James Pfister: A theory of world order

To many, the world order seems to be falling apart. Russia invaded the sovereign state of Ukraine; proxies of Iran threaten shipping in the Red Sea; Israel is responding to a brutal terrorist attack by Hamas; North Korea is developing long-range nuclear weapons; and, most dangerous, China has designs on Taiwan.

Gone is the stability of a unipolar American order after the fall of the Soviet Union. “Never before has (the United States) faced four allied antagonists at the same time — Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran — whose collective nuclear arsenal could within a few years be nearly double the size of our own.” (Robert M. Gates, “The Dysfunctional Superpower: Can a Divided America Deter China and Russia?” Foreign Affairs, September 29, 2023).

What approach should the United States (herein U.S.) take in this dangerous world? With the help of Walter Russell Mead, Bernie Sanders, Fareed Zakaria, Niall Ferguson, and Robert M. Gates, I attempt here to present a formula for stability.

Walter Russell Mead, in “Biden Weakens America’s Global Clout,” The Wall Street Journal, March 19, writes: “The administration’s declining power to deter our adversaries is the biggest problem for American foreign policy, for world peace. … Like a scarecrow that no longer keeps hungry birds from pecking at the corn (we have not prevented hostile powers from) picking at the foundations of the American-led world order.” He believes the first step is to have a “serious defense budget.” Robert M. Gates also calls for a robust and timely defense budget. Mead concludes: “Step two is to kill some crows.”

Mead emphasizes what is called “credibility,” i.e., that the U.S. would actually use military force: “… it must restore respect for American power, competence and will.” I would imagine that Mr. Biden’s bumbling image does not help.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, in “A Revolution in American Foreign Policy: Replacing Greed, Militarism, and Hypocrisy With Solidarity, Diplomacy, and Human Rights,” Foreign Affairs, March 18, writes that the “bipartisan consensus” of the past was wrong: it gave us the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars, the friendship with authoritarian governments, and the disastrous trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, “the results have often damaged the United States’ standing in the world, undermined the country’s professed values, and have been disastrous for the American working class.”

He blames “militarism, groupthink, and the greed and power of corporate interests.” He believes billionaires have too much influence: “Economic policy is foreign policy.” He wants a new vision that “centers human rights, multilateralism, and global solidarity.”

Unlike Mead and Gates, Sanders believes less should be spent on the military and that we should “demand that other countries do the same.” This sounds naïve to me. Also naïve, I believe, is his faith in human rights as making bad actors face justice and be less likely to commit human rights abuses in the first place. He does not even mention deterrence. He sees the “biggest challenges of our times” as climate change and global pandemics. He does not address the world’s power structure.

Niall Ferguson, in “Kissinger and the True Meaning of Détente: Reinventing a Cold War Strategy for the Contest With China,” February 20, 2024, writes about the key concept of détente, which he emphasizes is not amity. It is, in Henry Kissinger’s words, “both deterrence and coexistence, both containment and an effort to relax tensions.” Mr. Biden’s term for détente is “de-risking.” We do not want a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis, with the Chinese navy blocking U.S. ships over Taiwan.

I would combine détente with the concept of spheres of influence. I would de-emphasize human rights, leaving states to deal with their own internal affairs. There would be alliances between the U.S. and its allies (the West plus certain states in Asia and the Western Hemisphere). Regarding spheres of influence, there should be a negotiated settlement regarding Taiwan resulting in China’s sovereignty on the Hong Kong model. NATO should extend no farther, leaving Russia dominant over Ukraine, based on the history of Ukraine being under Moscow’s rule for over 300 years and being in Moscow’s “backyard.” (See Fareed Zakaria, The Washington Post, March 22).

Détente and alliances combined with spheres of influence and a veto-principled U.N. Charter is a formula for peace and stability.

— James W. Pfister, J.D. University of Toledo, Ph.D. University of Michigan (political science), retired after 46 years in the Political Science Department at Eastern Michigan University. He lives at Devils Lake and can be reached at jpfister@emich.edu.

This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: James Pfister: A theory of world order