Twenty five years ago, on 26 December 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed leaving the US as the world’s sole superpower and paving the way for the Western-led international order to advance unchallenged. This led one renowned scholar to famously proclaim the ‘end of history’, understood as the triumph of liberal and social democracy over other forms of government and implying the coming of an era of prosperity and progress for all peoples and nations. But developments in the ensuing twenty five years have questioned this vision.
The nineties saw the onset of bloody wars and conflict in the Balkans and Subsaharan Africa, and the beginning of the expansion of NATO and the EU into the former Soviet Union’s heartlands. In the first decade of the 2000’s we woke up to the tune of 9/11 and the subsequent disastrous War on Terror, followed by the Great Recession and Europe’s twin debt and euro crises. In the 2010’s, the Arab world revolted and, with the exception of Tunisia, most countries have either descended into chaos (Libya), fallen under military rule (Egypt), or broken into an endless civil war (Syria) that has killed thousands and pushed as many into forced exile, in turn resulting in the worst refugee crisis since WWII.
Meanwhile, the US appears in retreat while China continues to rise and Russia claims a renewed position in the geopolitical chessboard following the annexation of Crimea and its direct intervention in the Syrian conflict. Islamist terrorism has repeatedly hit European cities, Latin America remains afflicted with political instability, widespread crime, drug and street violence, and cyber warfare poses an ever increasing transnational threat, as do climate change, the ongoing proliferation of weapons (large, small, conventional and unconventional), and rising inequality, energy and food shortages.
All of these developments have undermined the ‘end of history thesis’, leading pundits, scholars and cultural critics to come up with counterarguments including one that claimed ‘the end of the end of history’ or that we are living in the ‘end of (capitalist) times’. Discussing all these arguments is beyond the scope of this article but no one can deny that the world is going through very challenging times, or that the original ‘end of history’ thesis was at the very least premature and overly optimistic. Of course, there have been advances in many areas and the picture is overall more balanced than pessimists would make us believe. Yet the reality is that all these developments are seriously undermining the resilience of the international order and threatening world peace.
As we look ahead, two events that have taken place in the latter part of 2016 have added fuel to the fire: Brexit and Donald Trump’s victory in the US national elections. Pollsters, media outlets and world leaders did not think of Brexit as a real possibility. Yet on 23 June the UK greeted its European partners and the rest of the world with a ‘NO to the EU’. The rising politics of rupture and fear forced then UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s hand. Cameron thought he could erect himself as the saviour of the Conservative Party by calling and winning a referendum. He gambled and lost.
Islamist terrorists are exploiting the European crisis better than any other actor, in turn fuelling the rise of populist movements that pressure predominantly liberal governments into passing laws that undermine civil liberties and the fundamental European principle of the free movement of peoples. Brexit has deepened Europe’s crisis of identity at a time where the French and the Germans are heading to the polls. What will happen next is very difficult to decipher, but the only way to avert full damage is to answer with more Europe: better policies, stronger leadership, more integration and a strengthening of democratic institutions.
Donald Trump has capitalised very well on Brexit. Riding on its back, he sold himself as a man who despises political correctness and integration. He insulted Mexicans, women, and Muslims, while promising to make America great again. During his campaign he promised to build a wall to shield the US from Latin American migration, threatened to jail his opponent and questioned the electoral process. Most ironic of all, he won the US election on the same day (9 November) as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Since winning he has somewhat tamed his discourse but his choice of chief tenants exposes him greatly: he has formed a government of white ex army men and billionaires.
What will his foreign policy look like remains to be seen. Putin has greeted his arrival to the White House but China is less content after Trump broke decades of diplomatic protocol on the issue of one-China policy. Meanwhile, he has heavily criticised Obama’s policy in Syria and is grappling with the tensions of working with Russia while reigning in Iran, with whom Russia is working together in Syria. Will Trump roll back the nuclear deal with Iran and push for regime change? Will he give ‘carte blanche’ to Israel? Will he kill Obama’s ‘Pivot’ to Asia? Will he undermine NATO and withdraw from Europe? Will he abandon efforts aimed at curbing nuclear arsenals and proliferation?
Many experts describe Trump as a pragmatist, so he may deploy a foreign policy that is pragmatic enough so as to avert further conflict and resolve disputes through an efficient use of sticks and carrots. However, his choice of cabinet members suggests a return to a period of threats backed up by force. He also has no experience in politics or statesmanship, he is unpredictable and erratic, and he loves the unrestraint use of social media where he is known to speak up his mind without factoring in the associated diplomatic consequences. This scares foes as much as it scares his own party and US allies.
All in all, this is a defining moment in history. Tensions are high, as are the stakes.
