The beginning of 2016 was anything but peaceful. Falling stock prices in China destabilized markets around the world. The economic growth of developing countries seems to have slowed down. Oil prices fell, causing a crisis in oil-producing countries. North Korea is pumping its nuclear muscles. The ongoing refugee crisis is fueling a poisonous wave of nationalism in Europe, which threatens to tear the European Union apart. Add to that the neo-imperialist ambitions of Russia and the threat of Islamic terrorism, and then only a comet from the sky will be missing to complete the picture of a year that is increasingly reminiscent of the prophetic end of the world.
Everywhere you look, chaos is growing everywhere. The international order, forged in the flames of the XNUMXth century, seems to be disappearing without the slightest indication of what could come in its place.
It is not difficult to name the problems we have faced: globalization, digitalization, climate change, etc. But the context in which they will be resolved, if at all, is not clear. In what political structures, on whose initiative, according to what rules will the negotiations on these issues be conducted (or, if negotiations prove impossible, will the fight be conducted)? The political and economic order - especially at the global level - is not born just like that, from a peaceful consensus or from the complete non-challenge of the pretensions of the most powerful countries. It is always a struggle for dominance - often brutal, bloody and long - between rival powers. Only during the conflict are the foundations of the new order laid and its institutions and players emerge.
The Western liberal order, which has existed since the end of World War II, was formed on the global hegemony of the USA. Being the only true global power, the US dominated not only in the sphere of hard military power (also political and economic), but also in almost all aspects of soft power (these include, for example, culture, language, mass media, technology and fashion). .
Today, the Pax Americana, which largely guaranteed global stability, has begun to weaken. This is particularly evident in the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula. The United States remains the most powerful country in the world, but it is no longer able or unwilling to play the role of world policeman or to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure order. Moreover, in a global world, and its ever closer integration within communications, technology and (as we have seen recently) the migration of people, centers of power are diluted and dispersed. By its very nature, the world of the era of globalization is moving away from respecting the order of the XNUMXth century.
However, although a new world order will most likely inevitably emerge, its foundations are still difficult to discern. A world order led by China is unlikely. That country, as before, will be focused on itself, its internal stability and development, and its ambitions, it seems, are limited to control over the nearest foreign countries and the surrounding seas. In addition, China lacks the soft power (almost none) that is absolutely necessary if the country is to be the engine of the new order.
Also, today's turbulent transitional period is unlikely to end with the emergence of a new Pax Americana. Regardless of the technological dominance of the USA, the resistance of regional powers and potential counter-alliances will be very strong.
In addition, in the coming years, the main problem will probably be the controlled reduction of America's influence. There are no set rules for the retirement of world hegemons. A dominant power may be broken during a struggle for dominance, but its voluntary withdrawal is a good solution because the power vacuum that is formed threatens the stability of the entire system. By all accounts, the controlled end of Pax Americana will be a major theme of the reign of the next US president, whoever he may be.
All this brings Europe to a no less difficult question. Will the fall of the Pax Americana, which was the guarantor of the internal liberal order of Europe for seven decades, cause an inevitable crisis or even conflict? Growing neo-nationalism on the continent points to the reality of such a scenario with horrifying consequences.
The dark prospect of Europe's suicide is no longer improbable. What will happen if German chancellor A. Merkel is forced to give up her refugee policy, if Great Britain leaves the EU, if French populist politician Marine Le Pen becomes president? Plunging into the abyss will be the most dangerous, if not the most likely, outcome we can imagine.
Suicide is, of course, preventable. And those who energetically demolish the positions of A. Merkel, the European identity of Britain and the value of the French Enlightenment, risk breaking off the edge on which we all stand.
The author was the German Minister of Foreign Affairs and Vice-Chancellor from 1998-2005; he played a key role in the founding of the German Green Party, which he led for almost 20 years
Translation: N. RADOIČIĆ
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
Bonus video:
