New World Dis(Order)

Sergiu CEBAN

We witness the formation of several international coalitions that are making the final preparations for the start of the global reformation process

Recently, US President Joe Biden made a number of loud statements with the leitmotif that humanity needs a “new world order” to replace the one that has prevailed for the past half-century and, apparently, has outlived itself. According to the American leader, the world has reached a turning point in history, and the decisions made in the next four or five years will determine the next forty or fifty. And it is exactly the United States that can unite the world in a way “that has never been done before.” The series of regional crises in the Black Sea region, the Caucasus and the Middle East has become a stark testament to the rapid unbalancing of the current international relations. According to experts, further disorganization threatens the emergence of new and renewed “frozen” conflicts and, ultimately, the risks of global escalation. At the same time, Washington, which still claims to play a leading role as the “world gendarme”, has in fact failed to prevent the birth of another hot spot in the Middle East and is still struggling to contain the burning fire of this warfare. It is indicative that Biden’s visit to Israel not only failed to achieve diplomatic goals, but had the opposite impact. The attempt to act as a mediator and peacemaker resulted in a weakening of U.S. authority in the region and a decline in trust on the part of influential Gulf states. By and large, the disruption of the Middle East summit after a missile hit one of the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, as well as a strike on a U.S. military base in Syria, predetermined the failed tour of the American president. Biden’s statements before the Israeli trip about the United States as “one of the most powerful nations in the history of mankind” certainly look flashy, but poorly fit into today’s realities. Dissuading the Israeli authorities from conducting a land operation calls into question the U.S. ability to act with confidence and resolve. In the current global context, the White House really does not want to open an additional front and aggravate the already challenging situation of the current administration, which still has to prepare for the presidential race. In addition, the United States has to take into account the alternative views on the world order. The technological cycle in which the United States was the dominant player is coming to an end, and the world is facing a competitive struggle with an expanded pool of participants. Moreover, times of uncertainty, when the future of international relations is unknown, will be accompanied by a long period of instability. Therefore, one of Washington’s main tasks is to keep the world from a global collision during this transit period, since, as we can see, no safeguards against local crises work anymore. We can assume that the U.S. wants to enter the “new era” as a strong leader capable of independently managing international crises and conflicts. As the White House believes, this should guarantee a strong position of the United States in a renewed world order configuration and prevent Russia from realizing its revanchist aspirations. Two key summits held last week can be perceived as a harbinger of the next phase of the world order’s reformation. The first of them - the US-EU - was supposed to strengthen transatlantic ties, coordinate Washington and Brussels on key issues, primarily Ukraine and the Middle East, and synchronize joint actions to strengthen the position of the collective West. Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, China hosted the Belt and Road summit, which was personally attended by Vladimir Putin. After a six-month break, the leaders of Russia and China met again and quite expectedly criticized the U.S. and the West. At the same time, they emphasized their satisfaction with the close strategic coordination of their countries and the significant growth in mutual trade. The “words” and inevitably subsequent “deeds” of the Western and Eastern camps expose the gaping geopolitical split between the world’s leading powers. International relations structured in blocks will inevitably lead to even greater disorder in the world and particular regions. As history shows, the division of countries into groupings is fraught with major military catastrophes across the globe. Moscow and Beijing appear to have an interest in fueling simmering crises that will disperse U.S. attention and resources, weakening Washington’s ability to manage multiple conflict zones simultaneously. In so doing, it would apparently encourage other fluctuating global forces to pivot toward China and Russia. Putting an even greater “burden” on the shoulders of the U.S., the Sino-Russian tandem seems to be hoping to force the U.S. administration to reckon with the ambitions of other players. For the past two years, Western allies have focused all their power on countering Moscow and helping Ukraine, but the current risks of a widening problematic perimeter make their task much more difficult. Washington is certainly capable of providing significant military and material assistance to Israel, but every such “flashpoint,” whether on the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan or elsewhere, will require a concentration of financial and diplomatic resources that are scarce even in the United States. We witness the consolidation of various global forces and the formation of several international coalitions that are making the final preparations for the start of the global reformation process. The U.S. and its allies are trying to use their position, resources and authority to reassert their moral and historical advantage by demonstrating the success of the Western-centric model. Alternative players are using uncertainty and instability to shake the weakening hegemon’s position and offer what they see as a more equitable, polycentric form of governing international affairs. It is reasonable to ask where the future place of our country is in this complex system of coordinates of international politics. It is noteworthy that, in principle, assistance to Moldova was reflected in the final statement of the recent U.S.-EU summit. It indicates support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the republic and the intention to help resolve the problems we are facing as a result of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Whether this is good or bad, whether it is a reason for reassurance or, on the contrary, for even greater anxiety, let everyone decide for themselves. It seems that another reference to Moldova is a direct evidence of our inclusion in the zone of geopolitical confrontation, where another hotspot of tension may ignite, since this is the area of responsibility of the United States and its allies.