April 16, 2024 - 10:00am
With the prospect of all-out war taking shape in the Middle East, many have asked whether this is the final nail in the coffin for the West.
Even if the West isn’t doomed, there is the apparent potential of a new world order — in which there are too many conflicts for America to exert global dominance. Will this finally come to pass in 2024?
So-called multipolarity is the big idea in international relations right now. It chimes with the anti-Americanism of the Left and also with various tendencies on the Right. Out on the fringes there are Putin-sympathisers, fascists and antisemites, but away from the extremes there are nobler motivations — a hatred of war, for instance, or the desire to see Europe take charge of its own defence.
Some analysts simply regard multipolarity as the natural state of affairs. Especially prominent is John Mearsheimer who believes that the most powerful nations are bound to exert control over their neighbours — and that the West shouldn’t interfere.
Arguably, a reordered world is inevitable and even beneficial. Rising prosperity means that once-poor countries, as well as not starving, can afford larger militaries. As a result, power — whether hard or soft — will be more widely distributed than it used to be.
One common assumption about multipolarity is that alliances build in opposition to the hegemon. Yet in a multipolar world, this is not entirely true. The events of the weekend are a case in point. It wasn’t only the US and UK that helped Israel neutralise the Iranian drones — but also non-Western powers such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
One of the problems with Mearsheimer and his fellow travellers is that even if you think it’s okay to let regional bullies do their thing, it’s not always clear who the biggest kid on the block actually is. In the Middle East it could be Saudi Arabia, Iran or Turkey — meaning that unresolved rivalries will trump anti-Western animosities.
As for regions where the biggest kid is obvious — such as East Asia — it doesn’t mean that smaller countries are helpless. They have agency and may ally with the West to stay free. For instance, Japan is in talks to participate in pillar two of Aukus, the defensive alliance formed by Australia, the UK and US. In another development, the first trilateral summit between the US, Japan and the Philippines took place last week — much to China’s annoyance.
Meanwhile, in the Western Hemisphere, Venezuela’s aggression towards neighbouring Guyana isn’t only attracting America’s attention, but also Brazil’s. The biggest country in South America will have to decide whether to intervene or stand by.
Multipolarity is supposed to be about an increasingly complex system of international relations. Ironically, though, it’s become tangled up with a simplistic idea: the West versus the Rest. That might suit narratives of Western decline and villainy but, as events keep showing us, the real world is very different.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDon’t always agree with this Author but this is concise and quickly forensic about the over-simplification of many anti-West critics. .
It’s Washington and its clients who insist that ‘who’s not for us is against us,’ and do as much as they can to divide even where they don’t rule.
When are the enthusiasts for the “rules-based world order” going to realise that it no longer exists? In the meantime, they continue to hamstring our freedom of action in order to preserve their status among the Davos set.
‘Multipolarity is supposed to be about an increasingly complex system of international relations. Ironically, though, it’s become tangled up with a simplistic idea: the West versus the Rest’
I wish it would become tangled up with the simple idea of discussing FREE TRADE, or lack of it. The ‘multipolar world’ is as much about rival trade blocks and currencies as anything else.
Sanctions are killing global markets and causing inflation. Until we lift the sanctions regimes, inflation will not go away. The multipolar world is here partly because of these sanctions. The government should not be intervening in trade, nationally or globally. People should be free to trade with each other, regardless of where they are from. It seems very difficult for people to understand this.
Free trade is a disaster for the bottom 80% of the income distribution in Western countries. That and unfettered immigration are why non-elite Westerners can’t afford a decent life and are sinking into despair.
Let’s trade with our friends and stop giving China the resources to build up its military, before its too lake. A US/Canada/UK/EU/ANZAC/ Japan/South Korea/Taiwan free trade block would be an awesome thing.
‘Free trade is a disaster for the bottom 80% of the income distribution in Western countries’
‘A US/Canada/UK/EU/ANZAC/ Japan/South Korea/Taiwan free trade block would be an awesome thing.’
These two statements contradict each other.
On one hand you say free trade is a disaster. On the other you are saying a free trade block would be awesome.
You can’t start building protectionist blocks. That is the opposite of free trade and intellectually inconsistent.
‘That and unfettered immigration are why non-elite Westerners can’t afford a decent life and are sinking into despair.’
Where are these westerners that can’t afford a decent life? How do you define a decent life? Surely not purely on economic success?
If you do, then you should remember that cheap goods from China etc. have actually helped to lift vast numbers out of poverty and make an enormous range of goods available to a much wider range of people.
With regards to immigration, it is my belief that restricted immigration and free trade would be preferable to free immigration and free trade. I do think unrestricted immigration has to stop.
Here is an article that makes the argument for free trade and restricted immigration.
https://mises.org/journal-libertarian-studies/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration
Free trade can be good if it’s between similar sized economies. When one is much poorer than the other it often becomes a way for companies to shift to the cheaper one to reduce wage costs and undercut the salaries of workers in the richer country
Restricting free trade between nations stifles innovation and prevents free competition which can help keep wages stable. Although we obviously want good jobs, preventing companies from moving to places where production is cheaper would then make that companies products more expensive and therefore less accessible to everyone.
Restricted borders and restricted trade, which is where we are headed at the moment, would be a disaster, I believe.
This, taken from the essay above, explains why perhaps free trade doesn’t actually have to be between equal economies. It’s just one opinion, and not a very popular take to be honest.
‘The central argument advanced in favor of protectionism is one of domestic job protection. How can American producers who pay their workers $10 per hour possibly compete with Mexican producers paying $1 or less per hour? They cannot, and American jobs will be lost unless import tariffs are imposed to insulate the American wages from Mexican competition. Free trade is possible only between countries that have equal wage rates, and thus that compete “on a level playing field.” As long as this is not the case —as with the U.S. and Mexico—the playing field must be made level by means of tariffs. As for the consequences of a policy of domestic job protection, Buchanan and other protectionists claim that it will lead to domestic strength and prosperity. In support of their claim, examples are cited of free-trade countries that lost their once-preeminent international economic position, such as 19th-century England, as well as of protectionist countries which gained such preeminence, such as 19th-century America.
This or any other alleged empirical proof of the protectionist thesis must be rejected out of hand as containing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The inference drawn from historical data is no more convincing than if one were to conclude from the observation that rich people consume more than poor people that it must be consumption that makes a person rich. Indeed, protectionists such as Buchanan characteristically fail to understand what is actually involved in defending their thesis. Any argument in favor of international protectionism is simultaneously an argument in favor of inter-regional and inter-local protectionism. Just as different wage rates exist between the U.S. and Mexico, Haiti, or China, for instance, such differences also exist between New York and Alabama, or between Manhattan, the Bronx, and Harlem. Thus, if it were true that international protectionism could make an entire nation prosperous and strong, it must also be true that inter-regional and inter-local protectionism could make regions and localities prosperous and strong. In fact, one may even go further. If the protectionist argument were right, it would amount to an indictment of all trade, and a defense of the thesis that everyone would be the most prosperous and strongest if he never traded with anyone else and remained in self-sufficient isolation. Certainly, in this case, no one would ever lose his job, and unemployment due to “unfair” competition would be reduced to zero. In thus deducing the ultimate implication of the protectionist argument, its complete absurdity is revealed, for such a “full-employment society” would not be prosperous and strong; it would be composed of people who, despite working from dawn to dusk, would be condemned to destitution, or even death from starvation.’
Further on it explains:
‘ The relationship between trade and migration is one of elastic substitutibility (rather than rigid exclusivity): the more (or less) you have of one, the less (or more) you need of the other. Other things being equal, businesses move to low wage areas, and labor moves to high wage areas, thus effecting a tendency toward the equalization of wage rates (for the same kind of labor) as well as the optimal localization of capital. With political borders separating high- from low-wage areas, and with national (nation-wide) trade and immigration policies in effect, these normal tendencies—of immigration and capital export—are weakened with free trade and strengthened with protectionism. As long as Mexican products—the products of a low-wage area—can freely enter a high-wage area such as the U.S., the incentive for Mexican people to move to the U.S. is reduced. In contrast, if Mexican products are prevented from entering the American market, the attraction for Mexican workers to move to the U.S. is increased. Similarly, when U.S. producers are free to buy from and sell to Mexican producers and consumers, capital exports from the U.S. to Mexico will be reduced; however, when U.S. producers are prevented from doing so, the attraction of moving production from the U.S. to Mexico is increased.’
At the moment, protectionism, in the form of sanctions on Russian energy, is decimating our economy and making the production of all goods in the west is more expensive. Tariffs and import bans on some Chinese tech are doing the same. Unrestricted immigration is keeping wages at the bottom suppressed and adding to the burden on public services and the housing market.
Immigration restrictions could help to push up wages at the bottom and could be restricted to the skill sets we actually need.
At the moment, instead of importing cheap goods like we could if we had a true free trade market, we are instead importing cheap labour which burdens the national infrastructure, if we had free trade we would not need to keep artificially driving wages down with free immigration, which is basically what the west and America have done for the last twenty years.
Free trade between countries with similar intellectual property, environmental, labor, and safety laws, and broadly similar wage levels is a win-win.
Free trade with low wage countries that have no standards around emissions, health, or safety, and no workers rights, and ruthlessly steal our technology is a sell-out of the people of the West to drive short-term corporate profit.
The real median weekly wage for a male worker in the US is lower in 2024 than it was in 1979. That’s what 45 years of free-trade and rampant immigration has wrought.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881900Q
Free trade between countries with similar intellectual property, environmental, labor, and safety laws, and broadly similar wage levels is a win-win
No it is not. You will not get access to cheaper goods or drive competition. You in fact are keeping goods at an inflated price, because you are preventing business from going to the cheapest source and therefore restricting access to those goods. If wage levels are similar then prices will also be similar across the bloc, with no hope of driving down the price of anything, no hope of making those goods more accessible, less competition and therefore less innovation – so what exactly do you win?
‘The real median weekly wage for a male worker in the US is lower in 2024 than it was in 1979. That’s what 45 years of free-trade and rampant immigration has wrought’
Wrought by IMMIGRATION, not free trade.
I don’t WANT cheaper goods. I want higher wages for the 20th-80th %-ile of the income distribution. We have too much cheap crap as it is. Free-trade driven materialistic consumerism is a disaster on every level, from equality of opportunity to environmental.
I want to rebuild communities and families upon meaningful work, and a reduced welfare state. A blue collar wage that can support a lower middle class lifestyle is the sine qua non of that. If people end up with one $4000 big-screen TV made in the US instead of 3 $1200 TVs made in China, and 10 pairs of $200 American shoes instead of 40 pairs of $50 Chinese shoes, I’m all for it.
. If people end up with one $4000 big-screen TV made in the US instead of 3 $1200 TVs made in China, and 10 pairs of $200 American shoes instead of 40 pairs of $50 Chinese shoes, I’m all for it.
This analysis is deeply flawed. Where is the stuff that goes into making that TV going to come from? You are saying that you could manufacture and source the materials for, ALL the components that go into that TV, in the US?
a reduced welfare state. – could be achieved by cutting immigration, which drive up wages at the bottom.
‘I don’t WANT cheaper goods. I want higher wages for the 20th-80th %-ile of the income distribution. We have too much cheap crap as it is. Free-trade driven materialistic consumerism is a disaster on every level, from equality of opportunity to environmental.’ – that is an opinion not a fact. Who gets to decide what’ too much cheap crap’ is. Free trade and ‘materialistic consumerism’ are not the same thing I feel, the materialistic attitude is more a cultural thing than an economics thing I think. Free trade is about pure market economics, not a cultural issue of what you think people should or shouldn’t buy based on your own personal beliefs and opinions.
Also, I think living standards overall have actually consistently improved in the west, especially for those at the bottom, I really don’t think you can say free trade has been a disaster on every level. Please provide examples.
100% of the income growth over the past 30 years has gone to the to 20% of the distribution. The bottom 20% is propped up to levels of consumption similar to the working class through ridiculously generous welfare. The middle 60% has seen no real wage growth. Inflation would be at 10% right now if we measured it using the 70-80’s methodology.
https://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
It now takes two working parents to maintain the same middle class lifestyle as one could in 1980. There’s no real progress unless you’re at the top or the bottom.
And WHY is inflation at 10%….. Because of sanctions.
If you want to start cutting off trade and only buying stuff made in America, you can look forward to persistent inflation, likely higher than your ten percent you have at the moment. You cannot increase American wages by onshoring production and expect prices to go down or stay lower than they are at the moment. Your production and wage costs would be higher and therefore your goods more expensive. Inflationary. You are contradicting yourself again.
No. Because of idiotic COVID lockdowns and 4 trillion dollars in wasted Gov’t spending.
Inflation is irrelevant if wages rise faster. I’d much rather have 6% inflation and 8% wage growth than the 4% inflation and 2.5% wage growth we have. Inflation is actually the only way out of our debt issues. We need to stop indexing entitlements and public sector pensions, finance the Gov’t debt longer-term, and let inflation eat away the debt.
Inflation on the price of American goods is not irrelevant if you wish to sell them to others in your ‘awesome’ trade block. So if you say inflation on goods is irrelevant then the price of those goods increases, you would then be less competitive on exports, therefore sell less goods, leading to less jobs, not more.
Why on earth would anyone want to buy American exports at inflated prices.
The American debt pile grows more enormous by the day. You will be waiting some time if you wish to rely solely on inflation to eat your debt.
I agree Covid did not help with inflation either, covid and the disruption to shipping, lockdowns, qe and then sanctions have all contributed to the inflation we have right now. The sanctions have perhaps hurt Europe and the UK more than the us to be fair.
I find it most ironic is that people who wanted and celebrated fall of US hegemony thought that a post American world be a more kinder, peaceful, and just one, but instead the direct opposite happened instead and are surprised about the result.
Very simplistic analysis and not desirous of understanding realities. The fact is that many nations donot buy into the standard MIC determined Weltanschaung which grips NATO now.
We don’t want endless war. We want to get on with our lives.And most of us are not rich luxury belief types with endless bank balances to pay for increased fuel costs, high food prices etc
Not to speak of waving Rainbow Pride flags, feeding hormonal drugs to children, questioning “what is a woman” and the whole baggage of globalist borderless trans- national entities who grow wealthier while the rest grow poorer.
If Mr Franklin wants to dwell in ” forever wars” without diplomacy that’s his problem.
He possibly is rich enough to blather about ” rules based orders”. For many poor or developing nations diplomacy and an end to endless militarism of the ” with us or against us” kind is the need of the hour.
“Multipolarity is supposed to be about an increasingly complex system of international relations. Ironically, though, it’s become tangled up with a simplistic idea: the West versus the Rest”
The West vs the Rest is nothing more or less than the inevitable outcome of western self-delusion. As Mr. Undersub commented earlier – there is no Rules-based International Order – it is strictly a western talking point (trope?). The West has serious self-inflicted wounds from Net Zero fantasies that are a non-starter for the Rest.
The Somewhere class (aka Deplorables) in the West are losing economic ground and living in fear of being sent to the electronic gulag for misgendering violations while our own Anywhere technocrats are raking in the dollars selling cheap off-shore goods that cost them pennies. Not content with that they either hide from the street rabble in their gated communities or buzz around the planet in a Gulfstream delivering climate change admonishments to the Denier classes.
Meanwhile the Rest are getting on with it. India, that’s expecting $1T in climate money from the decadent West leads the world in economic growth. Remember those 600M Africans without access to electricity? Which will arrive quicker to these people? Greta-approved renewables or non-Western fossil fuels?
That’s not to say the road ahead for the Rest is easy or without danger – there’s bound to be a few fights and failed marriages – but Mearsheimer was right about Putin (and I suspect the same applies the Rest) RBIO doesn’t scare him a bit and he’s not stupid enough to pursue Net Zero.
The “West vs the rest” narrative isn’t only supported by those ideologically hostile to the west, it’s also implicitly supported by those odd people who use saving the planet as a cover for a desire to prevent the rest of the world developing to western economic levels. They do exist, as Hans Rosling discovered on a regular basis when giving talks to policymakers and journalists about the state of the world based upon the numbers as opposed to media hype and panic.
I have always wondered what sort of person you need to be to imagine that 80% of humanity somehow deserves to be held back from the privileges you possess yourself.