Opinion In 2024, the international order is changing — economically and strategically

The very pillars established in the aftermath of World War II are on the verge of reshaping. Gone are the days of readily granting market access as a reward for geopolitical alignment

The outbreak of interstate wars, exemplified by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, undermines the core tenets of the economic interdependence theory and democratic peace theory — the two pillars of the liberal international order. (Reuters)

Mohammed Soliman

January 16, 2024 09:55 AM IST First published on: Jan 9, 2024 at 02:02 PM IST

The world stands at a crossroads in 2024. A confluence of forces — resurgent nationalism, protectionism, minilateralism, and the resurgence of interstate wars — challenges the post-World War II order. This tectonic shift portends a state of global disorder, as the US, the primary architect of the post-war order, is no longer able to bear the sole responsibility of maintaining its stability. The rise of nationalism — fueled by cultural wars, political polarisation, economic inequalities, and resentment against elites — threatens to redefine globalisation and its trajectory. Protectionism, once a relic of the past, is resurfacing as a new normal. Minilateralism, a pragmatic and agile alternative to traditional multilateralism, emerges as a potential solution but could, in its proliferation, further fragment global governance. The outbreak of interstate wars, exemplified by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, undermines the core tenets of the economic interdependence theory and democratic peace theory — the two pillars of the liberal international order.

The resurgence of nationalism
The widening gap between the rich and the poor, culture wars, and mass immigration have created fertile ground for the rise of nationalist sentiments, which emphasise national interests and realpolitik over multilateralism and international cooperation. This shift is evident in the growing popularity of populist and nationalist political parties around the world, which advocate for protectionist policies, stricter immigration controls, and a more inward-looking approach to foreign affairs. As countries increasingly prioritise their own interests and seek to assert their sovereignty, the prospects for global cooperation on issues such as climate change, pandemic response, and international trade appear more uncertain — ultimately leading to the erosion of the liberal international order.

Express Research | India and the two wars that dominated 2023

Protectionism is the new normal
In the face of economic uncertainty and globalisation, the working class in developed and developing countries increasingly see protectionism as a means to safeguard economic stability, boost job creation, stimulate economic growth, and enhance national competitiveness, fair labour practices, and overall social well-being — at least, this is the thesis of their case. It is unsurprising that one of the key policies carried over from the Trump administration to the Biden administration is the growing scepticism around free trade. This is evident in the administration’s recent economic initiatives — the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, I2U2, and the Declaration on Atlantic Partnership — all of which conspicuously lack traditional free trade clauses focused on lowering tariffs and barriers. Gone are the days of readily granting market access as a reward for geopolitical alignment.

Also Read | Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes: Gaza is being talked to death, with no remedy to stop the deaths

The proliferation of minilateralism
In response to the perceived ineffectiveness of multilateralism, a new trend of minilateralism has emerged. Minilateralism involves the formation of small groups of countries that share common interests and are willing to coordinate their actions on specific issues. Examples of minilateral arrangements include the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), AUKUS, I2U2, and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor. Minilateralism offers several advantages over traditional multilateralism. It allows countries to focus on a narrower range of issues and make decisions more quickly and efficiently. It also provides a more flexible and agile framework for cooperation, as countries can join or leave minilateral arrangements as their interests dictate. However, minilateralism also has its drawbacks. It can lead to competition among minilateral groups, as countries try to advance their own interests at the expense of others. The proliferation of minilateralism could also create a fragmented international system, making it more difficult to address global challenges that require cooperation from a wide range of countries.

Also Read | C Raja Mohan writes: At G20, the end of old multilateralism – and the beginning of a new order

The return of interstate wars
The year 2024 looms under the chilling shadow of interstate wars, cast long by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It lays bare the international order’s vulnerability to the unchecked ambitions of power, and ushers in a historic pivot: The return of an era where an increasing number of leaders believe in using military power to achieve political goals, with consequences as dire as they are unpredictable for global security and stability. While the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israeli military campaign in Gaza capture headlines, simmering tensions across the globe threaten to erupt into renewed interstate conflict. In Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro threatens to annex Guyana’s resource-rich Essequibo region. Meanwhile, the Horn of Africa teeters on the brink after a deal between Ethiopia and Somaliland, which grants Addis Ababa access to the Red Sea while acknowledging the breakaway region’s autonomy, sparking concerns about its implications for regional stability. In Myanmar, the military junta faces setbacks following a major offensive by rebel forces, raising anxieties about the potential spillover of the conflict into China due to their existing ties with some rebel groups. Finally, the unresolved dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan threatens to erupt into another round of conflict.

So, what next?
As the mid-2020s loom, the tectonic plates of global order are undergoing a dramatic shift. Resurgent nationalism, protectionism, minilateralism, and the spectre of renewed interstate wars paint a stark picture of a world teetering on the edge of a new era. In this post-post-Cold War era, the very pillars of the international order established in the aftermath of World War II are on the verge of fundamental reshaping. In this seismic upheaval, the most important question hangs heavy in the air: Can we reimagine a global order that transcends American dominance and charts a new course for the future?

The writer is a director at the Middle East Institute