Is a new world order in the offing?

Ever since countries became intertwined with each other or in a conglomeration, a world order came into effect, whether it was recognised as such or not. Political and economic interests of countries served to underpin and sustain particular world orders at various periods in history. The longest and most consequential of world orders is the one that emerged after the Second World War and continued till 1991, the year the Soviet Union ceased to exist. The post-war world order recognised the division of the world into free market economies with democracy and the communist bloc with command economy and single- party rule and promoted economic institutions suited to their political order. In between were countries that were not ideologically aligned to either but had economic relations with both. The most distinguishing of this bifurcated world order was the establishment of a world body, the United Nations, to which both the blocs belonged in the interest of maintaining global peace. But the post-war world order also saw separate bodies formed by each bloc to meet the political, economic and military needs. To match American-led NATO, a military alliance of the West, Russia brought all the countries in the communist bloc under the Warsaw Pact. The Western bloc established World Bank, IMF, GATT for promotion of economic development and trade. On the other side of the divide, COMECON sought to do the same for the Soviet bloc countries. The bipolar world order worked to serve the political, security and economic needs of the two blocs, more or less as long as it prevailed. Above all, it maintained global peace, avoiding a world war.

The balance of power underlying the post-war world order was rent asunder by the precipitous collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1991, leaving America as the only major power in the world. In place of a bipolar world emerged a unipolar world, with America as the leader. While the Soviet-era Warsaw Pact was dismantled, the Western-backed NATO not only continued, but also expanded, taking in former Soviet bloc countries in east Europe. This sowed the seed of discord between the Western bloc and Russia. After protests of successive Russian presidents were perfunctorily dismissed, the incumbent president Vladimir Putin set his feet down and launched a military campaign in Ukraine, the latest east European country to apply for NATO membership. A new cold war broke out that threatened to engulf NATO countries in a war with Russia. Meanwhile, an adversarial relationship developed between China and America over trade and Taiwan. At the prodding of America, the countries of European Union (EU) withdrew from bilateral economic relations under China's Built and Road Initiative. North Korea had already become a pariah state, having defied attempts by the Western bloc to give up its nuclear weapons. With Iran smarting under a slew of sanctions, a new axis of countries aggrieved by Western economic and security policy emerged, accentuating the outline of a new bipolar world.

Enters Donald Trump as the president of the United States for the second term in 2025 and all bets are off, calling for radical realignment of countries, particularly in the West and in its sphere of influence. If the trend of events, set in motion by President Trump's unorthodox presidential executive orders continue , a new world order is likely to emerge in the near future that will be multi-polar in nature and intent. Unlike anything remotely similar, President Trump has upended the contour of world order in one fell swoop much to the discomfiture of America's allies. No sooner had he entered White House than he declared his intent to seize Panama canal, make Canada the 51st state of America and occupy Greenland on security grounds. His imperialistic proclivity does not even spare the Gulf of Mexico which he deigns to re- christen with the moniker 'Gulf of America'. These are laughable gestures, though coming from the president of the superpower that America is, they carry some weight. At the least, these utterances from the most powerful man in the world, convey the hard reality that in respect of America, its foreign policy cannot be taken for granted. By the same token, neither the economic and security architecture bolstered by American support can be relied on to be forever.

The policy decision on ending the war in Ukraine and action that has followed it hot in the heels are eye openers for America's trusted allies, particularly in Europe. For America to volunteer to act as the mediator in negotiating peace between Russia and Ukraine with a view to ending the three-year old war is a step that is welcome for all countries that have stood by the side of Ukraine, with America in the lead. But for America to hold discussion with Russia on a one to one basis, sidelining all the allies and most importantly Ukraine, is not only insulting for them but also an indication that America can go about in world affairs on its own. This individualistic stance of the present American administration does not square with its obligation as the leader to orchestrate a collective stand in negotiating peace with Russia. Bringing in the European allies and Ukraine later in the peace negotiation will not mitigate the loss of trust engendered by the boorish behaviour of the American administration. Already there is talk about Europe having its own army to defend countries of Europe without depending on American support. This may lead to the dismantling of NATO backed by security agreement with Russia. The policy of de-linking with Russia in respect of energy supply following Russian invasion of Ukraine may be revisited by EU and the UK.

If the independent foreign and security policy of the present American Administration has sprung a surprise on allies in Europe, the imposition of tariff on steel and aluminum has rattled their economies more than would a recession. President Trump's tariff policy aimed at helping domestic producers distorts the international trading regime based on comparative advantage. It undermines the rule-based multilateral trading system upheld by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Following the recent reversal of traditional security and trading policies by America, EU and the UK are likely to distance themselves from the existing close relationship and opt for arrangements that serve their needs consistently and are not exposed to external shocks from time to time. This line of thought may lead to the emergence of a self-reliant EU with robust security and trading policies. For this move away from dependence on America in vital matters of national interests, EU and the UK will get enthusiastic support from countries in Latin America, Africa and the Middle- East, all of which are being bullied by America over immigration and trade issues. The Arab countries, stung by President Trump's declaration to take over Gaza and own it for development into a Mediterranean riviera, will lean on the Europeans, weaning them away from dependence on unreliable America.

The recent developments unfurled by the present American administration may be a game-changer. As a result of these developments a serious rethink will take place among the policy wonks in Europe and elsewhere outside of America to forge new relationships in security and trading regimes, replacing the existing ones. If that process gains traction, a new world order may emerge which will be multi-polar in dimension, with Europe as one of the centre of power, America taking up the second and Russia, China and North Korea becoming the third centre of power. The rest of the countries will remain non-aligned, doing business with the three blocks in pursuance of their interests. If this kite flying were to become real, the world would be a better place than it is now.

hasnat.hye5@gmail.com