Toward a New World Order

We are moving toward a new world order. This statement was one of the most repeated ones in recent years. Once the 21st century began, the process known as “post-Cold War” started to die out. It would be the end of unipolarity.

After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States enjoyed a position of absolute international power, but it soon began to find itself questioned. Emerging actors began to gain international prominence. The BRIC thesis, propagated by Goldman Sachs in 2001, gave theoretical structure to the analysis of this new equilibrium. Brazil, Russia, India and China, in theory, would be the countries that led global growth. This trend, together with American stagnation, would give shape to a multipolar world order.

But trends change. Developed nations begin to show signs of recovery. The United States is an example. In the last trimester of 2013, American gross domestic product grew at a 3.4 percent annual rate, a number that is far from negligible. Domestic conditions have led the Federal Reserve to reduce its stimulus packages and limit international liquidity. This new scenario has shaken the currencies of the heretofore solid emerging countries, from Brazil to South Africa and Turkey. They all have suffered the effects of this change in the monetary equation. Are we moving toward a new world order?

Possibly the only real competitor against American economic supremacy is the Asian giant. Since the reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978, China grows at (pardon the redundancy) Chinese rates.

Growth forecasts for 2014 for Brazil (2 percent), Russia (1.5 percent), India (5 percent) and South Africa (2.7 percent) have diminished to rates comparable to the United States’ (2.8 percent). China, although in something of a slowdown, continues growing far above the world average. While gross world product will grow 3 percent in 2014, the Chinese economy will grow by 7.5 percent. Beijing keeps catching up with Washington, and if current trends continue, it could even surpass it.

The United States, for the most part, has not seen its ability to act change with the arrival of this nascent multilateral balance of power. The only real constraint on its ambitions has been the Kremlin. The only two actors with sufficiently solid military (and political) muscle that can be a check on one another are precisely variations of the archenemies of the late Cold War. This was demonstrated during the war in Georgia in 2008 and in the bloody and never-ending Syrian crisis. Moscow has been able to set a limit on American ambitions and has kept the Marines outside of its zone of direct influence.

“Faraway” China can place itself here again as a relevant piece on the geopolitical chessboard. Its defense budget grows, already achieving second place in the world ranking. At the same time the tensions between the Asian country and the United States over territorial disputes in the South China Sea represent, possibly, the greatest point of international tension heading into the future.

Whether it is due to its economic, military, demographic or geographic capabilities, or the sum of all of the above, China appears to be the only actor capable of altering the foundations of the balance of world power. The interesting thing is that this is not big news.

It is important to remember that, in spite of the passage of time, the international political architecture shows itself to be anachronistic and static. The status quo of the United Nations Security Council still respects the logic derived from the results of the Second World War. Such a situation allows an arguably decaying power such as France, for example, to operate militarily and at will in its former colonies. Recent interventions in Mali and the Central African Republic confirm this. Neither Germany nor Japan, economic superpowers, have been able to free themselves from the tight military leash imposed by the Allies after the fall of the Axis almost seven decades ago.

Due to all that has been discussed here, it is worth asking ourselves whether we are really moving toward a new world order. It is possible that the title of this article is itself incorrect. But that is precisely the point. To invite us to reflect on the uncertain future of this complex global reality.