07 August 2018

World’s new international order

Sergiu Medar

The new international order will slowly replace the actual liberal international order. The differences between the two is that the first one wants to reach the objectives of national interests without being forced to follow some restrictions which could stop this demarche. In the new international order, the bilateral relations between states are becoming essential. This is a process which will be deployed with prudence to avoid any collapse with destructive effects.

Image source: Mediafax

All world’s politics analysts unanimously agree that the liberal international order, founded after the Second World War, does not satisfy anymore the demands coming from all states. The US dominated politically, economically and military the globe and supported the liberal international order to keep a peace condition, internally as well as internationally.

Successful for 70 years, now this concept not only that shows off its limits, but also becomes, very quickly a break in the individual development of some states. It does not mean that democracy disappears, but remains fundamental in the internal development of these states.

Yet the international relations are developing on some other coordinates: the individual competitiveness against the group competitiveness. The attempts of group competitiveness forced some developed states to wait so that the less competitive ones catch up with the competitive ones, rarely a situation of success, loosing not only in speed, but also in funds. Also, the economic solutions demanded by the group’s leaders (alliances, coalitions, treaties or economic unions) were not always and entirely similar with the national interests of the less competitive states.

The first official manifestations of the new economic order, based on national interests, were at the Security Conference in München, when the syntagma “globalism”, which included the collective interest, was barely pronounced. This was replaced with “multilateralism”, which develops the national interest, sometimes despite the collective interest. The best example is the US, where “America First’s” doctrine is, first of all, about reaching the national interest objectives.

On the surface it would seem that the new international order is dedicated only to big and strong economically and military states, but the reality is not the same, because even the small states can follow with priority its national interests, only with the condition to realistically identify its assets and use them in their favor. Chasing the national interest does not mean neither regress, nor extremist nationalism, but that respectable attitude, the state asking to be recognized its value. There is the danger that following national interest raises populist attitudes, even extremist nationalism, of the governments that will try to come up with the international orders. We must be aware of this aspect and the governments must take measures to keep the balance.

To a better understanding of the new international order, we must, firstly, understand the meaning of the words. “Order” means, according to a RAND Corporation study, “an interstate structured and stable relation model which involves a combination of parts, from emergent norms between states, to internationally regulation institutions, political organizations or regimes”. The interested international institutions for the relation between states are ONU, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization. These have the purpose to assure collective and action dialogue forums for key problems as financial stability, multilateral treaties set, treaties, conventions, from commerce to human right. The new international order contains the large multilateralism principle, which characterized for a long time US’s vision over world’s policy. It is subordinated to the interests between states and offers mechanism for the “common action”. Still, this does not mean forcing states not to action for its national interest.

The international relations system reform is demanded by the world’s actual realities and especially by the economic and military changes in world’s hierarchy. At the beginning of the international relations liberal system application, at the end of the Second World War, the world was obviously unipolar, becoming after that bipolar. From Soviet Union’s destruction until 8-10 years ago, the world returned to unipolarity. Now the world is multi-polar economically and financially speaking. Regarding the security and military area, the world is still unipolar, but probably, not for too long. The efficiency increasement of new types of fighting will probably get up to a new war approach which will create efficient asymmetries for the enemies.

The agreed rules in some international treaties, agreements or conventions become transitory, in the new international order. The member states will no longer be forced to respect ad-literam its rules. The states can enter and get out of these agreements or can ignore some paragraphs when their national interests are affected.

The flexibility of state’s attitude does not exclude its national interest when they are following it openly and peremptory. This is how Trump administration, and not only that, tries to approach and reform the new international order.

To avoid provoking a world collapse, the transition to the new international system, should be made with big prudence. There are, in the present, three important approaches of this mega-transition. The first current is US’s one, apparently the most active state in this process. Donald Trump’s combativeness already took to withdrawing the US from the actual liberal international order. The Chinese leaders propose a new economic order to gravitate around Beijing. Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron asked the West to double their effort to maintain the international liberal order.

The states which claim a new international economic order are, firstly: US, China and Russia, each with different arguments. To these three powerful states we can add small states as: Hungary, Turkey, Poland and others.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson presidents supported the principle which says that the US should not be part of permanent alliances or treaties as these, through their rules, may affect country’s national interests. By applying this principle, Donald Trump signed US´s withdrawal from the treaty regarding the climatic changes because that would mean more costs for applying the unpolluting technologies for the American producers. Also, the US did not sign the transpacific partnership treaty, signed by 11 states among these being also Great Britain, and neither the free exchange transatlantic treaty. The reason why he did not sign these treaties, according to Trump´s statements, was the negative commerce balance the US had with some of the partner states and the mentioned treaties, so the national interest affection. At the same time, we can also mention Trump´s decisions about increasing the import taxes for some products, as steel and aluminum from EU, as well as a large product assortment imported from China.  Being aware of the isolationist effects these measures can have, Trump proposed, through European Committee´s president, the mutual elimination of taxes for the rest of the products, being opened to negotiation. For now, the European Union did not offer an official response to this proposal. Macron declared that he does not agree with Trump´s proposal. We do not know, at the moment, if this is a negotiation technique or is becoming an official European response.

China developed so much and became an economic power that could equalize the US in the next 5-10 years. An argument for that would be that, between 2017-2019, the actual world’s GDP of 75 trillion dollars will be increased with 6,5 trillion dollars, an increasement which will be 35,5 % made by China, 17,9 % by the US, 8,5 % by India, 7,9% by the euro zone, 2,5 by Indonesia, 2& by South Korea, 1,8% by Australia, 1,7% by Canada, 1,6% Great Britain, 1,5% Japan, 1,2% Brazil, 1,2@ Turkey, 1,2% Mexico, 1,2% Iran and 1% by Russia. China’s accomplishments and economic projects make it, as a country, the second one in the global hierarchy, economically speaking.

Russia equalized by Spain regarding the economy, cannot accept the actual international order and manifests really peremptory its concerns in finding methods to create a new international order. As an argument for this affirmation, we can think about the Valdai’s group conference, October 2017, regarding the creation of a new economic order through war. That’s the worst transfer option, although at the conference they spoke about a constructive destruction, meaning, an economic, financial or military war, followed by the creation of a new relation system based on new principles.

The new international order will also get us to a new form of manifestation and conflict management. These will have forms which, in the present, were only tested, combining kinetic form with the akinetic action form of action of the antagonist’s parts. According to general Valeri Gherasimov’s statements, the Major Chief of State of the Russian army, the future war will be through media and in space. Both fight camps, if we can say so, will be dominated by the realizations of artificial intelligence.

In the category of fight kinetic methods will also enter weapons that can launch high precision hits. Robotized aerial, subaquatic and terrestrial methods will slowly replace the human exposure. Their purpose will the annihilation of kinetic methods by applying the accomplishments of artificial intelligence, in using the fight space systems against the communicational, recognition and navigation methods.

Regarding the akinetic methods, media offers a cheap and efficient action vehicle not only against the enemy’s moral, but also in cyber actions against eth economic systems, critic infrastructure or bank systems.

All of these actions belong not only to the future, but also to the present. The state military competition by using new ways of action and asymmetrical counter-action makes, somehow, the capability differences resulted from the economic numbers between the states which threaten each other to baffle.  

When the ideological hedges between states was destructed, the world became even more complicated, its managing was more complex, the suspicious between states became bigger, passing 8-10 years until they could reach the balance. Not, the world’s international order will be again changed. The competition between states will be increased again, each state will follow its national interest against the ex or actual partners. We will see states which will collaborate on a certain domain and compete on another.

In the new international order, the bilateral relations will be essential in spite of the multinational one. Bilaterally speaking, will have to de identified the two national interest and to be negotiated the common points. From a bilateral relation puzzle, they will be able to reach state’s national interests of a capable state of such construction. The states which will understand and accept sooner the new tendencies will be able to be positioned from the beginning on advantageous positions.