How's That New World Order Working Out?

The multipolar moment has arrived -- and it's nothing like Americans imagined.

BY PARAG KHANNA | DECEMBER 2010

Looking for a sign of when the multipolar moment suddenly seemed real? You could do worse than mark the day when Brazil and Turkey -- two of the world's most avidly internationalist emerging powers -- joined together this May to announce they had stepped in to broker a nuclear-fuel swap deal with Iran that potentially -- though sadly not actually -- paved the way toward a peaceful solution to the standoff. Turkey and Brazil aren't superpowers, nor are they permanent U.N. Security Council members. But just as U.S. President Barack Obama came into office preaching a renewed focus on multilateralism, rising powers are reminding us that respect for hierarchy is no longer on anyone's agenda.

What a difference a couple of decades makes. A little over 20 years ago, then U.S. President George H.W. Bush -- who had just witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and saw the Soviet Union disintegrating before his very eyes -- stood at the granite podium of the U.N. General Assembly in New York and proclaimed a "new world order," a U.S.-dominated international system "where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle." Two decades later, the "new new world order" we are in fact living looks almost nothing like what Bush -- and most Americans -- imagined or hoped.

The United States still has the world's most powerful military, of course, but its utility is diminishing as the capacity to deter and resist spreads. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Military might and political influence no longer necessarily go together, and too much of the former can even undermine the latter. More fundamentally, the world has quickly become multipolar, with the European Union a larger economic player than the United States while China rises quickly on all measures of hard and soft power. Obama couldn't give the "New World Order" speech today; he'd have to negotiate it first with his peers in Brussels and Beijing. And as for democracy: Meet authoritarian state capitalism, a new entry into our lexicon that underscores the non-Western options every state can pursue today. Nobody's talking about the Washington Consensus anymore -- instead the Beijing Consensus, the Mumbai Consensus, and even something only half-jokingly called the Canuck Consensus are competing for the hearts and minds of global elites.

Rather than a world of alliances, it's a world of multi-alignment. Globalization means never having to choose sides. Look at the Persian Gulf states. They make big-ticket arms deals with Washington, buying weapons to recycle their petrodollars and deter Iran; sign huge trade agreements with China, where ever more of their oil flows; and negotiate currency arrangements with the European Union. If there is any doubt as to the general lack of foresight that governs international relations today, just consider how America has ceased certain joint weapons production with Israel as punishment for Israel's selling sensitive technology to China, which in turn sells missile technologies to Iran, whose leadership wishes to eradicate Israel from the map. Everyone is playing everyone else in what seem like endless single-iteration prisoner's dilemma games.

Bush Sr. chose to give the speech at the United Nations for a reason: America was the preeminent power, but he was a multilateralist. Paralyzed during the Cold War, the United Nations now had a chance toplay the central role as arbiter of global governance for which it was envisioned. But rather than personify multilateralism itself, the United Nations is proving to be at best just one manifestation of it. Free-standing functional agencies like the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund -- which has only become more important in the wake of the financial crisis -- are our only effective global bodies, and they are solely economic in nature. But the G-20 has hardly lived up to its billing as the new "steering committee for the world." Before the most recent Seoul summit, world leaders described U.S. proposals for harmonizing current account surpluses and deficits as "clueless." The Security Council has long ceased to be legitimate or effective, with little prospect for reform in sight. As we learned so painfully this year, the United Nations can't forge a global climate deal and can't make the world meet the Millennium Development Goals. For every issue there are now several specialized agencies, like the World Food Program and Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, that mostly secure their own funding contributions and are evolving at their own pace.

The closest thing we have to multilateral governance happens on a regional level, and it is far more promising, whether the deeply entrenched and supranational European Union, the rejuvenated Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or the nascent African Union. Each is building a regional order tailored to its members' priorities and level of development. On Sudan and Somalia, it's Uganda leading the new diplomatic and peacekeeping push. For Palestine, the Arab League is considering a peacekeeping force. And on Iran, Turkey is now in the lead.

The world of 1990 was expected to remain fundamentally international. Yet instead its very structure has changed as globalization has empowered legions of transnational nonstate actors from corporations to NGOs to religious groups. As a result, today's world features overlapping and competing claims to authority and legitimacy. The Gates Foundation gives away more money each year than any European country. Villagers in Nigeria expect Shell to deliver the goods, not their government. And Oxfam shapes the British development agency's priorities more than the reverse.

Neither the United States nor the United Nations can put the genie back in the bottle. With each passing year, deal-making at Davos and the Clinton Global Initiative become more important than the glacial advance of empty declarations at international summits. These and other venues are the places where the "new new world order" is being built. And it's happening from the bottom up rather than the top down.

ADRIANO MACHADO/AFP/Getty Images

 

JONATHANN

1:43 AM ET

November 28, 2010

Counter Argument

Here's the counter argument:

People will keep saying stuff like this, and huff and puff it out on a regular basis, until the United States launches a military campaign against some country, some where, over some set of issues, in defiance of world opinion and the world is helpless to stop it.

That is the true nature of being a superpower. The ability to act nearly anywhere we please, regardless of world opinion, without fear of a country or a band of countries opposing us militarily, is ours alone.

The world's most powerful military is more than just a gimmick. It is power projection that has taken decades to build and sustain. Even if China built a substantial "blue water" navy, what do you want to bet it would find itself constrained close to it's territorial shores due to logistical difficulties?

So please. Continue to go on about multipolarity. It's the publishing gift that puts food on the plate of a great many writers. And it is all negated by the simple fact that if the United States wanted to start a military campaign anywhere in the world, no one could really do anything about it. Is not the world divided between two camps - America and those-who-are-not-America - the essence of Unipolarity?

So much for the multipolar order. See you in the inevitable street protests and millions, like they did in 2003, act out their helplessness.

 

TORYBOY

11:00 AM ET

November 28, 2010

The Decider

Damn right, The USA's the decider!

Yeah, we can go ahead and kick some ass and show them who's boss. Who's gonna stop us? We certainly whooped their asses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Err, Mission accomplished.

 

FAIRANDBALANCED

2:09 PM ET

November 28, 2010

Counter counter argument

"That is the true nature of being a superpower. The ability to act nearly anywhere we please, regardless of world opinion, without fear of a country or a band of countries opposing us militarily, is ours alone."

- But isn't that exactly how the Soviet Union walked into Afghanistan unopposed? So, what makes us so unique? Sure, we fought a proxy war there but that's not the same as direct military involvement. It is the same Russia with the same military as the former Soviet Union that's in the quartet of nations the writer was talking about.

Would the word "anywhere" apply to any one of the BRIC countries? I think the world is well aware that we have a different set of standards for engaging nuclear-equipped nations. Please! We can't even deal with the nutjob in North Korea simply because of that reason alone.

 

EVILOVERLORD

2:39 PM ET

November 28, 2010

Jingoism rules!

"a U.S.-dominated international system "where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle." Two decades later, the "new new world order" we are in fact living looks almost nothing like what Bush -- and most Americans -- imagined or hoped. "

Maybe if we took rule of law more seriously, it would have. Instead, we have Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, etc.

 

EVILOVERLORD

2:39 PM ET

November 28, 2010

Jingoism rules!

"a U.S.-dominated international system "where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle." Two decades later, the "new new world order" we are in fact living looks almost nothing like what Bush -- and most Americans -- imagined or hoped. "

Maybe if we took rule of law more seriously, it would have. Instead, we have Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, etc.

 

EVILOVERLORD

2:40 PM ET

November 28, 2010

A sober and serious comment about jingoism

"a U.S.-dominated international system "where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle." Two decades later, the "new new world order" we are in fact living looks almost nothing like what Bush -- and most Americans -- imagined or hoped. "

Maybe if we took rule of law more seriously, it would have. Instead, we have Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, etc.

[Interesting that this got tagged as spam. Only certain points of view allowed?]

 

NICOLAS19

4:17 AM ET

November 29, 2010

adding to Arvay's argument

Another example would be the China-Japan autumn conflict where US backed Japan. Imagine the world's No 1 and 2 (by then) powers teaming up against the No 3 and later backing down. Hardly the "US projection of power", isn't it?

 

KONKER

6:43 AM ET

November 28, 2010

Clueless

"The ability to act nearly anywhere we please, regardless of world opinion"

This is the statement of an adolescent .... Clueless..

 

CARDENAS697

1:31 PM ET

November 28, 2010

think about this

To compare the Iraq and Afganistan wars to a possible conflict between China, North Korea, or Russia with the United States or any other country is not taking into account the type of warfare we are involved in.

The Iraq war is really a combination of multiple wars. The first part was the defeat of the Iraqi military this includes the Republican Guards and Saddam Hussein. This initial type of war was symmetric style warfare and yes we did win. What evolved after 2003 was the insurgent movement which included 40 different groups. This new type of war in Iraq evolved to asymmetrical warfare. This type of warfare is very hard to defeat because your enemy has no uniform and there is no easy way to distinguish the insurgents from the rest of the population. Asymmetrical wars can be won but there is a higher moral and military cost a country like the US must absorb. Playing by the rules can be costly.

 

BILL888

5:13 AM ET

November 30, 2010

But you set up the rule.

Yes, playing by the rule is usually costly. However, you set up the rules and you broke them. The reputation is at stake here and crime is committed in eyes of the super being. When I say "you" I mean USA.

 

THE EUROPEAN

9:33 PM ET

November 28, 2010

Beyond Hagel and Marx

Every single poster - inadvertently though - regards the imaginary "Multi-Polar World" through the concept of "Dialectical Materialism".

According to Hegel and Marx :
"Materialism asserts the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism is a realist philosophy of science, which holds that the world is material." (Wiki)

Purveyors of the Multi-Polar world-view are attributing inordinate amount of weight to the economical (material) impact of the four developing countries named in this thread.
It's completely omitted from the theorem that none of the countries listed possesses an "universalist cultural appeal" like the US do: for they are monocultural nations without impressive scientific-cultural-moral achievements.
Their languages are not widely understood beyond their borders, they are not cosmopolitan people enough to exert lasting influence on other nations.

Interestingly - for the opposite reason - the European Union cannot evolve to be a stand alone "World Center" either because it's a mosaic of nations devoid of unified message.
There was a reason for which Rome remained the Center of the "Civilization" well beyond its actual material power.

 

AR

5:19 PM ET

November 29, 2010

Mandarin is being learned at

Mandarin is being learned at a fast pace in many nations across Asia and now even Africa. Russian has been a major second language for over 100 years, almost as long as English has. You will find Russian speakers from Poland in the west to Mongolia in the east.

The success the US has had is due more to geopolitics than to any universalist cultural appeal, which is just another uber liberal term that carries no real merit.

 

PUBLICUS

6:20 PM ET

December 6, 2010

English

You wanna say that in English please?

Thankx.

 

ALEXBC

2:09 AM ET

November 29, 2010

It Is Still A Very Unipolar World

The first paragraph of this piece sums up the reality on the ground with this parenthetical:

"that potentially -- though sadly not actually"

Brazil admitted afterward that it got "our fingers burned." Turkey, though a potent power, operates almost exclusively within its own region. Neither has the global span or multifaceted diplomatic, military, and economic power of the US.

Do people forget that BRIC is an artificial coalition devised by (American firm) Goldman Sachs to market particular investments? These countries have nothing in common. China and Russia are demographically challenged autocracies running on the fumes of state capitalism. Brazil is an "emerging market" that has been emerging for 200+ years. India is following a relatively balanced economic growth trajectory, which while slower than China's nevertheless incorporates greater elements of consumption and services, but is still challenged by a coming population surge and internal instability. Together, the GDP of the BRICs does not even equal to the US alone.

Does Mr. Kanna even stop to acknowledge that most international institutions are US creations? The IMF, the UN, the World Bank, the Clinton Global Initiative, the Gate Foundation are but a few examples. What have the BRICs contributed to international governance?

Globalization's peak during the 1990s and early 2000s was spearheaded by the US in the first place. Looming storm-clouds like the currency wars, European defaults, demographic dips, potential American security cuts (America underwrites the whole world's security with its bases) and Chinese inflation, among others, already threatens the peaceful global economic environment that Mr. Kanna seems to think will continue indefinitely.

Note: paeans to global trade/"globalization," "rising powers," and how economic considerations will outstrip geopolitical differences are old and often off-the mark. It was once thought that Europe, at the turn of the 20th century, could never go to war due to how globalization had intermeshed everything and made hegemony for any country impossible. Instead, we got three of the strongest hegemonies in history - the US, the USSR, and Germany - in a short span.

Basically, until another nation-state can challenge the US militarily, and spearhead international governance organs on par with those created by the US, the talk of multipolarity is pure theory.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

11:44 AM ET

November 29, 2010

No one wants to be a global hegemon anymore

Not in a military sense like the US, anyway. For one, it is costing the US tax payers a lot of money, money which could of easily went into the education system, or infrastructure. On the one hand being the world police has its benefits, such as access to early resources and certain industries abroad, but with globalization the military advantage with stationing abroad is minimized.

That the BRIC nations depend on developed nations in North America and Europe in order their grow is a fact. However the argument can be made that the developed world needs the BRIC nations to lower their own unemployment rates. Currently Europe and NA are banking on China's growth in order to lower their own deficits and unemployment rates. When India's middle class have grown the developed nations will expect the same of India. If there is anything which globalization have taught us, it's that globalization definitely affects unemployment rates thus domestic politics. In this sense trading policy is a much more potent tool to exert influence abroad than having a military stationed abroad.

 

SANMAN

6:10 PM ET

November 29, 2010

Give us a break, Parag

As a patriotic Indian, I'll remind Parag Khanna that the quality of life and liberty in India doesn't even remotely compare well with that of the United States. The cocky ruling elites in India and their rentable media flunkies too easily gloss over just how many Indians live like sub-Saharan Africa. That's why India is always 'A Million Mutinies Now' and its democracy is a joke.

Parag's whimsical posturing aside, a country that only just recently built its first subways within the last decade has little reason to be putting on airs about a 'Mumbai Consensus' (what exactly is that - another reincarnation of the ineffectual Non-Aligned Movement?)

It's true that the United States can no longer launch wars without first passing around the collection plate among its allies and protectorates. Even Bush Sr had to do this in the runup to the first Gulf War. But contrast this with India, which can't even go to war at all when its cities are attacked and pillaged by terrorists. Instead, India tries to get by playing an ostrich game, with its leaders paying lip service to national pride, while doling out hush money to victims' families and praying that such incidents will fade from public memory (they don't, because they're always refreshed by yet more devastating attacks.)

So as a loyal patriotic Indian, I'll nevertheless give credit where it's due, and say that whatever Americans may have good reason to feel humble about, Indians have far, far more reason to be humble over.

These days, some Indians cavalierly refer to themselves as the next "shooparpawar." Usually, these people are left-wingers with delusions of grandeur - the Indian equivalent of Wilsonian Democrats. It only takes another terrorist attack to bring these fools and their dreams crashing back to Earth.

 

MDVOR44

8:02 AM ET

November 30, 2010

Here we go

Come Quickly lord jesus!.

 

NANA1

3:40 AM ET

December 1, 2010

...

It's really interesting Article! :)