Strongman rule on the rise as liberal internationalism makes a retreat

The prospect exists that authoritarian China and Russia may replace US as principal custodians of world order

Contrary to expectations after the Cold War, the world has become a more dangerous and unpredictable place. What seems certain is that the decline of the West and the rise of China and Russia as revisionist powers have introduced a new global power equation that could yet spill over into increased confusion and untoward behaviour. Although their strategies reveal different dimensions, China’s and Russia’s common objective is to replace the prevailing West-centric liberal rules-based paradigm, which directed peaceful international relations since World War 2.

Of course, demands for change in the ruling system are totally legitimate. They come at a time when the “monocivilisational” paradigm on which international society was based for many decades, is losing legitimacy. Many non-Western countries strongly favour a more equitable and legitimate global system, although not the same as Russia and China stand for.

At the 2016 World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for the overhaul of the global governance system, which he suggested was outdated and represented the old West-centric global order. Like Russian leader Vladimir Putin, he aims to replace the present system with one that would better suit his and Putin’s own brand of authoritarian statecentrism, which ignores crimes against humanity in their countries, and which would help to spread their global influence and legitimacy.

Putin’s goal is to create a new international order in which Russia can play a dominant role, reminiscent to that of the Soviet Union. Openly, brazenly, and with impunity, the Kremlin has flouted the prevailing international law by way of territorial piracy, illegally using military force in Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

Western powers have always and persistently opposed changes to the status quo. However, weakened and divided as they are now, things may have changed. Indeed, there are clear signs that the “monocivilisational” paradigm on which international society was based for many decades, is losing legitimacy, although what China and Russia want is not the answer.

Warnings in the past by prominent intellectuals about the legitimacy and sustainability of the present system have simply been ignored. Oswald Spengler, for example, denounced the myopic view of history, being based solely on Western experience, as an “empty figment of one linear history”. Also, Arnold Toynbee criticised the “parochialism and impertinence” of the West, assuming “egocentric illusions” that there was only “one river of civilisation, our own, and that all others are either tributary to it or lost in the desert sands”. However, in spite of these warnings, writes US political scientist Samuel Huntington, the illusions and prejudices “have blossomed forth in the widespread parochial conceit that the European civilisation of the West is now the universal civilisation”.

No doubt, without adherence to a rules-based system, a Hobbesian “war-of-all-against-all” scenario, might very well have been the fate of the world.

Since the Peace of Westphalia (1648), European nations, relying mainly on a commonly shared religious, moral and intellectual outlook, have been the main creators and custodians of an orderly “international society” in which they cooperated because it was in their interest to do so.

Through the forces of imperialism, mercantilism, colonialism, and since World War 2, Pax Americana, the norms and practices of international society became universal, albeit not quite legitimate.

US leadership helped decisively to avoid a Hobbesian catastrophe. President Woodrow Wilson maintained that a global liberal order was a vital US interest. Peace was sought by way of the promotion of human rights, democracy, the rule of law, multilateralism and diplomatic conventions protected by US hegemony.

Ironically, with the help of Trumpian America, this era might now be nearing its end. Its abdication from its role as guarantor of a rulesbased world order has created a dangerous vacuum in world politics. According to The Economist, ‘’‘there is a decline of deterrence’’. US power is “no longer alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends”.

Of course, relying on a Leviathan for maintenance of international national peace and stability, as the West has done since World War 2, is per definition unsustainable. Given the ebbs and flows of power politics, it inevitably promoted a culture of dependency and a false sense of security among its adherents.

The piggy-backing US has simply perpetuated and aggravated the structural flaws in the world political system since World War 2. Under Donald Trump’s erratic leadership, these deficiencies were clearly demonstrated. His cavalier treatment of long-standing friends and allies in Europe, giving succour to extremist parties and governments, and his reluctance to adhere to multilateral international law regimes should convince Europeans that the time has come to liberate themselves from being a captive ally of the US and fend for itself.

They also should be aware that Putin’s authoritarianism and Xi’s Leninist-capitalist brand of governance are gaining traction among reactionary factions in the West, who admire strongman rule. And as history shows, when the world is led by one or more authoritarian power, more countries become authoritarian.

So, with liberal internationalism in retreat, the world might very well be faced with the prospect of an authoritarian China, in lockstep with an authoritarian Russia, substituting the US as principal custodians of world order. Sensing the West’s vulnerability, an ominous part of China’s and Russia’s revisionist quest is to discredit Western democracies as a way to enhance their own models.

New dictatorships are being propped up by nostrings-attached financial aid and weapons, weakening Western leverage to demand respect for human rights and the promotion of the rule of law. They simply aspire to take over from the US to enforce their own preferable system in a quest for world leadership and to perpetuate their brand of authoritarianism. The alternatives they offer, are by all indications, a step backwards: a return to anachronistic Westphalianism, nationalistic authoritarian power politics, disrespect for human rights, and self-interested inward-looking Machiavellianism.

Ideally, a new global order should be based on justice, morality and equality, on insight rather than a response to chaos. Security lies in the multiplicity of interests.

Today’s interdependent, multitransactional world is one of intense societal interaction across national borders, constant communication, unparallelled knowledge proliferation, interdependence vulnerability, mutual dependence, overarching values, regional integration, multilateralism and globalisation.

Chaos could be prevented by these forces, but only if democratic leadership proves to be up to the challenge.

● Olivier is emeritus professor at the University of Pretoria and a former SA ambassador.