LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters Breakingviews) – The horror in Israel and Gaza is a new blow to a fragile world. But the United States can prevent the rules-based order from collapsing if it keeps steering a steady course with regards to Russia and China. The biggest risk to that would be the return of Donald Trump as U.S. president.
A week into the latest conflict in Israel, the risk is that fighting could spread to other parts of the Middle East or cause the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden to pay less attention to containing Russian aggression and Chinese threats.
Global markets have reacted relatively calmly so far, with a modest increase in oil prices and a small decline in U.S. government bond yields suggesting investors think the conflict will remain local. If the United States holds firm on its grand strategy, any new geopolitical risks should be similarly contained.
Reuters Graphics Reuters Graphics
The rules-based international order is the catch-all term for the system that the victors of World War Two put in place with the aim of keeping global peace and advancing prosperity. International treaties – with the United Nations Charter at their apex – were not enough, though. The system depended on American muscle.
One explanation for the current outbreak of crises is that the United States is weaker and more internally divided than it was during the so-called “Pax Americana” era. Malign actors are more willing to break the rules.
There is some truth to this narrative. It is plausible that Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine partly because he thought the United States lacked the will to fight after its chaotic retreat from Afghanistan in 2021. And the U.S. is certainly less economically dominant than it was in 1960. At that time its economy accounted for 39% of global output, compared with 25% today.
Reuters Graphics Reuters Graphics
But this tale is simplistic. For starters, Pax Americana – Latin for “American peace” – applied only to part of the world. And it wasn’t particularly peaceful. The Cold War spawned a series of bitter conflicts in Korea, Vietnam as well as the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, not to mention multiple wars between Israel and its Arab neighbours.
Nor did the world witness peace after the Soviet Union collapsed. The United States and its allies were responsible for one of the worst breaches of global peace by invading Iraq in 2003 – a war that not only led to terrible destruction in the Middle East but undermined American authority and distracted Washington from China’s rising challenge.
WALKING, WHISTLING AND CHEWING GUM
Today’s conflicts – terrible wars in Ukraine and Israel, Chinese threats towards Taiwan, coups in Africa and the exodus of Armenians from Azerbaijan – are not yet as deadly as those of the Pax Americana era. What’s more, they have led some countries to try to shore up the rules-based order.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration has not just provided Kyiv with $44 billion of military aid. He has also strengthened U.S. alliances in Europe and Asia, rightly concluding that it cannot contain China and Russia on its own.
Meanwhile, the U.S.-led Group of Seven large rich democracies has emphasised its support for the U.N. Charter – in particular, its prohibition on the use of force against other countries. David Hannay, a former UK ambassador to the U.N., argues that the West’s only option is to intensify its defence of the rules-based order.
The G7 is also trying to help developing countries grow in a sustainable way, realising that nations such as India will play an increasingly important role in the global balance of power. It hasn’t yet provided enough money, but it is a start.
The Israel conflict could disrupt this work. Most obviously, if the conflict spreads to other countries, the United States’ attempt to build bridges between Israel and Saudi Arabia could collapse.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vow of “mighty vengeance” for Hamas’s attack is leading to terrible consequences for Palestinian civilians. Although Biden has spoken about the need to follow the “law of war”, the United States is sending weapons to Israel without conditions. Countries sympathetic to the Palestinian cause may conclude that the U.S. is complicit in any atrocities – undermining Washington’s attempt to woo the developing world.
Finally, there’s a danger that the United States will be unable to manage the Ukraine crisis, the Israel conflict and the challenge from China simultaneously.
Jake Sullivan, the U.S. national security advisor, says the administration can handle all three issues. But U.S. political support for Ukraine is already flagging. It could easily drop down the United States’ list of priorities, says Michel Duclos, a former French diplomat who is a fellow at the Paris-based Institut Montaigne.
RIVAL NARRATIVES
There are two rival views in Washington about how to handle Russia. Some Republicans argue that the United States has already given enough support to Ukraine and should now direct its limited supply of weapons to supporting Israel and Taiwan.
But Biden and other Republicans maintain that helping Ukraine beat Russia will cut the threat from China. By contrast, abandoning Ukraine would embolden Beijing and cause U.S. allies such as Taiwan, Japan and South Korea to worry that the United States might abandon them too.
Biden’s strategy is the wiser one. It also seems likely to prevail for now, even though he is struggling to get a dysfunctional Congress to approve more military aid for Kyiv.
This would change if Trump wins next year’s presidential election. The former property developer has a fondness for Putin and has not been particularly supportive of Ukraine. He will struggle to unite the U.S.’s allies as he is not a champion of either the NATO military alliance or the rules-based global order. His unpredictability will also undermine the consistent pursuit of a grand strategy.
The rules-based order is just about intact for now. A bigger test may be on its way.
Follow @Hugodixon on X
(The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Editing by Peter Thal Larsen, Oliver Taslic and Thomas Shum
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
