Taking proposals for a new world order

Part 1: Why it's worth thinking about how to (re)organise the world

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world has entered an era of relative quiet, a period some might describe as eerily tranquil. This marked the onset of a unipolar world dominated by the United States. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. has exerted its influence as a global superpower, shaping international institutions to mirror its values and ideals. While the concept of a nation wielding global influence is not novel – recalling the era when Britain and other European powers established vast empires, epitomized by the saying, "the sun never sets on the British Empire" – the recent American hegemony is distinguished by several key factors:

Economic and Military Dominance: Post-World War II, Europe's influence gradually declined, while Asia emerged from the shadows of colonialism and conflict. Concurrently, regions like Africa and South America have not significantly impacted global power dynamics for an extended period.

Technological Leadership: The United States has been at the forefront of scientific and technological innovation with its renowned national laboratories and Silicon Valley. This edge has been crucial in maintaining its lead, particularly following the dissolution of its primary competitor, the USSR.

Soft Power: The cultural exports of the U.S., ranging from Hollywood to blue jeans and Silicon Valley, have played a significant role in shaping global perceptions. These exports contributed to the USSR's downfall and established America as an aspirational model worldwide. Despite its formidable power, the U.S. has largely been perceived positively, though this is not a universal truth, and the U.S. is not without its enemies. 

These three elements collectively define a unique era in global politics, setting apart the post-1991 world from previous epochs of dominance and influence. 

During this period, the legacy of the U.S. has been multifaceted and complex. While it has presided over one of the most peaceful eras in human history, this time has not been without its share of atrocities and bloodshed. The U.S. has been directly or indirectly linked to a lengthy list of conflicts and challenges. The approach of the U.S. government has often mirrored that of other historical powers who have found themselves in a position of unchallenged dominance, typically characterized by a tendency to deny any wrongdoing or refusal to accept responsibility.

As time has passed, dissenting voices against American hegemony have grown louder. Criticisms are levied when the U.S. takes action and chooses inaction. Its position as a global superpower, with formidable military and economic strength and significant influence over international institutions, makes it a conspicuous and convenient target for such scrutiny. This criticism reflects global leadership's complex realities and the inherent challenges in maintaining a balance between national interests and global responsibilities.

As someone whose entire life has unfolded during this era, I have frequently echoed the calls for the U.S. to adopt a more ethical and less hypocritical stance in its global dealings. Despite recognizing the futility of such expectations – given that every nation is inherently self-interested and inclined to pursue its agendas – I still value advocating for higher standards. Criticizing is straightforward, but it becomes more complicated when confronted with the retort often posed by Americans and their supporters: "What would you do in America's position?" This question challenges critics like me to consider the complex realities and tough decisions faced by a global superpower, adding depth to my understanding of international politics and the responsibilities that come with immense power.

However, I believe there's room for us to aim higher and strive for better. Instead of focusing solely on critiquing what the U.S. should or shouldn't do, we might benefit from reorienting our discourse towards envisioning a realistically ideal world. This approach is not about wielding direct power to effect change – if it were, I'd likely be out in the world actively making these changes rather than writing this blog post. But envisioning such a world serves as a constructive exercise. It's about crafting a coherent alternative vision, which is inherently more productive than merely defining ourselves in opposition to American hegemony.

This shift in perspective could foster more inclusive and enriched dialogue. It invites the critics and those who support U.S. policies to contribute their insights. Moving the conversation away from a defensive posture opens up a space where ideas can be exchanged more freely and collaboratively. This could lead to a deeper understanding and potentially more nuanced and broadly acceptable solutions. 

The concept of what I would term 'alternative world orders' could be immensely beneficial, as these visions can influence the thinking of those in positions of power. Similar to how think tanks develop and advocate policy ideas, it's crucial for everyone to actively promote their vision of an ideal world. Such engagement in world-building discourse is not just the prerogative of policymakers and intellectuals. It's a democratic exercise where each individual's perspective shapes a more comprehensive and diverse understanding of our global future. By voicing our ideas and ideals, we collectively participate in steering the course of global development, potentially inspiring those who can implement change. It is naive to believe that this will directly change the global world order, but at worst, it will give us a coherent framework to evaluate reality and judge if it is moving toward our ideal or against irrespective of who is shaping it. 

The ascendance of China as a formidable global power and the apparent waning of U.S. hegemony inject an urgent relevance into this discussion. This shifting geopolitical landscape, marked by the rise of a nation with distinct political and economic systems, challenges the long-standing unipolar world order dominated by the U.S. As China's influence expands, it brings questions about the future shape of global governance, international norms, and values to the forefront. This transition period, where the balance of power is in flux, presents a critical opportunity for reevaluating and potentially reshaping our understanding of global leadership and cooperation. It underscores the need for a more nuanced and inclusive conversation about how the world can and should be governed in an era that might see a multipolar global order.

In part 2 of this series, I will examine existing theories on global order, seeking valuable insights that could inform our vision for a better world framework.