It has been argued among commentators that we have entered a new world order, with the law of the jungle replacing the old system of international norms. This new system is said to be created by powers that use brute force to expand their spheres of influence and make others subject to influence, rather than created by international agreements of “international nations” between large and small states.
The wars that Russia, the United States, and Israel have waged in recent years—and are currently ongoing against Ukraine, Iran, and Lebanon—should clarify this point. Many countries in the world are indeed watching with horror, not least those of Europe, waking up from the slumber of a long, well-managed peace that lasted eight decades. It is fair to wonder if they can prevent this forest from reaching and overwhelming them, too.
It has been argued among commentators that we have entered a new world order, with the law of the jungle replacing the old system of international norms. This new system is said to be created by powers that use brute force to expand their spheres of influence and make others subject to influence, rather than created by international agreements of “international nations” between large and small states.
The wars that Russia, the United States, and Israel have waged in recent years—and are currently ongoing against Ukraine, Iran, and Lebanon—should clarify this point. Many countries in the world are indeed watching with horror, not least those of Europe, waking up from the slumber of a long, well-managed peace that lasted eight decades. It is fair to wonder if they can prevent this forest from reaching and overwhelming them, too.
But first, another question needs to be asked: Is the analysis correct? What do authoritarian rulers like US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, or Chinese President Xi Jinping achieve by displaying their hard power? Are they really establishing a “new world order”?
In short: No. That modern dictators eagerly go to war is indisputable. But so is the fact that they rarely win their battles. Since 1945, it has become more difficult to win the war. There have been few clear victories, such as Operation Desert Storm (the liberation of Kuwait in 1991) or Azerbaijan’s recent mini-blitzkrieg to conquer Nagorno-Karabakh. But in general, today’s wars resolve very few conflicts, often creating new ones.
The United States did not win Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan. Putin thought he could crush Ukraine with military superiority but has not made any regional gains since the start of his big war in 2022. After years of bombing Syria, he resigned, tail between his legs. International forces led by the British and French removed the Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi from power in 2011 but later lost their power to the country. Libya is still a failed country to this day. The French army has recently been swept out of one small African country after another. The Bosnian war, frozen in 1995, could start again at any time. Israel has completely destroyed Gaza in recent years, but the world has more sympathy for the Palestinians than ever. Even France, Canada, and England now recognize the Palestinian state.
In a stunning new book, Beyond power and war; incredible social energyBertrand Badie, French political scientist, he argues that although brutal displays of power may be ubiquitous today, modern wars sow mainly death and destruction but fail to establish a new order, much less a new world order. In the past, traditional warfare, however brutal, could do exactly that: The side with the larger army and better strategy and tactics won, imposing a permanent “peace treaty” on the losing side. The last time this was done on a large scale was in 1945.
Before this, war had the power to destroy and build, Badie noted. “They destroyed things, but at the same time they built something in a way. Today, war is only destruction.”
Looking at the past eight decades, one can find several explanations. Decolonization is one thing: It dismantled powerful states and empowered subordinates. Another reason is globalization, because it weakened the states and their military power, making them more dependent. The rise of non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations, the United Nations, mafia groups and terrorist organizations, and the rise of social movements such as the Yellow Dress in France also contributed to the breakdown of state authority worldwide. Many modern dictators, as Gideon Rachman pointed out in his book Age of the Strong Man in 2022, do not rule through the barrel of a gun or cannons on the streets, but in a more subtle way, by manipulating and organizing public opinion – populism, in other words.
Weak states and strong interdependence between them means that every war can lead to international chain reactions with consequences that no one can completely predict. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 disrupted global food and energy supplies. In the war that Israel and the United States launched against Iran in February, a weak Iran is defending itself against two major military powers instead of succeeding in closing the Strait of Hormuz. By doing so, it destabilizes the world economy. The social problems this causes around the world—especially in the United States, where discontent over rising oil prices could affect November’s midterm elections—may be more important on the battlefield than military power itself. This is a Hobbesian world rather than some kind of new order. It’s too much chaos.
It is in this disease that Europe slowly seems to find its strength. It is worth noting that in the last few months, European governments have taken a firmer stance in several aspects of foreign policy than before. In January, they be damned Trump plans to seize Greenland from Denmark. Some even sent troops to Greenland, a symbolic gesture that raised the stakes, with Trump backing it, at least for now. Then, in February, European governments basically he refused engaging in war against Iran, calling it “illegal” under international law (the same international law they ignored when Israel cleared Gaza). Some countries even hesitated to host US aircraft en route to the Middle East at military bases on their soil. The more Trump insulted them, the more he questioned the future of NATO, the more open they became. Strong endorsements from European public opinion—part of the “extraordinary social energy” contained in the subtitle of Badie’s book—no doubt strengthened their resolve. Finally, they completely gave a strong statement condemn the Israeli attacks against Lebanon.
One could say that European governments are growing so alarmed by these violations of international law that – rather than belatedly – they are starting to take a more aggressive stance than before. They are afraid because they realize that if Europe does not defend international law, no one will. Europe must now build a strong defense to protect its territory and its values. It will have to form alliances with like-minded nations like Canada to adhere to international law, and have more freedom, independence and power in each region. If there is no longer a world order, at least there will be a European order.
