Details
The world is in a state of turmoil. The oft-vaunted “rules-based international order” has been reduced to rubble. Global armament and ongoing wars — such as Russia’s assault on Ukraine, or the wars on Gaza and Iran — as well as US attacks against Venezuela and Cuba are all symptomatic of a transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order.
The old world order under US hegemony rested on two pillars: on the one hand, military dominance via its systems of security alliances such as NATO; on the other, globally enforced norms and rules, infrastructures and institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank.
As former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski bluntly put it, these organizations “can be said to represent ‘global’ interests, and their constituency may be construed as the world. In reality, however, they are heavily American dominated”. It was through this system of multilateral institutions that the US was able to secure the compliance of weaker states and classes, thereby consolidating its global hegemony.
Trump, Tariffs, and the End of the Rules-Based Order
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end to the standoff between East and West led to a new surge of neoliberal globalization. By opening up national economies to international competition, new opportunities for the accumulation of capital presented themselves. China integrated itself into this dynamic as a source of cheap labour. Transnational corporations saw an uptick in profits, while China’s economy rapidly expanded. The hegemonic narrative that free trade would help eliminate conflict and generate global prosperity seemed to have been borne out.
Under Donald Trump’s presidency, however, the US has undertaken a radical change of course. Since Trump took office, the nation has obstructed the WTO and pursued an extortionate and protectionist tariff policy. The US has also withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords, UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization (WHO), and a number of other multilateral organizations. With his “Board of Peace”, Trump has created a private organization that functions in parallel to the United Nations. He has on many occasions questioned US mutual defense obligations towards NATO.
China's Rise and the Fragmentation of Globalization
The US was the main driving force behind neoliberal globalization efforts for as long as they bolstered the nation’s economic and political supremacy.
But the dialectic of globalization led to a number of “emerging countries” — China in particular — taking advantage of this liberalization and making economic gains. China began to break free from its subordinate role in global supply chains and now occupies pole positions in a number of high-tech sectors.
Instead of a unipolar globalization under US hegemony, we are seeing the emergence of various subsystems, each of which has its own respective centre, peripheries, semi-peripheries, infrastructures, platforms, artificial intelligence, supply chains, and norms — a fragmented globalization.
The People’s Republic has come to pose a mounting threat to US hegemony — especially after embarking on its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a global infrastructure programme aimed at expanding railway networks, shipping routes and ports, communication networks, and payment systems. The ultimate objective here is to achieve a restructuring of the global market centred around China and to build a global infrastructure that defies US control.
As a result, the battle between the US and China to secure supremacy on the global market has become the focus of US policymaking. It has increasingly abandoned free trade and adopted protectionist measures. In other words, those elements of globalization that fostered China’s industrial and technological advancement needed to be curtailed by way of tariffs, export restrictions, and investment controls.
This means that instead of a unipolar globalization under US hegemony, we are seeing the emergence of various subsystems, each of which has its own respective centre, peripheries, semi-peripheries, infrastructures, platforms, artificial intelligence, supply chains, and norms — a fragmented globalization.
Regional Powers and the Interregnum in the World Order
Trump’s disruptive policies are symptomatic of a major shift in the global balance of power — an interregnum in the world order. In this arena of geo-economic confrontations, the state is now assuming a different role: while the neoliberal competition state pushed efforts to adapt national economies and institutions to the material constraints of the global market, in this new multipolar world it is capitalizing on the transnational interdependencies of the global economy by strategically controlling infrastructures, trade routes, and supply chains in service of bolstering its own political power and achieving its own political and economic ends.
The result is a rise in international conflicts, global armament, and wars. The US in particular has made increasing use of military force in violation of international law — both in the Caribbean against Venezuela, and in the Middle East with its support for Israel in its war on Gaza and two wars against Iran.
The BRICS nations form a heterogeneous alliance — what unites them is a mutual interest in acting as a counterbalance to the dominance of the G7 countries and in achieving greater influence on the global stage.
At the same time, the fragile US hegemony and China’s rising global influence have also provided scope for regional powers to play an influential role, at least within their own respective regional spheres — countries such as Turkey, Russia, Brazil, India, and South Africa. The BRICS nations form a heterogeneous alliance — what unites them is a mutual interest in acting as a counterbalance to the dominance of the G7 countries and in achieving greater influence on the global stage.
The alliance is not “anti-imperialist” or “anti-colonial”; it brings together a group of member states with a wide range of national and geo-economic interests. On the one hand, the BRICS alliance reflects the tendency towards a fragmentation of the global market, but at the same time, the coalition’s loose form facilitates cooperation within each state’s respective zones of influence and also beyond them — even with countries in the “Global West”.
Russia: Strong on Nuclear Bombs, Weak on the Economy
Russia, the global power with the strongest nuclear arsenal, plays a special role here. Yet Russia’s nuclear capabilities stand in stark contrast to the relative weakness of the nation’s economy.
Unlike China, which was able to make a controlled transition from state socialism to a state-capitalist model of development and has emerged as an innovative economic power, in Russia, the neoliberal shock treatment of the 1990s resulted in an economic downturn that could only be brought to a halt when Putin took office and established a “political oligarchic capitalism”.
In the wake of the global financial and economic crisis of 2008/09, the Russian economy remained largely stagnant; its potential for economic growth had been exhausted.
The nation’s integration into the global market was achieved primarily through the export of (cheap) fossil fuels. The stabilization of the economy following the reckless neoliberalism of the Yeltsin era resulted in rapid growth in the 2000s.
Yet in the wake of the global financial and economic crisis of 2008/09, the Russian economy remained largely stagnant; its potential for economic growth had been exhausted. The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) project was launched with the aim of bolstering Russia’s status within the international division of labour and the growth prospects for Russian capital. Ukraine was supposed to play a leading role in the EEU after all, in comparison to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, and Armenia, Ukraine was by far the largest market, as well as having the greatest production capacities.
The EEU project ultimately foundered due to a dispute over the EU association agreement and the Maidan Uprising. Russia, unlike the EU, was unable to call on any soft power and, as a result, resorted to the use of military force as the situation continued to unfold — from its backing of separatists in the Donbas region and its annexation of Crimea to its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which sparked a war of attrition that is still ongoing.
A National Security Policy or a Peace Policy?
This new multipolar world, the ever-increasing violations of international law, and assaults on multilateral institutions are presenting new challenges for the peace and foreign policies of both the German and European left. Europe’s ruling elites are responding to the new world order above all by reinforcing their military capabilities and by militarizing their foreign policy.
Russia’s acts of aggression against Ukraine are being exploited by the governments of Europe’s NATO member states as legitimating US government demands that military spending be boosted to five percent of GDP.
The rearmament of Europe is meant to enable the US to gradually scale back its NATO responsibilities towards Europe and instead focus its efforts on competing with China. At the same time, this is also a question of the EU learning “the language of power,” as former EU commissioner for foreign affairs Josep Borrell put it, and being better equipped to safeguard European imperialist interests by military means. However, this militarization of foreign policy is not going to generate security, only new conflicts and flashpoints.
From a left-wing perspective, national security can and must not be reduced to just military defence. Instead, the primary objective here should be achieving a robust society, democratic and social rights, and social and public infrastructure.
Faced with a world that is characterized by ever-increasing crises and insecurity, the public is also showing a growing interest in national security, and this is something that left-wing policy must take into consideration. If people’s own emancipatory gains and self-determination are threatened, there will be a widespread desire for national security — even within a capitalist state.
From a left-wing perspective, national security can and must not be reduced to just military defence. Instead, the primary objective here should be achieving a robust society, democratic and social rights, and social and public infrastructure. These are crucial in terms of bolstering the protection and resilience of a population during times of economic crisis, grave ‘natural disasters’, and military conflicts.
This also means developing a decentralized, fossil-free energy infrastructure and ensuring digital sovereignty. The mere prospect of civilian societal resistance is enough to lower the likelihood of a military incursion. But for people to engage in such resistance, they would need to be satisfied that they have achieved certain social and democratic freedoms worthy of defending.
Conversely, a policy of rearmament would endanger the social cohesion that underpins the willingness and capacity for civilian defence.
Both Trump’s authoritarian administration and Putin’s regime are backing and actively fuelling nationalistic, reactionary, and fascist forces in Europe. These actions are all part of a kind of hybrid warfare intended to deliberately destabilize societies.
This means that the current greatest threat to European societies is not the prospect of a Russian invasion of the European NATO states, which is so often invoked to legitimize armament and militarization, but rather the mounting trend towards fascization.
What is Non-Offensive Defence?
Nevertheless, in a world ravaged by war, the left cannot afford to overlook the military dimension of national security. Die Linke’s “Erfurt Program” argues in favour of the principle of a “capacity for non-offensive defence” and a restructuring of the Bundeswehr on the basis of “strict defensive capabilities”. In so doing, the party draws on a concept that was devised in the latter years of the Cold War that refers to a state’s ability to effectively defend itself in the event of an attack, but not to wage wars of aggression.
Pursuing a structural capacity for non-offensive defence would contradict the German Chancellor’s stated objective of transforming the German Bundeswehr into the “most powerful conventional military force in Europe” and of having the Bundeswehr play a role in a European armament aimed at securing imperial interests.
Instead, the concept is rooted in the notion that the security of one nation must not be allowed to lead to the insecurity of other nations.
According to peace researcher Lutz Unterseher, between one and two percent — rather than five percent — of GDP would be more than enough to fund a Bundeswehr geared towards a policy of non-offensive defence. But there is much more to this than strictly military considerations.
The security of one nation must not be allowed to lead to the insecurity of other nations.
This kind of rigorously defensive approach would also need to comprise at the social level “a pro-peace and possibly even pro-disarmament structure and a suitably committed general public that would be willing to exert political pressure”, oppose armament and militarization, and advocate civil conflict resolution and compliance with international law.
The arms industry would need to be nationalized and placed under public control.
Arms production should be limited to ensuring a country’s structural capacity for non-offensive defence, and the resources that are freed up in the process should be used to produce goods that provide a social benefit.
Militaries operate according to the principles of command, discipline, and unconditional obedience to authority. This means that structural non-offensive defence must also involve defending the democratic rights of military personnel in the armed forces — such as their right to organize. This is also essential in order to be equipped to tackle anti-democratic and right-wing extremist tendencies within the armed forces.
A structural capacity for non-offensive defence — enforced not just in Germany but throughout Europe more broadly — could pave the way for a shared security apparatus throughout the European continent and, in the longer term, for a collective European security framework by means of arms control and the minimization of potential threats.
A Left Alternative to European Sovereignty
In view of the ongoing disruptions to the world order, the project of “European sovereignty” being pursued by the EU’s ruling elites must be countered by an alternative project. The Draghi report on EU competitiveness aptly depicts the EU’s declining geopolitical and economic influence.
However, by focusing on boosting competitiveness and armaments as a core industrial policy measure, the report overlooks the fundamental problem of the current, ongoing global shifts. After all, the rivalry between the US and China is not just a question of market share, but, as discussed earlier, of a restructuring of the global market as a whole. The EU does not seem to have fully grasped this fundamental challenge. At a time when the rules of the global market are in flux, it is still seeking to play by the old, US-centric rulebook.
An EU that is strategically independent would be required to disengage from the US government’s policy of confrontation towards China and adopt a policy of active partnership with the countries of the Global South and other middle powers.
It should intervene in the restructuring of the global market as a champion of new, equitable, non-exploitative rules, norms, and infrastructures for international trade and economic relations that are oriented towards achieving social and environmental objectives.
Foreign policy and peace policy are not the sole responsibility of states and governments.
However, this will only be possible if the prevailing neoliberal approach to integration within the EU can be overcome.
Such a policy of European sovereignty must be aimed at reinforcing multilateral institutions. The emancipatory potential of the UN system must be advanced when it comes to trade, finance, and development, and as a system for the provision of global public services — and therefore also environmental protection.
In order for the United Nations to function effectively and credibly as a framework for a multilateral order, the Security Council would have to ensure that each of the world’s regions were adequately represented, while the authority of the UN General Assembly would need to be strengthened in line with that of the Security Council.
Foreign policy and peace policy are not the sole responsibility of states and governments. Without international solidarity among liberation movements and resistance against militarization, fascization, and imperialist ambitions, a new and different world order oriented around peace, cooperation, social equilibrium, and environmental justice and security is inconceivable.
This article was first published in LuXemburg
Translation by Gegensatz Collective
