Need a better World Order

“A Harvard study has shown that in fifteen cases in history where a rising and an established power interacted, ten ended in war.” Henry Kissinger, World Order

We are witnessing the systemic destruction of the rule-based World Order that existed in the aftermath of World War 2, and adjusted in post-cold War era. We live in period of “strongman-authoritarianism” led by Presidents Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping. Here, the strong leader impose their will and the weak nations suffer, go unheard, and submit to what they are asked to.

The First World War broke out in 1914, and European leaders failed to develop a robust international system in the face of emerging challenges. When the First World War ended, it had raised enormous expectations for a ‘peace to end all wars’. Yet, the post World War 1, unfair peace setup excluded both Germany and Russia. It also ignored the anti-colonial demands for ‘self-determination’, forcing them to remain under imperial domination through the League of Nations’ imperialist mandate.

Have no doubt, the new tyrants will wage relentless wars of aggression to advance their expansionist agendas and create tension and chaos in hot spots such as the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Asia. The current world leaders are not bothered by the possibility of walking into an unstoppable war, as Netanyahu led the region into chaos. Some experts claim that wars and undemocratic governance may throw us back into the politics of the 19th-century colonial era. Two issues need serious consideration: a) Are we heading for an endemic chaos? Or b) can we work out a Rule of Law-based system?

The actors involved in the regional geopolitical crisis offer economic, financial, and media support to their allies to overcome internal challenges. This help is crucial for the survival of authoritarian regimes. It is established that during the recent shift towards multi-polarity, emerging middle powers will gain greater influence, leading to frequent regional conflicts. A glaring example is the Ukraine war, which has changed the geopolitical landscape of Europe, leading to more authoritarian rule in many front line states.

The last world order having roots in capitalist and imperialist competition, ended with the Cold War (1988). This Order faced global conflicts, peacemaking processes, ever-present crises, and witnessed the horrors of World Wars I & II. During its currency, it gave mankind hope of a functional international system as it survived ideological challenges such as authoritarianism, communism, fascism, imperialism, and finally faced socialism.

The contours of this order had emerged, after the 1922 Washington Conference, as the first global arms-control regime was established in the naval sphere, the renewal of Chinese sovereignty, and a status quo in East Asia. These efforts did nothing to stop the world economic crisis triggered by the Great Depression. This was due to the refusal of the US to help coordinate international efforts in the wake of the Wall Street crash of 1929. The collapse of the weak order of the 1920s highlighted the need of a robust world order and of coordinated efforts to stop crises. The ensuing power vacuum led to the rise of Mussolini, Japan’s militarist regime, and Hitler, resulting in horrific violence, destruction, and moral de-gradations not witnessed in human history.

In post-WW2, the victors created the United Nations system to maintain peace. In it, the UN Security Council became the policeman of the order, whose strong arm was the institutions of Bretton Woods, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, etc.

The post-1947 developments were influenced by rising US tension with the Soviet Union, China, resistance in Eastern Europe, etc. It was also impacted by the arrival of nuclear weapons, air power, missiles and weapons of mass destruction. The emerging order embodied newer concepts of modernization, democratic systems, human rights, and welfare states. All these values again gave the public a hope and essential legitimacy to the prevailing order. Despite all the positive rhetoric, major actors had to face armed struggles of decolonization in Asia, Africa, South America, and elsewhere. The open violations of universal values raised the need for a valid and effective rules-based system. This issue gained popularity around 1989 and beyond.

After 1989, the opportunity arose for a revision of the world order but again the West did not take action towards an inclusive order, leading to a composite system that provided rules and mechanisms to resolve the prevailing crises and manage the emerging globalization.

The post-Cold War order built around the United States and its allies. It was bound by understandings on democratic, capitalistic values, free trade and the newer US alliances. Surprisingly, this free trade was not the result of peace but security provided by the credible hagemon, the USA. This uni-polar order under American auspices, now had new responsibilities. One was to broaden the global acceptance of democratic and social-liberal standards. Second was to accommodate a crisis-ridden post-Soviet Russia within a rules-based order, and the key challenge was to deal with an assertive China. There was no new ‘clash of civilizations’. Rather, deeper political fault-lines of the 20th century, as neo-liberal globalization sharpened the political and ideological polarization.

Some notable developments in the post-Cold War era were the process of German reunification and the eastward expansion of the EU. Also, notable efforts to build a Euro-Atlantic peace architecture through the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1990 Paris Charter) and the creation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1994.

With a view to check China, many Western leaders assumed that its inclusion in globalization would promote liberal-democratic reforms. But this hope was dashed as the Chinese leadership smartly combined a capitalist economic system with “Chinese character”. Clearly, the West has no plan to counter China, in case a crisis in the South China Sea erupts, especially over Taiwan, which has serious implications for peace. In short, the post-Cold War era is marked by unresolved problems and issues that had implications for the 21st century, especially security challenges, globalization, equitable development, migration, climate change, etc to name a few.

The rising China to-gather with Russia and other partners is demanding a more equitable world order. Large number of its development partners have joined in a loose  group that is now challenging the US. China is fast catching up on technology, trade and industry but its currency Yuan lacks strength to threat US dollar. So the new order must be designed so as to sustain in the challenges of the 21st century.

What should we expect from the New Order? Simply speaking, the new order’s architect should provide a framework for peace, security, and development. The main issue in the realm of security is the nuclear threat. It is expected that by 2035, the combines nuclear war heads of Russia and China will out number US by two to one. Thus eroding US security capacity.

In the expected new order major players will be the United States, China, and India. Other lesser players are Japan, Germany, France, the UK, and Turkey. Other countries will have to find space for them. The strengths in the new order will be based on economic strength, industrial power, and emerging technology.  This order must balance: sovereignty, global coordination, technological realities, and human rights. This seems like a pipe dream. Ideally, such a system will have shared governance over common issues such: as climate, AI, global finance, pandemics, cyber-threats, and outer space. We have to renegotiate and update the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to integrate issues like digital rights, environmental rights, common economic standards, protections against genocide, discrimination and forced migration.

Promoting Rule-of-Law based Globalism, a system where rules, not the power of large states decide international behavior. No nation is above the law, and mechanisms exist to hold all actors accountable.

There will be a newer and stronger Institutional Structure to monitor the application of the new order. A reformed UN-like structure with: a) no permanent veto powers, b) a weighted voting system (balancing population, economic output, and contribution to global public goods), c) a second tier representing cities, since they house most of humanity, d) a Global Public Trust to that manages global common resources: climate, oceans, orbital space, shared data, e) International Digital Authority for regulating: a) AI safety and standards, b) Cyber norms and cyber-conflict rules, and c) Cross-border data governance.

The new order must have stronger enforcement mechanisms to keep the peace in the World. It could have sanctions, warnings, mediation, economic penalties, reduced access to markets, and peacekeeping forces. The new structure must have provisions for climate adaptation, robust pandemic response, and economic shocks in developing countries.

All depends upon the nature of predicted super powers relationship. An accommodating attitude will lead to peace and prosperity while harsh power struggle will doom the World.