By Matthew Continetti
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Economists at the World Bank and International Monetary
Fund must feel pretty lucky these days. They work for just about the only
institutions set up in the aftermath of World War II that aren’t in the middle
of an identity crisis. From Turtle Bay to Brussels, from Washington to Vienna,
the decay of the economic and security infrastructure of the postwar world has
accelerated in recent weeks. The bad news: As the legacy of the 20th century
recedes into the past, the only 21st-century alternatives are offered from an
authoritarian surveillance state.
The pressure is both external and internal. Revisionist
powers such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea undermine the foundations
of global governance and hijack institutions to the detriment of the liberal
international order. The institutions themselves lack the self-confidence
necessary to further the cause of human freedom. Meanwhile, the most powerful
nation in the world has turned inward. Its foreign policy is haphazard and
improvisational, contradictory and equivocal. The confusion and zigzagging
contribute to the erosion of legitimacy. It delays the emergence of new forms
of international organization.
The breakdown was visible at last week’s NATO summit in
London. Remarkably, the source of the immediate ruckus wasn’t President Trump.
It was French president Emmanuel Macron, who doubled down on his criticism of
the Atlantic alliance that he’d expressed in a recent interview with The Economist. Trump disagreed with
Macron’s description of NATO as “brain dead.” He and other allies didn’t back
Macron’s call for rapprochement with Russia and China and renewed focus on
terrorism.
Macron wasn’t the only troublemaker. Turkey’s autocratic
leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who recently tested his Russian S-400 air defense
systems against his American F-16s, said he would block a Balkan defense plan
unless NATO designates the Kurdish YPG a terrorist group. The summit ended with
a leaked video of Macron, Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson, and Dutch prime
minister Mark Rutte sharing a laugh at Trump’s expense. Haughty euro-elites
mocking the American president is always an affront, but it is especially
counterproductive now, when the alliance is under attack from prominent voices
within the United States.
When it was founded, NATO was one part of a strategy
whose goal was the prevention of another global war. Security guarantees and
the forward deployment of conventional forces bound America to Europe and the
Europeans to each other. Another part of the strategy led to the EU. It
integrates the economies of nations that unleashed the two most devastating
conflicts in human history. It was thought that trade relations contribute to
peace and that nationalities can be submerged under a continent-sized umbrella.
What the architects of Europe didn’t anticipate was popular resentment of
bureaucratic administration, the imbalances and fiscal consequences of monetary
union without political union, and the reassertion of national identity that
results from large-scale immigration.
Today the politics of every major European country is a
mess. I write these words on the day of a British election that will determine
whether the United Kingdom leaves the EU and whether an anti-Semitic socialist
lives in 10 Downing Street. Germany flirts with recession, its chancellor is a
lame duck, the grand coalition hosts an SPD under far-left leadership, and the
largest opposition party is the Alternative for Germany. Macron might want to
spend more time on domestic politics: His approval rating is around 30 percent,
striking workers have paralyzed France, and 13 French soldiers were killed in
Mali.
National populism has transformed Hungary, Poland, and
the Czech Republic and plays a significant role in Germany, France, Austria,
and Sweden. No longer deputy prime minister of Italy, Matteo Salvini remains
the most significant political figure in his country. “Recent opinion polls
indicate that if elections were held tomorrow, Mr. Salvini would not only
easily become prime minister, but that a coalition of the League, the
post-fascist Brothers of Italy and the remainder of Mr. [former prime minister
Silvio] Berlusconi’s Forza Italia would command an absolute majority in
parliament,” writes Miles Johnson of the Financial
Times. The European leaders who fear Salvini are nonetheless ambivalent
about the threat posed by Vladimir Putin and by Ayatollah Khamenei. They are
happy to advance the Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream pipelines and circumvent U.S.
sanctions against Iran.
Frenetic institution-building accompanied victory in
World War II. The Allies created organizations devoted to international
security, diplomacy, health, and economics. The first to go was the Bretton
Woods agreement on international finance, which ended when Richard Nixon took
America off the gold standard in 1971. The next was the United Nations, which
revealed its corruption and domination by dictatorships in its resolution
equating Zionism and racism in 1975. The Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak
(fortunately destroyed by the Israeli Air Force in 1981) was evidence that the
Non-Proliferation Treaty is only as good as the regimes that sign it. NATO and
the EU survived the Cold War and flourished in the two decades after the
dissolution of the Soviet Union but both have run up against the limits of
expansion. Both have lost sight of their historic function to preserve the
peace.
Sometimes changing circumstances render institutions
powerless. That is happening to the World Trade Organization. The WTO, endowed
in 1995, was built for a unipolar world. When China joined in 2001, its GDP was
one-tenth the size of America’s. Now it’s more than half, and China has emerged
as a military, industrial, and technological rival. But the WTO still
designates China as a “developing” country, which entitles it to certain
advantages. President Trump’s campaign against this exorbitant privilege
reached an impasse December 10, when his administration blocked judicial
appointments to the organization’s dispute-resolution court. It no longer has
the capacity to arbitrate. The WTO is toothless. Hollowed out. What will
replace it? Nothing has been proposed.
The motive power behind all of these institutions was
American commitment. What upheld the structure was our willingness to sustain
the costs of international security and global defense of democracy. That
engagement began to wane after the Cold War. By 2008, it was practically
nonexistent. The president’s disinterest in foreign affairs is a reflection of
his countrymen’s. His administration, to its credit, has proposed great-power
competition as the basis for a renewed American grand strategy. The
follow-through has been difficult.
That has left us with entropy. The international scene is
filled with decayed institutions and unpalatable choices. On one hand is the
status quo. On the other is China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Made in China
2025. “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the
new cannot be born,” wrote philosopher Antonio Gramsci. “In this interregnum, a
great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” And no one has a cure.
No comments:
Post a Comment