The international politics has entered a peculiar stage. The United States of America is no more claiming the leadership of liberal order it has historically built, maintained and promoted. It is retreating from the stage of world politics while at the same time adopting a confrontational attitude. The furtherance of this rule-based liberal order, envisaged by Woodrow Wilson and modified by Franklin D. Roosevelt, is no more a kernel of America foreign policy. The whole Cold-war was a struggle to make liberal international order—defined by promotion of democracy, free trade, human rights, institutionalism and where rule and not power is the currency—a general accepted norm of international politics. For the purpose the democratic America, during four decades of Cold-war, even supported authoritarian regimes and toppled various democratic governments in order to champion this liberal order. The irony of fate: a realpolitik was exercised by a democratic state to spread a liberal order that altogether is antithesis of realpolitik. Was it a realpolitik against realpolitik or for liberal order? The question aside, the struggle for this liberal order was further intensified during post-Cold war era. But now the actions of president Trump of America has clearly indicates a break. The songs of liberal order is no more appealing to American ears.
The actions of Trump, it is clear, conflict with liberal ethos. He turned against World Health Organization during the health emergency caused by Covid-19. The sanctioning of employees of International Criminal Court by President Trump is previous week story. He has no taste for romance with European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He has put question marks on liberal values such as free trade, human rights and democracy. He abhors media. And altogether his disdain for costly leadership role is clear by retreating from Middle East and Afghanistan without clearing mess American helped created.
Things are crystal clear. America in deep uncertainty is turning inward. This deep uncertainty defines its foreign policy. For the first time in its existence, if agreement is made with former prime minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, America does not have a grand strategy to deal with happenings of international politics. It certainly has an attitude but a grand strategy? Similarly, there is deep division in Washington about immediate questions: the question of Iran and North Korea, the dealing with Russia and the most gigantic strategic competitor China. It must be remembered that these four states were identified by Trump’s National Security Strategy of 2017 as the most serious challenges and strategic competitors. Particularly about China, Washington oscillates between followers of semi-containment and advocates of full blown containment. This is the biggest question and certainly American response to it will define the contour of future of international politics: how to respond to the rise of China. Thus, how to deal with emerging powers for the large part has occupied American thinking.
But the emerging powers, as popular wisdom argues, are not revisionist powers. They have risen in the same setting of liberal world order. These rising power would not want to dent the existing setting. It is this existing setting of international politics that is conducive to their growth. However, with the increase of power, the interests of states also grow. It is certainly clear that these rising powers will demand a right place under the sun. They will ask and attempt to modify rules of international politics in accordance with their interests. Monopoly of institutions by few Euro-Atlantic powers would be hard to fathom by them. If their demands are responded with indifference, it is fear that their growing sense of frustration would only accelerates.
Therefore, reason demands that American must no respond with retreat for confrontational politics if rising powers ask for their due share in the leadership of international politics. Such a retreat would be counterproductive not only on the part of America but to world at large. Moreover, turning inward would create a vacuum on the stage of world politics. The sudden disappearance of driver from the seat of international politics would itself be tantamount to crisis. Other players will, in the absence of other choice, step in to fill the vacuum. Similarly, America in its retreat from liberal order must not adopt a confrontational attitude, particularly towards China. Both these powerful states have deep engagements with various states across the world. The binary situation would be generated for all these states if a cold-war type confrontation begins. Furthermore, a cold-war confrontation in the deep engagement and non-traditional security threats of climate change and cyberwarfare would be nothing but a slow suicide. The rising non-traditional security threats demand a genuine cooperation. These threat do not discriminate, as epitomized by Covid-19, between a liberal country and an illiberal state. The fact must be get right: ‘there is no national response to poverty and inequality, the degradation of the environment, the depletion of the earth and the oceans, the migration crisis’.
What should be done ? Inclusivity, strengthening of existing institutions, recognizing the limits of American engagement, restraint while at the same time respecting the security of other states and sharing the burden of world leadership—these should be the defining policy element of Trans-Atlantic status quo. The existing order and institutions must engage and include the emerging powers in decision-making process. The United States must abandon the dictatorial attitude and must not overreach by taking unnecessary engagements. Such engagements breed frustrations and compel a state to turn inward after futile exercises. The views of John Bolton-like and Tom Cotton-like personalities should be discouraged. At the same time the genuine security interests of other states should be taken into consideration before formulating any policy. Policy after all is form in mutual process. And the status quo must realize that it cannot simultaneously take multiple engagements. The emerging powers by sharing the burden of leadership would take responsibility for order, stability and ensure non-traditional security. To conclude, the sincere exercise of these policy elements, albeit sound the cry of idealism, is not a choice but a practical necessity.
