The mission of Issues in Perspective is to provide thoughtful, historical and biblically-centered perspectives on current ethical and cultural issues.

With the 1945 victory in World War II, the United States began to construct an entirely new world order based on freedom of movement, global trade and a monetary system rooted in the American dollar.  The implementation of that order produced the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, The International Monetary Fund and other entities.  Today, that order is coming apart and its effects are widespread and potentially destabilizing.

The collapse of the Soviet Union produced the dominance of the United States in the 1990s through about 2010.  Today, the world is once again a bipolar world with the United States on one side and Russia and China on the other.  It is a broad democratic order promoted by the US versus an authoritarian order promoted by Russia and China.  Russia and China are aggressively pursing dominant initiatives on the continents of Africa and Latin America.  Asia is largely an intense competition between the US and China for influence.  In this Perspective, I seek to explore the complexities of this emerging world order.

• First, consider an important article by Walter Russell Mead on the September G-20 summit in New Delhi:  “. . . the G-20 summit . . .  reflected three important continuing shifts. One of them works to America’s advantage. The other two will be more challenging to navigate.”

1. “The first and, from an American standpoint, the most beneficial of these developments is the emergence of India as one of the world’s leading powers and as an increasingly close partner of the U.S. The G-20 summit was a personal diplomatic triumph for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. With both the Chinese and Russian leaders absent, Mr. Modi dominated center stage at a world gathering just weeks after India joined the elite clubof countries that have landed probes on the moon.”
2. “[T]he second big trend is more difficult. China, Russia and some of their partners are stepping up their opposition to the American-led world order that has dominated global politics since World War II. One of their goals is to build an illiberal anti-American coalition in the Global South. Both Moscow and Beijing would like the growing group of countries known as BRICS+ to replace such meetings as the G-20 and the Group of Seven as the primary forums in world politics.  India has a different approach. Its critique of the global status quo shares some features with the Sino-Russian view, but ultimately India wants to reform, not demolish, the world system. As Russia moves closer to China, and as India’s fears about Beijing’s agenda grow, the competition between China and its allies and India and its supporters in the Global South will intensify.”
3. “The third trend, the accelerating decline in Europe’s global influence and reach, is more challenging still for the U.S. Observers have long warned that Europe’s slow economic growth, demographic decline, military weakness and unrealistic approach to world politics would constrain the Continent’s role in world affairs. One conclusion from New Delhi is that the long-deferred day of reckoning seems to have arrived.  This has been a year of disaster for Europe’s global standing. France has been largely expelled from a once-dominant position across much of Africa. Mr. Putin has revealed Europe’s impotence in Ukraine. The primary goal of Turkish foreign policy used to be joining the European Union. Today Turkey has largely turned its back on Europe, and European influence throughout the Middle East is in precipitous decline. China appears poised to challenge the German automobile industry. High European energy prices are hastening the continent’s deindustrialization.  Europe’s relative marginalization at the weekend summit reflected these developments. Mr. Modi and President Biden dominated the diplomatic action in New Delhi. Vladimir Putinand Xi Jinping both stayed home but had more impact on the agenda than the seven European leaders who attended in person.

Mead concludes that “For most of the world, the overrepresentation of Europeans in global institutions is the greatest flaw in the international architecture. The redistribution of global power and influence away from Europe to rising powers in Asia and elsewhere is, for most G-20 countries, the most important action item on the ‘global governance’ agenda that the world faces today.  This is a problem for the Biden administration. On the one hand, working with India and other moderate states in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere requires the U.S. to support a sensible agenda of global reform that inevitably will reduce Europe’s role. Looking further ahead, to the extent that American policy makers genuinely care about a working global political and economic order, the survival of that system requires reforming it to reflect Europe’s declining clout . . . India rising, China and Russia seething, Europe shrinking and America dithering. The G-20 meeting in New Delhi changed little but revealed much.”

• Second, consider an essay by Mathias Dopfner, CEO of Axel Springer, which analyses the World Trade Organization (WTO).  The WTO was created in 1995 as the world’s largest international economic organization with 164 member states representing over 98% of global trade and global GDP.  Its headquarters is in Geneva, Switzerland.  Its goals focus not only on fostering global trade but in promoting globalization, democracy and freedom.  But as Dopfner reports “For the 17th year in a row, the independent think tank Freedom House has recorded a decline in democracy; 40% of the world’s population now lives in countries it ranks as ‘not free,’ the highest level since 1997.  The phrase ‘change through trade,’ which Western politicians and bankers loved so much, turned out to be true—but in sharp contrast to its original meaning. Instead of becoming more tolerant and democratic through intensified business links with the West, autocracies in China, Russia and the Middle East have become even more radical and undemocratic. At the same time, more and more democratic economies have grown dependent on their nondemocratic counterparts.”

Dopfner’s greatest concern, however, is his observation about China and the WTO.  “The date that marks its key strategic failure is Dec. 11, 2001, when China was admitted as a full member after 15 years of negotiations. It was a great day for China but possibly the biggest mistake Western market economies have made in recent history. Since then, the U.S. share of global GDP has fallen from 31.47% in 2001 to 24.15% in 2021, while China’s share has grown from 3.98% to over 18% in the same period. This asymmetry has been further amplified by the fact that China, the second biggest economy in the world, still enjoys the status of a developing country, granting it many privileges and exemptions under WTO rules.  The West’s fundamental error was to expose its market economies to China’s state-led capitalism, which creates its own rules and abuses existing terms of trade and competition. If we keep heading down this road, China will continue to gain in economic power and dominance, which will lead to increased political influence and the global rise of AI-boosted surveillance autocracies.”

“In an increasingly polarized America, perhaps the only truly bipartisan consensus is that China’s actions are dangerous. But while the U.S. has decided to act, Europe is still hesitating. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, has taken a ‘de-risking’ approach, trying to balance economic interests and national security concerns. This is encouraging, but it might not be enough. Europe has to make a clear decision for the U.S. and against China. Pleasing both is impossible.  Europeans and Americans must decide between two possible paths:”

1. “One is that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin continue their attempts to drive the U.S. and Europe apart. In this scenario, Europe would follow Africa in growing increasingly dependent on China. The Old World would become a historically instructive theme park for tourists from around the world. Value creation would happen elsewhere. China, Russia and Islamist autocracies would coordinate their interests and activities, becoming increasingly confident aggressors. The U.S. would isolate itself through unilateral decoupling, and what was once the largest economy in the world would become ever weaker politically and economically—yesterday’s superpower.”
2. “The alternative is to revive the trans-Atlantic alliance as an economic and values-based partnership and as the basis of a broader global alliance of democracies including India, Japan and others. It would offer freedom, security, dignity and a sustainable way of life, founded on diversity, competition and meritocracy. In this scenario, China would become a strong but isolated power, weakened in the long run by its extreme homogeneity. Post-Putin Russia would have two options: to rely on a deteriorating China or to opt for the growing West. And one day, China too may realize that a little more freedom brings a great deal more prosperity.”

The second path is obviously preferable.  Dopfner proposes “a new world trade order—an alternative to the dysfunctional WTO, which should cease operations. We need a trade alliance that would provide a multinational framework for truly free trade.  This alliance of democracies would have three criteria for membership: proven respect for the rule of law, for human rights and for sustainability. Alliance members would be able to engage in truly free trade without any tariffs or restrictions, while nonmembers would be subject to high tariffs. The underlying hypothesis is that, in the long run, cooperation among democratic states leads to more value creation than fragile partnerships with autocracies, and that short-term damage is vastly overcompensated by long-term gains.  Democratic nations today still have the upper hand, generating almost 70% of the world’s GDP. This part of the world would remain globalized, forming the critical mass to draw more countries in step by step.”

• Finally, it is imperative that we see Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as a clear and present danger to the West.  Thomas Friedman admirably observes that “Ukraine, like Israel, is a real ‘start-up nation’—a country with a lot of creativity and innovative prowess, not only in creative apps but homegrown drones and cruise missiles, on top of all its natural resources and agriculture supply.  According to Michal Kramarz, head of Google for Startups, “Despite the ongoing war, Ukrainian startups brought in more than $6 billion in revenue in 2022—$542 million more than in 2021—and have tripled in valuation since 2020 . . . In a normal year, Ukraine was graduating 130,000 engineers—more than Germany and France.”    Correctly, much of the world community regards Vladimir Putin as a war criminal—a savage brute who seeks to destroy this start-up nation, fighting to survive and thrive.  We should see this for what it is:  Putin’s savaging of Ukraine is a direct attack on our values and our way of life.  If you doubt this, ask the citizens of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia who border this ruthless authoritarian.  They see Putin for what he truly is—a mortal threat to their way of life.  Americans should see it the same way!

See Walter Russell Mead in the Wall Street Journal (12 September 2023); Mathias Dopfner in the Wall Street Journal (16-17 September 2023); and Thomas Friedman in the New York Times (17 September 2023).