Essay: The Impending Super-Power Rivalry

                         The Impending Super-Power Rivalry

Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, has killed tens of thousands and afflicted many more across the world. Even developed nations are scrambling to contain the pandemic and Italy and Spain are grasping at straws to mitigate the economic losses and human suffering already inflicted by the pandemic. At such trying times, an idealist would have expected to see a coming together of countries, shedding their differences for the time being, and taking collective efforts to weather this maelstrom of a crisis. The institutional framework exists in the form of the United Nations and its numerous subsidiary and specialised wings. After all, it was precisely to fight these common problems that the UN was founded. Indeed, the Coronavirus provides a much-needed recipe for global cooperation and camaraderie. However, what we have witnessed so far is not collective action with a common purpose, but distinct and assertive domestic efforts tinged with a reluctance to liaise with partners. President Trump wants to leverage the obscurity this crisis gives to military issues by launching an attack on Iran. Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary tightened his grip on power by enacting a law that effectively enables him to rule by decree. China is concocting theories alleging America of engineering the virus in a malign attempt to spread it across its country. 

Introduction

One of the several casualties of Covid 19 is the idea of liberal internationalism. The end of the Second World War laid the foundations to institutions whose mandate it was to maintain peace and stability in the world. However, the UN and its subsidiaries could do precious little to curb the recklessness of the two superpowers during the cold war. The expansion of their nuclear arsenal, frequent diplomatic skirmishes and proxy wars in regions as far afield as Afghanistan and Vietnam proved little space or corroboration for the language of peace and restraint. But the end of the cold war coronated America as the undisputed king in the world of states. Terrorism, environmental degradation and migration became the principal issues of the post-cold war era. All states stood to benefit from the tackling of these novel challenges. Global cooperation was galvanised by the sedulous efforts of the UN and voluntary regional engagement among neighbouring countries. However, it could well be argued that the last thirty years marked by the lack of major power competitions was an aberration from the normal course of history rather than the norm. 

Great power competition is back with the rise of China as a formidable opponent to US hegemony. With its economic might and military prowess, China is on course to compete for global domination against America. This is precisely what realists predicted as an eventuality. The state is back to being the most important actor in the international arena. Arms and ammunition and pre-eminence in the market, the two chief factors that determine a state’s power, occupy the concern of the long-standing superpower and the aspiring hegemon. 

It is against this background that the Covid-19 crisis has broken out and has exposed the underlying themes of today’s international politics; the decline of the US-dominated world order, the decay of international institutions; rising momentum of right-wing populism; and an opportunist China trying to exploit every chance that comes its way to make its way to the top. As Richard Haas wrote recently in the Foreign Affairs magazine, the coronavirus is accelerating history rather than reshaping it. 

Waning American Influence

One of the most glaring inadequacies in the fight against coronavirus has been the lack of leadership. The battle against fascism in WWII was deftly led by the Allied powers which was followed by the war against communism under American leadership of the Western alliance. The ‘War on Terror’ was also a distinctly American endeavour. The G-20 countries became very efficient in tackling the economic downturn during 2008-2009. The effort to combat climate change, however abysmal its progress might be, has managed to receive assurances from numerous countries to cut their carbon emissions. But with President Trump in the Oval Office, 

American preeminence has declined steadily. The exit of US from the Paris climate deal, withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), retrenchment of troops from Syria (widely seen as a betrayal of the Syrian democratic forces) and Mr. Trump’s characteristic scorn for international institutions and a transactional disposition with NATO allies have expedited America’s decline from its status as the sole superpower. The Covid-19 crisis has foregrounded exactly this feature of global politics; America is not willing to provide leadership at a time of crisis. To add insult to injury, Mr. Trump dithered, prevaricated and fudged the facts before he recognised the gravity of the pandemic. But let’s be clear; Trump is merely a product of events that have been in the making since much before he became president. The fatigue resulting from engagement in protracted wars in the Middle East (read Iraq and Afghanistan) have made Americans weary of considering undue involvement in a distant land they’re not directly benefiting from. The waning of American influence has been bandied about since George Bush’s second term in office. The vacuum left by the reluctance of the US to lead containment efforts from the forefront has been filled by an eager China (as we will see later) wanting to leave no stone unturned in asserting its indispensability as a global power.

Decay of International Institutions

The World Health Organization (WHO) has been accused of being complicit in covering up the real seriousness of the virus along with China. While accusing WHO of a cover-up and President Trump’s decision to suspend funding to the global health body may be seen as disproportionate reactions, there is a consensus that its dilatory handing of the crisis in the early stages certainly misled the world into underestimating the lethality and infectiousness of the virus. That a UN-affiliated body like the WHO would prove incapable of curbing the pandemic is sobering enough. But the relative ham-handedness of the WHO has also to do with a general disposition of countries to ignore the advice of institutions. Repeated UN urgings to declare ceasefire in the sanguinary proxy war in Yemen have gone unheeded. European Union’s attempt to mediate the civil war in Libya has miserably failed. The war in Syria has also spiralled down into a humanitarian catastrophe while all attempts by Russian President Vladimir Putin to get Turkish President Recep Erdogan to agree to a ceasefire have become dismal failures. The decaying of institutions is intrinsically related to another defining theme of present-day international relations; rise of right-wing populism.

Rising Clout of Right-Wing Populism

The Washington Post branded Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro as the Coronavirus skeptic-in-chief. The title is spot-on. President Bolsonaro is going around socializing with people, blatantly thumbing his nose at the universal instruction to follow social-distancing. He also recently fired his health minister who differed from Bolsonaro in his views to adopt swift measures to curb the pandemic. Again, the coronavirus crisis is only bringing to sharper relief trends that have defined global politics over the past several years. Last year, Bolsonaro disdained international calls to contain the wildfires that ravaged the Amazon forest, dubbed the lungs of the earth for its rich reserve of oxygen. Consider Viktor Orban, the stridently nationalistic strongman of Hungary. As the virus broke out and spread relentlessly through Europe, he saw an opportunity to appropriate more power for himself and passed an emergency law that has enabled him to rule by decree. Prime Minister Modi of India has been shy of drawing international attention to his government’s Hindu-nationalist and Islamophobic policies that are just a first step toward the disenfranchisement of Indian Muslims. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has struck a deal with contender Benny Gantz and secured the premiership for himself. What’s more, the fraud and bribery allegations levelled against him would not be investigated and court proceedings wouldn’t start as long as this crisis lasts. What is common among all these leaders is a swivel-eyed nationalism, contempt for minorities and utter disregard for international institutions. The chutzpah of these leaders and the impunity with which they take sweeping and reckless decisions wouldn’t have gone without rebuke in a world where the so-called ‘leader of the free-world’ was holding them to account. But as fate would have it, President Trump is not remotely interested in reining in autocratic leaders. Instead, he leads the pack.

Opportunistic China

The retreat of America, rotting of international institutions and rise and rise of authoritarian and self-serving leaders clears the turf for China to hit the ground running. While it was in China where the coronavirus originated, President Xi’s draconian quarantine of Wuhan seems to have ended up successful. New cases have dwindled to a trickle and normal life is returning gradually. But Europe is still in the throes of the pandemic and leaders are at their wits’ ends. They have no clue how to overcome this unprecedented challenge. Meanwhile, an opportunistic China is rubbing its hands not only in schadenfreude but also with a resolve to flaunt its largesse. It has supplied Italy with masks in large quantities and is constantly on the lookout for opportunities to exploit and expand its influence. The pandemic, as noted already, sheds light on patterns that have not been as prominent earlier. The growth of Chinese influence in areas previously untouched by it depends on the opportunities that Washington would unwittingly cede to Beijing. If America had mounted a joint effort with Europe to contain the spread of the virus, China would’ve had no business showcasing its benevolence in Europe. Similarly, should the US recklessly try to degrade its prized alliance with the European powers, China would fain fill in the gap by expanding its network of influence as far as London. 

Conclusion

To say that great power competition is back is not to fear-monger. It is merely to state the reality as it is, warts and all. In this juncture of world politics, idealism or liberal internationalism propounded by International Relations theorists Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye would not be of as much help as offensive realism would be. Offensive realism is a school of IR theory that has defined international politics for almost as long as it has existed. Its principal tenets are that the state is the fundamental unit of world politics and the international system operates under anarchy. Anarchy in IR does not mean chaos or confusion, rather it refers to the absence of an entity that governs all countries. There is no body that a state could call for help at a time of crisis. Each state has to fend for itself. In such an arena, a state that is remotely interested in ensuring its survival will try to be powerful-not just powerful enough or achieve a certain target of influence-but be as powerful as possible. 

The US must follow the offensive realist path, secure its alliances and leave no room for China to expand its influence. At the same time, Washington should not see the impending power competition as a mere militaristic and economic battle. It is also a battle of ideologies. Ergo, the US should try as much as possible to favour democratic leaders in its allied states and discourage the autocracies which are most susceptible to fall under China’s sway. 

                                                                                                                 Prasanna Aditya A