Dr. Salam Al Rabadi: Researcher in International
Relations.
There is no scientific method
that allows accurate predictions about the future of the global system, as all
propositions that indicate and predict the decline or rise of world powers
remain subject to debate and uncertainty. Consequently, if the crisis of the
"Covid19" pandemic manages to re-raise question marks about the
global balance of power, but here it must be taken into account (contrary to
what is common among many academic elites) that changes in these balances at
the level of international relations, are no longer subject to Largely to a
zero-sum game(Non Zero-Sum Game).
In other words, an increase in
the influence and power of a country does not necessarily mean that other
countries lose their influence. Also, the fact that a country is the most
powerful country in the world, this no longer means its monopoly on power, as
it has become easy for individuals and groups to accumulate and employ
influential power.
In this context, we can
address the attempts of intellectual and political elites to research the
problematic of the emerging global reality in light of the repercussions of the
Covid-19 outbreak, related to the dialectic comparison between China's rising
power and the declining standing of the United States.
Here, attention should be
drawn to the fact that this decline is due to the change in the nature of the
world order, more than to the military or political weakness of the United
States (or both). As this system has become Non-Polar, and this inevitably, is
not only a result of the growing power of other countries and the failure of
the United States (which is still the largest single community of power) to
manage the global system, but is also an inevitable consequence of this array
of profound changes that have affected the structure of global society.
Therefore, all the
repercussions of the "Covid19" pandemic came to confirm the truth and
realism of these changes.
In light of the foregoing,
contemporary international relations are based on a pattern of distributed
rather than concentrated power. So, many powers depend on this pattern for
their economic well-being and political stability. Therefore, these forces
logically do not favor confronting and disrupting a regime that serves their
interests, as there is an intersection and intertwining of influence.
Consequently, this is a pattern in which the United States still plays a
central role that works to reduce conflicts between the major powers, and that
definitely will produce solutions based on non-zero equations. However, with
all these logical facts, we cannot ignore the question marks raised about:
How is the real influence of the
power of the United States, not stabilized for more than 20 or 25 years?
And judging from the
conclusion based on extrapolating the causes of the fall of empires and the
reality of current global politics, it is evident that the long-term relative
decline in the power of the United States will continue regardless of attempts
to restore it. Accordingly, the logical question may become (at least in the
scope of scientific and academic research):
Not if China will become the
world's first superpower, but when?
In
conclusion, if we methodically ,try not to enter the research approach in the
swamps of fundamental strategic questions related to predicting the future of
world powers, but it seems that there is no escape for us from diving into the
midst of these swamps, which carry in each of its depths additional pleasure
from the pleasures of extrapolating the future of international relations.
Accordingly, with regard to China and in the event that we transcend some of
the aforementioned academic concepts, the deep and most important academic
strategic quagmire that should be dived (which many political and academic
elites avoid from delving into its depths) is:
Does
China really want(or is thinking) about assuming the responsibility of leading
the world? and if it has this desire, Is it ready to do so? and Does that serve
its strategic interests at the present time?
This strategic quagmire,
according to the repercussions of the Covid_19 pandemic and the changes taking
place at the level of international relations, raises many dialectic related to
the attempt to extrapolate the future of global politics and the main actors in
it. In the midst of this reality, it is possible to deal with the problematic
of the classification of the global system related to the terms unipolar,
bipolar, or multipolar..etc, which have become meaningless. Based on the realism of intellectual approaches, it seems
somewhat difficult to see a global system controlled by one pole, or even
several poles. This is due to many qualitative factors, whether cultural,
economic or political, which have become one of the most important determinants
of international relations, including, for example, but not limited to:
1- There is no single state that
enjoys superiority in all elements of power ([1]).
2- The repercussions of the
knowledge age(crossing political, cultural and security boundaries).
3- The emergence of the
phenomenon of terrorism in all its manifestations.
4- Problems of the environmental
issue, demography and migration issues.
5- The pace of scientific and
technological developments at all levels.
6- The intertwining of global
economy and the multiplicity of the influence of many forces within it ([2]).
7- Shifts in criteria for
measuring military capability ([3]).
Thus, it can be said that the
world of international relations is subject today to a polarless system, as a
result of the inevitable pattern of changes that have increased the
complexities associated with issues of terrorism, the environment, technology,
media, viruses (real and electronic) and cultural problematics ..etc. This
pattern supports the non-polar system, according to several directions,
including:
1-
Many
flows take place outside the control of states and thus limit the influence of
the major powers.
2-
Some developments
that serve Regional Countries and increase the margin of their effectiveness
and independence ([4]).
3-
The
existence of enormous wealth subject to the grip of individuals and new active
forces.
In
light of the foregoing, we can say that we are currently in an era far from the
classical classifications associated with the term polarity, not to mention the
difficulty of fully understanding these huge radical shifts in international
relations (whether in terms of the structure of the global economy or the
reality of global politics). Where, it has become clear that the global system
dynamics continues to move and complicate.
Therefore, it must be taken
into account, even if the non-polarity system is inevitable but deserves
caution, as it may generate more randomness and vacuum at the global political
level. Thus, here it is necessary to examine the dilemma of how to find that
kind of equilibrium around the formation of the non-polar world. This,
inevitably, calls into question the extent of the possibility of a global consensus
around these new balances?
Here, when we talk about balances in international
relations, we invoke the fact that the pattern of regularity will not arise on
its own. Even if the (non-polar) global system is left to operate according to
its own approach, that will inevitably make it more complex and head towards
more chaos. This is the least that can be concluded from confusion about how
to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic crisis, and the so-called medical mask wars.
Accordingly, consideration must be directed towards
the potential risks, as the global order(Non-polar) will complicate political
diplomacy, and alliances will lose much of their importance, because they
require a strategic vision to confront predictable threats and commitments. But
inevitably all of this is not expected to be available in a non-polar world.
Based on that, those risks (despite the existence of
many problematic and dialectic at the level of the trends of the evolution of
the global system, which make predicting future scenarios a daunting scientific
task) require raising question marks about the nature of the forces that are
able to take the initiative and dive into the depths of taking responsibility
for leading global politics?
[1] The term sole superpower is no longer appropriate in light of the
current reality of multiple centers of power. For example, China has proven
that the United States cannot unilaterally address North Korea's nuclear file,
and it is the one who has the effective influence on this issue. Also, the ability
of the United States to pressure Iran is largely subject to its non-conflict
with the direct strategic interests of China and Russia.
[2] This is evidenced by the circumstances of the
negotiations in the World Trade Organization, and the difficulty in reaching
agreements in the Doha Round since 2001.
[3] For example, the events of September 11th demonstrated how a small
investment by individuals can tip global scales on the military, security,
political, and even economic levels. Likewise, Hezbollah's victory in the July
2006 war (which was launched by the Israeli occupation state) proves that the
most advanced and expensive modern weapons cannot win wars, as trained group of armed with light weapons can
prove that they are able to confront the largest and best-armed armies.
[4] For example, countries
such as India and Pakistan (and recently Iran) were able to impose their entry
into the nuclear club, as a fait accompli on the global community.
