Trump has economically and politically threatened American allies, shattering the unity of the western world. But Trump’s chaos may have inadvertently produced an opportunity to create a better world.
Some western commentatorsargue that the U.S. has been a benevolent superpower.
That may have been true for a small group of mostly western states that have benefitted from American domination. But much of the Global South was victimized by American military, economic and political interventions.
Losing dominance?
The West could be in the midst of losing its dominant position in the global order. This is probably inevitable, but it may not be the tragedy some western commentators assume it to be.
In most of the world, there is a desire for a more equitable world order that doesn’t feature the moral, racial and cultural double standardsof the western-dominated system. A world where American and western power is limited and contained could not only end up being more peaceful but, over time, more prosperous.
Without the co-operation of the allies alienated by Trump, it may be harder for the U.S. to initiate conflict around the world as it often has since the end of the Cold War.
In a recent Foreign Affairs article, American political scientist Stacie Goddard argues the emerging multipolar, post-American world will be one in which great powers — primarily the U.S., Russia and China — will divide the globe into “spheres of influence.”
The U.S. is seeking to maintain disproportionate power in Asia. Closer to home, neighbours of the U.S. have reason to fear American expansionism.
By contrast, even if it has imperialist ambitions, Russia doesn’t have the military might to dominate Europe. It’s a country of 144 million people with one-sixth the GDP of the European Union. Russia can cause trouble within countries with sizable Russian minorities, but its ability to project power is limited, as demonstrated by its grinding war in Ukraine.
China’s stance
The Chinese have scored a win against Trump’s tariffs with a 90-day tariff pause that’s being hailed as vindication of China’s defiant negotiating strategy. China called Trump’s bluff and won as global stocks soared.
This has bolstered China’s goal to have a sphere of influence. However, Chinese foreign policy is largely non-interventionist and, compared to the U.S., remarkably restrained.
China may intimidate its rivals in the South China Sea, Senkaku Islands, and Taiwan, but it does not easily resort to military force. China has not resorted to military force since its war with Vietnam in 1979.
China is committed to most of the guiding structures of the current international system and values a stable and mutually beneficial global economic order that enables it to focus on and improve its domestic development.
Its export-oriented economic sectors need customers abroad. Unlike the West, China has a vested interest in helping the Global South develop and prosper in order to create those customers.
Asian trade alliance?
The Chinese are using their resources to promote economic and technological development in the Global South.
As China spreads its renewable energy technologies globally, some of the poorest countries may leapfrog carbon-based fuels and go directly to renewable energy to make development affordable and attainable, and to mitigate climate change.
In response to Trump’s tariffs, China, South Korea and Japan have discussed a renewed free-trade arrangement. President Xi Jinping has toured Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia to encourage a common front against American actions.
Asian states are wary of China, but they remain committed to global trade. The U.S. may be retreating from globalization, but the rest of the world is not, though China’s manufacturing dominanceconcerns many states.
Emerging international order
New institutions may help to manage the evolving world order. The BRICS countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates — have created the New Development Bank (NDB). China has created the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
The United Nations remains the favoured instrument of global diplomacy, even if western states have been accused of undermining its authority and efficacy.
The European Union will continue as a major global power in the emerging international order, but on a more even footing with the rest of the world.
Europe is reconsidering its trade war with China. In the words of Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission: “The West as we knew it no longer exists.”
Western states will undoubtedly continue to try to exercise disproportionate global influence. Canada has suggested that “like-minded states” form an alliance to promote international trade and institutions that remain dominated by western interests. This idea seems designed to continue marginalizing the Global South in the international decision-making process.
Most Global South states are not high-functioning liberal democracies. Many struggle with the legacies of colonialism while managing an international system dominated by the West that keeps them subservient. Others have created governments that fit their particular circumstances, cultures and levels of development.
But many weaker countries generally share a commitment to international law that is seemingly stronger than the West. They need a stable, predictable, fairly applied set of global rules more than stronger nations. Ironically, the decline of the U.S. may facilitate a much more genuine and legitimate rules-based international order.
America’s loosening grip
Readjusting the world economy away from the U.S. to a more diverse, evenly distributed economic model will be difficult and disruptive.
Nonetheless, loosening the American grip on global power is an essential first step towards achieving a more just and balanced international order.
For putting this process in motion, the world may owe Trump a measure of thanks.
Shaun Narine, Professor of International Relations and Political Science, St. Thomas University (Canada)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.