A world in disarray: actions of US shake foundations of the old order
The current world order was designed by the victorious allies at the end of the Second World War. It was clearly skewed in their favor but the system did provide a mechanism for conflict resolution and international economic co-operation. The United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) were some of the main pillars of this edifice.
Along with this structure we witnessed, with the unraveling of the erstwhile Soviet Union in 1991, the emergence of a sole super power: the United States. The international balance of power was disturbed and two leading western countries, the US and UK, both endowed with overarching veto power and obviously over confident, opted to bypass the UN while invading Iraq in 2003.
The unipolar world barely lasted for a decade or so. In 1992, the sole super power had made a lofty claim of introducing a “new world order,” based on fair rules. However that very power committed the ultimate mistake of violating the rules it had itself established. Unauthorized intervention in other sovereign states was now no longer a cardinal sin. The sole superpower of yesteryear was visibly weakened due to costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and started withdrawing to an isolationist mode of foreign policy. Wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan also weakened government writs there. The resultant chaos and vacuum was ideal for non-state actors to operate.
A non-state actor, with its physical intervention in neighboring Syria, has added fuel to the fire there. Al-Qaeda was beaten back but it morphed into Daesh and other similar terrorist outfits. Failed or failing states in Somalia, Afghanistan and Syria provided them with the much-needed space. A weakened United States was no longer calling the shots around the globe. It now opted to engage with either close friends, such as Israel, or the despised North Korea because of its nuisance value. US interventions were now more selective and of limited duration. The British decision to exit from the EU was yet another blow to internationalism.
Trade with China, the third-largest destination for US goods, and investments in the country create large numbers of jobs in both countries. Would it not have been better if the problems were resolved through negotiations?
Javed Hafeez
The transatlantic Alliance was the bedrock of western solidarity. NATO, its veritable arm, symbolized the strength and unity of advanced, democratic nations. That alliance has seen fissures develop in its body since US President Donald Trump assumed office. The mercurial president can be hard with friends, as we saw at the recent G-7 summit in Canada, but his unpredictability was compounded when he was visibly amicable with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore. He even canceled war games with South Korea to extract a vague undertaking from Kim to roll back nuclear testing. The fact that the US president did not consult his allies before engaging with the Korean leader, and before threatening China with higher tariff walls, has created concerns, confusion and skepticism.
The US trade wars with China, recently initiated, might snowball into a wider conflagration. These could possibly spread to Mexico, Russia and Canada. The intention of reducing the bilateral trade deficit is fine but inappropriate handling could lead to negative consequences. To begin with, Chinese goods would be more expensive for the US consumer. Trade with China, the third-largest destination for US goods, and investments in the country create large numbers of jobs in both countries. Would it not have been better if the problems were resolved through negotiations? The World Trade Organization, the successor to GATT, was established after prolonged consultations and aims to ensure rules-based and predictable international trade. That predictability might now be dissipating.
As if trade wars with China were not enough, the US has also increased tariffs on European steel and aluminum products. Interestingly, EU and Chinese officials recently met in Beijing to discuss action for saving international trade from shrinking, as that could lead to a global economic recession. China and EU member states trade goods worth $1 billion daily. Considering that the World Bank was challenged by the growing demands of member states, China launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in 2015.
Last week, the US walked out of the UN Human Rights Council. Last year it abandoned the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Washington’s decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem caused international condemnation, as reflected in the UN General Assembly vote. Several Palestinian protesters lost their lives. Israeli atrocities in the West Bank and Gaza were severely criticized in the Human Rights Council. Instead of assuaging concerns, the US leaders criticized the council itself. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called it a “protector of human abuses”.
Multilateralism is the glue that binds international order, and unilateralism has started eating into its vitals. The old order is receding and a new one is yet to emerge. What we are currently witnessing is a world in disarray.
- Javed Hafeez is a Pakistani former diplomat with much experience of the Middle East. He writes weekly columns in Pakistani and Gulf newspapers and appears regularly on satellite TV channels as a defense and political analyst. Twitter: @hafiz_javed
