Winter is coming
I considered my article in Politica Exterior in 2019 a bit too pessimistic at the time; unfortunately, some of the risks have become true.
I published an article a few years ago in Política Exterior under the title “Winter is coming”. I considered it a bit too pessimistic at the time, but re-reading it now, I have to admit that the worst risks that were mentioned, including a global pandemic and a more aggressive Russia, have come become true.
This is an English version of the Article published in May 2019. You can find the original Spanish text in a separate file in the Non Papers Section of my Verbal Notes Substack.
A few highlights as appetizers:
“We are not facing an era of change, but a change of era. We are entering a new model of social relations, which affects both the internal organization of States and international relations and which is clearly opposed to the Western liberal order established after the Second World War.”
“The result is that Humanity today faces unprecedented challenges in the worst possible conditions, with a deep and growing interdependence materializing in a context of isolationist currents and centrifugal forces that block actions that, in order to be effective, need to be collective.”
“Russia's new attitude calls into question the approach to security in Europe and globally; regardless of the reasons why we have reached the current situation, the fact is that Russia has adopted provocative behavior in several contexts; its undoubted political and military power contrasts with economic and demographic fragility, with consequences that are difficult to anticipate.”
“There is a reasonably successful example of this shared management: the European Union. In spite of its current crisis, its path can offer some clues on how to approach these new scenarios and face common challenges with a joint perspective that at the same time does not ignore the underlying political and social reality; a model capable of managing and respecting national interests, integrating them into deep-rooted dynamics that open the door for the interaction of consensus, complementarities and complicities that promote common interest.”
Winter Is Coming.
In 2003, the European Security Strategy was based on the idea that Europe had never been so prosperous, so secure nor so free. 13 years later, in 2016, the new version of the document had radically changed the previous optimistic tone, warning from its first sentences that we live in times of existential crisis, within and beyond the European Union and that our Union is under threat.
What has happened in Europe and in the world in the last 15 years that justifies this radical change of perspective?
The question is particularly relevant because this transformation is not determined by an accumulation of isolated events; it outlines a New Normal, a global change of paradigm of which different events are only partial manifestations.
We are not facing an era of change, but a change of era. We are entering a new model of social relations, which affects both the internal organization of States and international relations and which is clearly opposed to the Western liberal order established after the Second World War.
1.- What is the Western liberal order?
After 1945, the direct experience of totalitarianism, both in the recently defeated fascism and in a communism that was still a real threat, forced Western governments of the time to organize themselves as an alternative to political projects that subordinated individuals to the community.
Thus, Western States were constructed as managers of diversity, that is, political communities that relinquished common identity and collective objectives as their main justification, and focused instead on sound economic administration and political stability as means to ensure a social order in which individuals could develop fully.
This social order was possible thanks to the establishment of the Welfare State, which aims to distribute the fruits of the market economy in an equitable manner in all layers of society. It is important not to underestimate the significance of this decision, which altered the prevailing free-market logic and put the State at the center of economic decision-making. The Beveridge Report, published in 1942 and which laid the foundations of this system in the United Kingdom, significantly asserts that a revolutionary moment in the History of the world is time for revolutions, not for adjustments.
In the global context, changes were no less intense. The instruments of international cooperation were reinvented, defining a new era in which universal collaboration would define the world order.
This deep transformation, which consolidated the very concept of the International Community, was triggered by an awareness of the tragic consequences of war and the resulting need to find a system that would ensure peace and stability. In the words of Samuel Johnson, “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully”.
The new vision resulted in the creation of the United Nations Organization, the Bretton Woods Institutions and the GATT Trade Agreements (later transformed into WTO). At the UN, the combination of legitimacy and realism defined by the interaction between the General Assembly and the Security Council set in motion a system that, in the words of one of its first Secretary Generals, was not intended to take humanity to Heaven but to save it from Hell.
The actors of the time were fully aware of the foundational character of this period and of their responsibility in defining a new international order, as evidenced by the fact that the Memoirs of then US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, carried the revealing title of "Present at the Creation."
History does not move on rails, and as Acheson himself points out, it is written backwards but lived forwards. Nothing is predetermined. Concrete decisions taken at the time by concrete leaders defined a radically new system, which laid the foundations for 70 years of unprecedented peace and stability.
This model is now in question.
2.- How the Western liberal Order is being questioned.
Paradoxically, it is the same sense of insecurity prevailing after the Second World War that is currently provoking a diametrically opposed reaction, promoting isolation instead of cooperation.
The roots of current insecurity can be found in the growing awareness that the fate of States and individuals no longer depends on their own decisions and actions; growing interdependence with actors near and far play a larger and larger role in defining the model of society, as well as economic and employment expectations, personal security and even one's own identity.
States are not able to protect their citizens and provide them with acceptable living conditions, and ruling cosmopolitan elites are perceived as opposed to the interests of the majority of the population. The unjustifiable increase in inequality in recent times has undoubtedly contributed to this sense of vulnerability and abandonment, easily transformed into distrust or even resentment.
After the Second World War the perception of threat generated a model of greater cooperation within the States and in the international community; now, these same impulses move a part of the population to avoid any relationship with Others, seeking shelter in their own community. As Timothy Garton Ash points out, these groups demand not only a better distribution of resources, but also a better distribution of opportunities and even a better distribution of Respect.
This populist reaction can take various forms, through political or social movements reinforced by the use of social networks, including isolationism, exclusionary nationalism, racism, extremism, the rejection of immigration, Islamophobia, etc. .
The result is that Humanity today faces unprecedented challenges in the worst possible conditions, with a deep and growing interdependence materializing in a context of isolationist currents and centrifugal forces that block actions that, in order to be effective, need to be collective.
Our societies are disoriented, divided and paralyzed at a time when we need a distinct awareness of the seriousness of the challenges, a shared vision of the measures that need to be taken and a strong will to apply the necessary changes.
Let's analyze each of these mental processes separately.
3.- How to deal with this situation.
A.- Awareness of the seriousness of the challenges.
In order to overcome this situation, we need first to be aware of the depth of the changes we are experiencing at the individual and collective level.
The intensity of the transformation is as far reaching as that which occurred after the Second World War, but the absence of dramatic events and its cumulative nature make it difficult to visualize its exponential character and identify its content. The image of the boiled frog comes to mind: plunged initially in warm water, it does not realize that the temperature increases until it is too late. We do not have a clear idea of the current temperature of our water; but it seems evident that it is rising rapidly.
The current international scenario was unthinkable just a decade ago; in addition to the two components already mentioned, brutal increase in interdependence and the isolationist reaction it has triggered, it is important to identify a few other interrelated trends that have become visible in recent years and that determine a situation of increasing instability.
First, the extremely rapid technological progress. We are experiencing an unprecedented and game-changing acceleration in the field of information technology and the development of social networks. We still do not fully understand the political impact of Artificial Intelligence and the use of Big Data, but there is no doubt that it will significantly transform the public management of our societies, as it has already transformed the management of our social relations.
A piece of factual information can help us understand where we really are: currently the six largest companies in the world by market value are technological. 2 of them sell identifiable products, software or hardware; the other four base their business model on the management of our data.
Furthermore, the consequences of this very rapid evolution in terms of job availability and the still barely visible potential of biotechnology force us to review the most basic notions of our social contract and even our concept of human life.
A global agreement is essential to make sure that these advances serve humanity as a whole. Beyond science fiction scenarios that cannot be completely ruled out, there is a serious risk of moving towards irreversible inequality and of a questioning of the democratic mechanisms of political participation.
Second, the return to a situation of great power competition, which revives some aspects of the cold war, but adds new dynamics that make the situation even more uncertain and dangerous.
The rise of China and its global prominence, already undoubted in the economic sphere and increasingly unavoidable in political terms, poses a novel scenario in which this country struggles for leadership with the United States. Graham Allison, in his book "Thucydides's Trap", has analyzed the historical precedents in which an emerging power has opposed an incumbent, reaching the worrying conclusion that in 12 of the 16 cases identified the situation has led to armed conflict.
Russia's new attitude calls into question the approach to security in Europe and globally; regardless of the reasons why we have reached the current situation, the fact is that Russia has adopted provocative behavior in several contexts; its undoubted political and military power contrasts with economic and demographic fragility, with consequences that are difficult to anticipate.
Perhaps the most surprising development in this area is the unilateralism of the US administration, which stretches and deepens the determination of the United States to reduce its role in some regions of the world, incorporating a new deep distrust in multilateral institutions of all kinds.
The most worrisome manifestation of this three-way rivalry is the risk derived from the potential use of nuclear weapons; but it is also generating a growing polarization of the international community, which is manifested in the use of all areas of international relations as instruments to strengthen geopolitical power, including some that until now have been ruled predominantly by different logics, such as commercial exchanges, legal decisions, sanctions policy and others. The various modalities of hybrid wars, reinforced by instruments derived from information technology, are also inserted in this destructive logic.
Third, instability has also increased in the Arab world. The revolutions that shook this region in 2011 can be interpreted as a continuation of the pro-democracy movements in Latin America in the 1980s, Europe in the 1990s and Africa from the beginning of the 21st century, notwithstanding the fact that the political model to which Arab populations aspire is not necessarily identical to current Western Democracies.
Their development and outcome leave a situation of interrupted evolution, of mobilizations for Dignity that have largely failed to achieve their objectives and of a reedition of sorts of the status quo ante. But returning to the causes is not usually an effective mechanism to avoid consequences; and the situation may have been altered to the detriment of more moderate or better structured actors.
Fourth, it is inevitable to note the weakness of the European Union. Successive enlargements have undoubtedly hindered the generation of consensus and decision-making. But beyond these difficulties of a technical-political nature, it is important not to lose sight of the questioning of its basic philosophy derived from the rise of populist movements, epitomized by the Brexit process.
On the other hand, even in cases where Europe is capable of overcoming its differences, adopting a common position, and defending it with conviction, the instruments of real power available are not sufficient to implement its will in a context of opposition with other actors. The experience of the American withdrawal from the agreement with Iran has triggered a reflection on the need for a European Strategic Autonomy, in order to provide the Union with political tools to take its own decisions and implement them in the international arena.
B. - Shared vision.
Together with the depth and extension of the changes, we must become aware of their global nature. The common feature that unites these transformations is the brutal increase of interdependence between different countries and regions. These issues need to be addressed collectively if we want to be effective.
Interdependence has increased its impact and visibility exponentially in the last decade, particularly since the economic crisis of 2008; its most significant manifestation is the presence of existential challenges for Humanity, such as climate change or the control of nuclear weapons, as well as developments that can alter our model of coexistence, including the steering of technology, the management of a globalized economy, migrations, the risk of pandemics or international terrorism.
All these challenges share some basic elements, but the central common feature is that none can be addressed in isolation by a single State, not even by the most powerful ones. What the German Foreign Minister said a few months ago about Europe can be extrapolated to the whole world: there are two types of countries: the small ones and those that are not yet aware that they are small.
The excruciating contradiction between the global nature of challenges and the tendencies that lead to the division of the international community makes it necessary to rethink the basic notions of cooperation between States and in the global context. Because there is no planet B and only through collaboration among all States can we face climate change; because in the case of a pandemic such as Ebola, national measures are not enough, and the risk will exist until the origin is attacked and universal solutions are found; because migration can only be tackled jointly between countries of origin, transit and destination; many other examples could be mentioned.
This situation of division also prevents us from taking advantage of real opportunities, such as the development of Africa, which requires considerable economic and political investment, but which, depending on its evolution, can positively mark the progress of humanity for the coming decades or become an increasingly demanding challenge.
C.- From reflection to action.
The intense transformations that are happening demand a response. Their global nature demands that this response is taken up jointly by the whole of the International Community. In order to operationalize the need to tackle change collectively we need to address the institutions and tools that manage interdependence.
Global social and economic evolution have moved ahead of global governance and regulation, as in the song by Dire Straits Telegraph Road: “Then came the churches, then came the schools, then came the lawyers, then came the rules”. Our situation is not dissimilar to that of the American West at the time of its colonization, where individuals and some institutions were already present on the ground, but laws did not exist or were not reliably imposed.
We have to rethink global governance because only through concerted action can we be effective in the current context. The starting point must be a ruthless examination of Reality, in order to identify "Zombie Orthodoxies" still in place despite having been overcome by events, and replace them with effective collaboration mechanisms to address the existential challenges Humanity faces.
We cannot continue to use, by default, logics and mechanisms that no longer respond to reality. The current international arrangement resembles a large industrial facility, with a multitude of moving parts and a considerable impact of friction; tightening the bolts and oiling the cogwheels is not enough. We must go beyond the current model and replace it with something more similar to the operating system of a supercomputer.
We must move towards a state of affairs in which we are able to take full advantage of the potential offered by information technologies, and incorporate this knowledge into the process of analysis and decision making.
It is also essential to find practical mechanisms for cooperation among States that incorporate legitimate national interests into a global system of work that is effective to address common challenges.
Ultimately, we must also overcome a conception of sovereignty that gives individual states the absolute and unilateral power to take decisions in areas that affect the entire international community.
The current international organizations, in particular the United Nations system, do not have the institutional capital, nor the decision-making mechanisms, nor the capacity to mobilize the necessary resources to carry out this transformation by themselves.
But while we seek new governance systems we must be aware that we are in a time of transition in which the new is being born, but the old is clearly present and defines reality for the majority of the population. These are unstable and dangerous times, in which the rhythm of adaptation is as important as its content, and social and political sensitivity must accompany strategic decision-making.
4.- The European Model.
The International Community must avoid the continuation of its current sleepwalking, in which it senses that the terrain is increasingly insecure, but is unable to stop, open its eyes and make conscious decisions about its bearings.
States are the only actors that can impose the necessary changes, the re-creation of the tools and the institutions responsible for the management of interdependence, with a depth of change equivalent to that which took place after the Second World War.
There is a reasonably successful example of this shared management: the European Union. In spite of its current crisis, its path can offer some clues on how to approach these new scenarios and face common challenges with a joint perspective that at the same time does not ignore the underlying political and social reality; a model capable of managing and respecting national interests, integrating them into deep-rooted dynamics that open the door for the interaction of consensus, complementarities and complicities that promote common interest.
In any case, in order to manage change effectively, it is necessary to act with sense and sensibility, in a potentially explosive socio-political situation, in which a very important portion of the population demands solutions for current problems, rather than reflections about a vague and threatening future.