» Lesen Sie diesen Artikel auf Deutsch

The current geopolitical situation is causing deep dismay among liberal democracies, while evoking triumphant hopes in the Global South. The international order, created in the aftermath of the Second World War and undergirded by the Law of Nations, is falling apart. In its place the old-fashioned law of the jungle has been gaining ground. Might makes right, and the strong take whatever they like. Putin proclaims that he wants to bring about a »multipolar world,« and Trump is already showing what he understands that to mean: global supremacy or even a world ruled by street gangs. Is this yet another turning point in history, one that will induce more global tremors, or is it the same old story: an era of chaotic conflicts that, when push comes to shove, will have to be settled by force of arms? There is still time to intervene in these developments and entanglements, because there are formidable obstacles standing in the way of smoothly functioning transactionalism and the robust willingness to enforce it.

So, while international law and institutions may be tottering, for the time being certain things that owe their very existence to the previous world order remain intact: both the advantages and repercussions of globalization. International trade networks and the dependence of national economies small and large upon the ebb and flow of international commerce and investment have not lost their attraction. Thus, even the beneficiaries of the old global order know that they cannot thrive without such strict dependencies. Would China, a hegemon that recognizes Europe’s outsized global purchasing power, be willing to say no to European buyers who wish to retain conditional ownership merely (let’s say) to expand its presence in Africa more quickly? It is attempting to do both things at once, but its priorities are obvious. And why else would Trump want to force European industries to move to the USA if not because of their financial clout? Thus, the collapse of the existing order is on hold for now, but one can feel it coming. So, we will have to wait awhile to witness the predictably fatal end-game, which may be, but is not absolutely inevitable.

Will the collapsing world order provoke resistance?
 

John Kenneth Galbraith described the phenomenon of »countervailing power.« The stronger an actor is, the more it provokes and produces resistance. Examples abound not only in the economic sphere but also in international politics. Even the great powers evidently encounter resistance despite their new assertiveness. Donald Trump’s Gaza fantasies have provoked a new strategic initiative on the part of the Arab League. The countries that border the South China Sea oppose China’s territorial claims there with ever greater determination. The BRICS group aspires to create a new international currency. But when they weigh the next step—to internationalize the Chinese currency, the renminbi—its member-countries begin to worry about how they would realistically pursue their national economic interests without the dollar. Certainly, the new powers will expand their knowledge in and through practice, learning how to act more effectively. At some point they may also be able to come to grips with Galbraith’s countervailing powers, but that time is still far in the future.

The examples of new great powers, whether genuine or wannabe, show how their behavior gives rise to elements that can have self-destructive consequences

The examples of new great powers, whether genuine or wannabe, show how their behavior may also generate self-destructive outcomes. The damage that Donald Trump is inflicting on the economy of the planet’s biggest economic actor will be unsustainable in the long run. And unless they are resolved, the conflicts that he is stoking will backfire on the USA, no matter whether it’s over relations with China, Russia, Canada, or Latin America. Russia’s war is bringing the country to the brink of ruin. It is held together only by the iron fist of a dictator pursuing his dream of becoming the new Peter the Great. Similarly, when China ignores international legality by bribing the Houthis to exempt that country’s vessels from their attacks upon shipping in the Red Sea, it is strengthening the Houthis in a way that makes the powder keg of the Middle East even more explosive. Eventually Beijing will realize that the rebel group is going to put even their own interests in the region at risk.

No, the final demise of the rule-governed world has not yet arrived. Nevertheless, the sentries are sounding the alarm bells at the right moment, because the liberal democracies have no time to lose if they want to exercise any perceptible influence on the course of events. This is an urgent matter, before countries lose trust in functioning institutions and agreements and instead lie in wait for the opportunity to gain advantages at others‹ expense. Or before all doubts are dispelled that big countries henceforth must be regarded as threats due to their assertiveness, and before even the USA itself has evolved from an alliance partner into a menace. Wait-and-see is not an option.

Europe’s future prospects
 

In this complex and critical predicament, Europe should accord top priority to four steps, all with the goal of expanding its existing but still insufficient capabilities. 

First, current European defensive capabilities were designed as part of NATO members‹ preparations for crises that might also require joint self-defense measures on the part of the USA, Canada, and Turkey. We must decide whether the war-fighting readiness thus attained would suffice for an alliance of European states without the participation of the USA. Moreover, the expansion of existing capabilities must occur rapidly in the face of the threats we now face. This process has already begun. The Europeans are on a good, broad path to attain full readiness by the target year of 2030.
»In short, what is needed is a consistently pursued expansion of Europe’s alliance-building capability.«

Second, European countries are conducting business as usual according to the existing world order’s rules of the game. If willingness to cooperate according to the rules of international institutions erodes, and if we should become less able to rely on those rules − a dangerous trend − then other forms of cooperation with receptive partners must be found. There are many candidates for such partnership, including especially the countries of east and southeast Asia. Depending on how things work out, such cooperation could be extended to other countries in the Global South—in particular the ten BRICS countries, which currently are already looking for alliances in new platforms. In short, what is needed is a consistently pursued expansion of Europe’s alliance-building capability. Thanks to Keir Starmer, it took European leaders and those of other countries that support Ukraine only two days to gather in London, following the humiliation of President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, and to convey even beyond the continent’s boundaries the requisite impression of responsiveness and resoluteness. And the subsequent efforts to come to Ukraine’s aid, undertaken both by European countries and − even more importantly −by non-European partners show that Europe (not just the EU member-states) knows that the time is now.

Third, Europe must cultivate its capacity for dialogue with a strategic bent. The new de facto or wannabe great powers have little interest in the advantages of the international system. That is simply the way the new world is. But it is that very adverse situation that should lead us to put considerable energy into at least exploring the possibilities of cooperation with the great powers on every problem for which such cooperation would be advantageous. The character of life in the jungle will determine whether such a rapprochement will turn out well or ill. In other words, success is not guaranteed.Fourth and finally, Europe needs to renew its capacity for cooperation and contact within the continent. 

Therefore, the neglect of small member-states has to stop. Too often, the larger members have proven that they can get along without the small ones, but the price has been steep: the loss of trust among those smaller states and their dwindling willingness to cooperate as well as the absence of the latter’s input of ideas.  And not even the larger countries have proven receptive to strategically-oriented cooperation, always fearing the loss of influence and economic advantage. 

European unity is needed for all of this, by which I mean real unity. We have been hearing this appeal over and over, especially now, with reference to a point made by Jean Monnet: that Europe will be born out of crises. If that is accurate, then this would be the moment to prove it. But let’s not forget that, since the end of the Second World War, Europe never has had a leader able to determine the fate of the entire continent. The strategy of multilateral coordination has turned out to be more practicable. We should bear that in mind when we hear laments about the lack of »leading« personalities. A Europe without a dominant figure who promises blood, sweat, and tears can still be well prepared to deal with a world that looks increasingly like a jungle, but in which the players still can defend their interests without resorting to violence.