The rules-based world order is in retreat and violence is on the rise, forcing countries to reexamine their relationships.
By Patrick WINTOUR
Two weeks after former allies, in an increasingly divided world, separately commemorated the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, the sense of an unstoppable slide towards World War III is becoming increasingly palpable. The disintegration of Pax Americana, the interconnectedness of conflicts, the new willingness to use state-sponsored violence and the dysfunction of the institutions of the rules-based world order are all evidence of an era of brutality. From Kashmir to Khan Younis, from Hodeidah to Port Sudan and Kursk, the only sound is that of explosions – and the only lesson is that the old rules no longer apply. British politician and adviser Fiona Hill, engaged in the UK’s strategic defence review, argues that World War III has already begun – we just don’t realise it yet.
The fear of a world in which no one is in control – because of science or globalization – is not new. It was the subject of two Reith lectures: one in 1967 by the anthropologist Edmund Leach, and the other in 1999 by the political philosopher Anthony Giddens. But it has rarely been clearer that the world order established in 1945 is in rapid decline.
Former Labour foreign secretary David Miliband summed it up clearly last week in a speech at Chatham House, when he said: “I know people always say the world is changing, but this feels like a real moment of geopolitical upheaval – as significant as 1989-90, when the world moved from the Cold War to a unipolar order. For me, the Trump administration was both a symptom and a cause of these changes. The problem is that it is much clearer what we are moving away from – a world where the US was at the centre of the global system – but it is not clear where we are going. Many talk about a multipolar world that reflects a redistribution of power, but that idea seems to me too calm, too safe for a reality that is much more turbulent.” His former mentor, Tony Blair, in a speech in California said: “Everyone has been taken out of their comfort zone. The noise you hear from politics is the panic to find new opportunities. People are reassessing their position in the world and in international relations. This is, without a doubt, the biggest geostrategic shock I can remember in relation to America and the world.”
According to former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Donald Trump’s lack of interest in preserving alliances is an “act of vandalism.” He said diplomats around the world were asking: “What the hell is going on?”
Blinken said America has spent 80 years building trust, strong economic partnerships and military and political alliances – and if all of that were destroyed in 100 days, it would be extremely difficult to rebuild. “That means countries are looking for ways to work together, bypassing the United States,” he said. “The idea that what is said today will be reversed tomorrow, and then changed again, means that America can no longer be relied upon. Joe Biden once said that it is never a good idea to bet against America. The problem today is that people are no longer betting on America.” The grim consequences of America’s withdrawal have become apparent in recent weeks. We may not be in a world war, but the world is at war.
In Gaza, the world has witnessed a blockade on food, aid and medical supplies, in defiance of binding orders from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), now in its third month. Israel, in search of security, has bombed Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Gaza over the past month. Every day, it asks the US for permission to bomb Iran.
Former President Donald Trump has little right to complain when Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s far-right finance minister, shared his vision for the Gaza Strip last Tuesday, predicting that within six months, the territory’s population will be squeezed into a narrow strip, while the rest will be “completely destroyed.” Smotrich was simply reiterating a version of Trump’s plan to empty Gaza of Palestinians, a plan that completely contradicts the terms of the ceasefire his envoy negotiated. In a speech at a “settlement conference,” Smotrich also declared that Israel would “implement sovereignty” over the West Bank within the current government’s term, which ends in October 2026. “Within a few months, we will be able to say that we have won. Gaza will be completely destroyed,” Smotrich said. “After six months, Hamas will no longer exist as a functional entity.”
With Trump silent, it was up to the Europeans to respond. “It’s time for the European Union and the entire international community to wake up,” said Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot, calling the blockade an “absolute disgrace.” “It is not acceptable to intentionally stop humanitarian aid, access to food, healthcare, water, electricity – as a war strategy. This is completely unacceptable.”
French President Emmanuel Macron declared: “If we condemn Russia for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty, we cannot remain silent when the same thing happens in Gaza. Hamas must be fought, yes, but not at the expense of violating every rule.” He called for a response from Europe, but at a meeting of foreign ministers in Poland, the 27 ministers failed to agree even on a joint statement, let alone to take joint action such as suspending the free trade agreement with Israel – a Dutch proposal. Meanwhile, in Port Sudan, the main route for humanitarian aid into Sudan, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) destroyed infrastructure with drones, just as Israeli bombing has destroyed Hodeidah, the main aid entry point into Yemen.
On May 5, an attempt by the Sudanese government to hold the United Arab Emirates accountable at the International Court of Justice for directing arms to the RSF failed. The UAE, like many other states, is a signatory to the Genocide Convention, but has entered a legal reservation that states that its compliance with the convention is not subject to adjudication at the ICJ.
The court reluctantly acknowledged that there was a clear lack of jurisdiction. Only one judge – Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf from Somalia – voted against.
Thus, the UAE emerges with a positive image as a country that has signed the convention, but will not be judged for its respect. It has been left to the UK Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, to convince the parties for a ceasefire, but so far without success. The US, on the other hand, describes the RSF leadership as genocidal, but does not take concrete diplomatic action.
In Kashmir, where two nuclear-armed states last week fired missiles at each other’s planes, the United States appears to have brokered a ceasefire. It remains to be seen whether the agreement, brokered by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, will hold — a sharp reversal from Vance’s stance 48 hours earlier, when he said the U.S. would not intervene in the India-Pakistan conflict because it was “outside our interests.” In previous clashes between India and Pakistan, U.S. intervention has been crucial in reducing tensions on both sides. In July 1999, in Washington, Bill Clinton forced Pakistani leader Nawaz Sharif to step down, in what one official described as the most significant meeting of the Clinton presidency with a foreign leader. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed in his memoir how close the two countries came to a nuclear conflict in February 2019, something he prevented from a hotel room in Hanoi.
India last week portrayed the conflict not as an act of terrorism but as a clash between two states, stating that the core problem is that “Pakistan acts as a shield for terrorism.” These conflicts may seem disconnected from each other, except when they talk about a common theme: the lack of American leadership and perpetual instability.
But in Ukraine, according to Fiona Hill, the structural elements of a world war are coming together. The death toll may not be as high as in World War II, but according to the British military, Russia has suffered around 900.000 casualties, far more than in its wars in Chechnya and Afghanistan. Moreover, these wars are, Hill says, “system-changing conflicts, with many countries involved in different ways.” Chinese-flagged fishing boats and Russian crews destroying undersea cables in the Baltic Sea are just one part of Vladimir Putin’s global war. China, North Korea and Iran are all supporting Russia, some in more material ways, such as building drone factories or sending soldiers. Many other states have been willing to prop up Russia economically, in ways that call into question their own neutrality.
India, with which Britain struck a trade deal last week, has bought $125 billion in Russian oil since the war began, as well as Russian weapons. The conflict has been portrayed by Russia and its allies as a fight against American hegemony. Trump had a plan to remove the US from the firing line and put relations with Russia on a new footing, a desire he has nurtured since the 1980s.
He sees the world in a similar way to Putin – a few sovereign powers dividing the globe into spheres of influence. His dream is to rekindle the Yalta Conference of 1945, with Putin and perhaps Xi Jinping, with Europe as spectators and Ukraine torn apart. But orchestrating such a betrayal has proven more difficult than expected. At the White House, Trump told Zelensky: “You should be grateful. You have no cards in your hand.” But Trump played the cards he had – many of which he squandered with his self-destructive tariff policies. In the meantime, it turned out that Zelensky had some cards, which he used shrewdly: offering a 30-day ceasefire, a minerals deal with the US, and positioning Ukraine as a strategic asset to Western security.
The meeting between Trump and Zelensky at Pope Francis’s funeral (photo posted by Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak) had the scent of reconciliation, but it fed Trump’s ego. A change of mood in Washington is noticeable. Even Vance, once Zelensky’s harshest critic, acknowledged last week that Russia is “asking too much” and that Europe and the US are now “on the same team.”
European leaders would welcome this, but it is now clear across Europe – not just in Paris – that despite the assurances Vance gives, Europe must be able to act independently of the US. Trump is clearly untrustworthy, and his soft assessment of Putin’s intentions is not shared by others. Planning has already begun for a European security force in Ukraine, as has planning for a possible Russian attack on Europe. Since February, France and Britain, through a joint force, have formed the core of this planning. But now this involvement has broadened, with new political leaders coming from the four Weimar+ countries: Poland, France, Germany and the UK. The leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Poland went together for the first time in Kiev this weekend to reinforce the call for a 30-day ceasefire, which they said should start on Monday.
But a social media post by Trump insisting that Ukraine should immediately begin peace talks with Russia disrupted — and perhaps jeopardized — carefully laid plans to persuade the U.S. to impose sanctions on Moscow over Ukraine’s rejection of Trump’s proposal for a 30-day ceasefire, according to European diplomats.
Zelensky had no choice but to accept Putin’s invitation for talks in Istanbul this week, for fear of offending Trump, diplomats said. Putin made the offer to avoid alienating the US president and to avoid mounting European pressure on Trump to impose tougher sanctions. In a speech to the German Bundestag to mark Victory Day (VE Day) last week, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier stressed the dual need for Europe to be prepared for war. “Russia’s aggressive war has destroyed the European security order, fueled by the imperialist delusion that the war in Ukraine can be compared to the Great Patriotic War.”
He added: “The fact that now even the United States, which did so much to create and shape this order, is turning its back on it, is a shock of a whole new level. That is why I speak of a double epochal change – Russia’s war of aggression and the US’s detachment from its own values – that is what marks the end of this long 20th century.” Europe, he insisted, must decide for itself what happens next. (The Guardian)
