in the interview.

Expressing his views on democracy and the US interpretation of democracy, Chomsky says that Putin is as concerned with democracy as we are. He said, “If it’s possible to break out of the propaganda bubble for a few minutes, the US has a long record of undermining and destroying democracy. Do I have to run through it? Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, on and on… But we are supposed to now honour and admire Washington’s enormous commitment to sovereignty and democracy. What happened in history doesn’t matter. That’s for other people.”

ALSO READ: Theatre Of Horror In Ukraine

Chomsky, who observed in 1990 that “if the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged”, spoke disdainfully of Joe Biden, saying: “It’s certainly right to have moral outrage about Putin’s actions in Ukraine, but it would be even more progress to have moral outrage about other horrible atrocities… In Afghanistan, literally millions of people are facing imminent starvation. Why? There’s food in the markets. But people who have little money have to watch their children starve because they can’t go to the market to buy food. Why? Because the United States, with the backing of Britain, has kept Afghanistan’s funds in New York banks and will not release them.”

Chomsky’s contempt for the hypocrisies and contradictions of US foreign policy comes out very clearly in this interview, and in his usual style he has given words to the sentiments prevailing across the globe.

On the other hand the other leading political theorists of our times Francis Fukuyama, while speaking to Megan Gibson for New Statesman opined that we could be facing the end of “the end of history”

On the recent political drama over presidential elections in the United States, Fukuyama, describes the situation as serious, really, since the American Civil War. Commenting on the US’s current political polarisation he says, “There’s a significant chance we’re going to be in a major constitutional crisis at the time of the next presidential election.”

Fukuyama’s critics point out that his thesis about liberal democracy being “the final form of human government” seems obsolete. In his book The End of History and the Last man, he outlined his theory that liberal democracy is greatly preferable to any other form of government and, crucially, that no liberal democracy could progress to a better alternative.

Fukuyama commenting on the likely geopolitical consequences of the war in Ukraine, says that chief among his predictions are: Russia will lose the war, perhaps spectacularly, and this defeat will help the West get out of “our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to a bunch of brave Ukrainians. For those interested in the stability of the international order, it’s an optimistic, even reassuring, vision of the war’s potential outcome.”

On the surge of global support for Ukraine, Fukuyama sympathises with and endorses the urge to support the Ukrainian plight, but he also warns that it’s hardly a universal phenomenon, even among seemingly democratic countries. He cites India and South Africa as two countries that have so far refused to condemn Russia’s invasion.

Fukuyama also opines that while different opinions might be tolerable, they have also once again highlighted the dysfunction of certain multilateral bodies, like, the United Nations.

His “ultimate nightmare”, he said, is a world in which China and Russia work in harness with one another, perhaps with China bolstering Russia’s war and Beijing launching its own invasion – of Taiwan. If that were to happen, and be successful, Fukuyama said, “then you would really be living in a world that was being dominated by these non-democratic powers. If the United States and the rest of the West couldn’t stop that from happening, then that really is the end of the end of history.”

Analysing the views expressed by the two giants one can only say that the wrong interpretation of liberal democracy and its implementation through force might have resulted in the erosion of the democratic concepts all over the world. Its main champions United Sates and Great Britain both seem to be faltering and trying to impose their will or version of the concept with use of force, which may ultimately result in the establishment of a non-democratic global system, instead of the new world order which the so-called western liberalised world is trying to implement.