Published in 2017, “A World in Disarray: American Foreign
Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order”, is Richard Haass’s
treatise on the current state of global relations. His thesis is
clear: Populism and nationalism are on the rise, and
globalization and international involvement are under threat
across the globe.
Professor Haass begins with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which many experts agree marks the end of the Cold War. Experts and pundits were quick to proselytize that no longer would we be living in a bi-polar world, a world in which the United States and the USSR would continue to fight for global domination, both on the political and cultural front. A whole new world order, they maintained, would eventually be created.
Historians and political scientists would prove to be right, but not in the way they imagined. We are now living in an age where power is distributed in more hands than at any other time in history. Or as the American author Ian Bremmer reminded policy makers in 2012: It’s every nation for itself.
The Cold War had its advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage was mutual self- destruction as the US and the Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons at an alarming rate. The advantage: fear of mutual self-destruction meant both sides agreed to mechanisms assuring no conflict would ensue. And of course, there were only two main actors involved, with each side in a position of keeping smaller allies in place. Hence the lack of nuclear proliferation among smaller state actors.
The other advantage which Haass doesn’t significantly explore is the lack of animosity that existed between these two superpowers based on tribal affiliation, race, ethnicity, or religion. In short, there was no intense hatred between the US and Soviet Union, a phenomenon which usually characterizes states experiencing sectarian violence. The current conflict in the Middle East between Shias and Sunnis is a good example. The Cold War simply pitted a largely non-emotional belief in capitalism and democracy (led by the US and its western allies), against a belief in Communism, led by the Soviet Union and its allies, many of which were states located in Eastern Europe and the developing world. There were also non-aligned nations, but they remained for the most part unarmed and geopolitically insignificant.
Haass does a good job of synthesizing the issue of global politics from an historical prospective. The end of the Second World War in 1945 saw the coming together of European states to form what would eventually evolve into the European Union, the creation of liberal democracies in Germany and Japan, the creation of new states in the developing world with the collapse of colonial powers (notably those of France and the UK), the creation of international institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, various treaties on non-proliferation, and the creation of international norms, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The post-cold war in contrast is characterized by the rise of China and to a lesser extent, India, increase in global trade, mass migration from the countryside to the cities, the emergence of technology and its ability to take power away from states, and lastly, the rising importance of non-governmental states like Doctors Without Borders that seek to improve the human condition. But it’s not all positive. The world has also seen the emergence of non-state actors like so-called Islamic state that are capable of destabilizing countries and whole regions.
Richard Haass is what we might call a dying breed: in essence, a moderate Republican! An American diplomat for much of his career, Haass has been president of the Council on Foreign Relations since 2003, and received the US State Department’s Distinguished Service Award for his role in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. But more importantly, he remains a voice of reason and caution in a country (America) that seems all too eager to use force to end major global conflicts.
So what are his solutions for a world in disarray? To begin with, Haass stresses that even global powers like the United States have limitations. He gives as an example the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 which quickly led to the destabilization of the Middle East, and all but tore the Iraqi state apart, leading not only to a breakdown in law and order, but also to the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians. As Haass points out, today’s Middle East “is the result of local pathologies made worse by foreign policy action and inaction”.
Haass also correctly points out that what we are experiencing today is the emergence of weak states. Countries from around the world are unable to control what takes place within their borders, whether in regard to illegal drug trafficking (Afghanistan), fighting separatist insurgents (Philippines), or keeping peace between competing sectarian groups (Syria, Iraq, and Kenya come to mind, but the list is lengthy).
Just as importantly is the rise of what political commentator Fareed Zakaria calls “illiberal democracies”, with all the dangers they pose to regional stability. Russia, Turkey, and Iran are but three examples. These are states characterized by disrespect for the rule of law, few checks and balances, and disregard for minority rights.
Haass’s answer to the above situation is to remind his fellow compatriots in the US that America’s primary role for the immediate future should not be to promote democracy but to help other states reduce corruption, develop the rule of law, increase opportunity for girls and women, increase the space for civil society, promote education, and encourage economic reforms that reduce the role of government and energy sector. In other words, to promote liberty over democracy as the latter cannot develop without the former first laying the groundwork.
But more importantly, he argues the US needs to get its economic house in order by controlling the nation’s debt load, taming political discourse between Democrats and Republicans, avoiding needless and reckless invasions of countries (Iraq in 2003), and making certain that a near economic meltdown does not happen as almost occurred in 2008.
Haass is a realist and sees the Westphalian model, created in 1648, whereby independent states agreed not to interfere in one another’s internal affairs, as pertinent today as it was in the 17th century. But as he points out, the world is more inter dependent today than it ever has been, thanks to such pressing issues as global trade, the refugee crisis in Europe, climate change, and the fight against global terrorism.
In the end, Haass argues that sovereignty between and among states needs to remain at the core of any future global order, all while developing a definition of legitimacy that embraces not just rights but also the obligations of sovereign states in relation to one another. Haas concludes by adding that the lack of international standards and norms is at the heart of the problem.
SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Haass is an American patriot, but unlike so many of his compatriots, a humble man who understands that the West led by the United States can no longer lecture the rest of humanity on what a future world order should look like. This means accepting the notion that not all international standards and norms will be reflective of western values. And here’s the problem: Are we in the West able to accept that no longer will the World Order be structured entirely around western values, including those tied to the belief in liberal democracy? Will the West, led by the US and the European Union, be able to put its economic house in order? Will Americans and Europeans agree to reform international institutions like the National Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, so that non-western states are given adequate representation?
The world is currently in disarray but the situation may grow worse if a new world order based on mutual respect between western and non-western states is not created. Regional instability, international trade and prosperity, climate change, tax evasion, money laundering, refugee crises, terrorism, and female empowerment, all require that international standards be created to deal with them.
Haass has good reasons to worry that a US in disarray will either lead to a future world in crisis, or one led by non- western actors, like China, which for all its economic might, remains an authoritarian state. Part of the solution, which Haas does not discuss, is the lack of interest which most American citizens show either in foreign affairs or in any attempt to understand foreign cultures, a topic which Political Scientist and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski discussed in “Strategic Order: America and the Crisis of Global Order”, published in 2012.
As Haass points out, we can expect a future where weak states continue to flounder, increased sectarian violence within states as we’re currently witnessing in Yemen, and continued de- centralizing of political power, as non-state actors, both good and bad, along with the rise of technology, all challenge state authority.
The rise of technology is especially important. Will technology be used as much for the good as for the bad? Will states be strong enough to control bad actors within its borders, such as terrorist groups, money launderers, separatists, sectarian groups vying for power, computer hackers, and criminals?
Haass is correct when he maintains that whether a new global order is created will depend on the ability of healthy societies with strong and competent governments to come together and create a global order that includes both western and non-western values.
Time will tell what new order will eventually be created. But the fact that current international statesmen include the likes of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is definitely a bad omen.
