Geopolitics: Welcome to the New World "Disorder"?

As we enter 2024, two significant conflicts dominate the headlines because of their intensity and critical geopolitical implications, risks, and potential for regional and global escalation. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it initially expected to crush its smaller neighbor and complete its annexation swiftly. Two years later, the two countries remain in a stalemate, with over five hundred thousand people, both civilians and military personnel, having already lost their lives.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has disrupted global economies in unprecedented ways. It deepened the inflation triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic to levels unseen in almost four decades and triggered an energy crisis. It also caused a food crisis in the developing world due to a shortage of wheat exported by Ukraine. Furthermore, it has again elevated Russia, a country with an economy the size of Italy's, to a vastly disruptive geopolitical actor, joining the ranks of North Korea and Iran. The conflict has also introduced new complexities and challenges in the alliances and relationships between global powers, the West, and other regional and global geopolitical players, as well as between the Global South and the Global North.

The second conflict, the war in Gaza, started when Hamas, the Palestinian political and military group in power in Gaza for the last 17 years, entered Israel and carried out a brazen terrorist attack on Israeli civilians, resulting in approximately twelve hundred casualties and over two hundred hostages, most of which have yet to be released. The assault has resulted in one of the most violent retaliations by Israel, leading to more than twenty thousand Gazan deaths in over ten weeks and the destruction of over seventy percent of buildings in the Palestinian enclave. Almost two million residents have been displaced and now live in one-third of the original Gaza territory, already one of the densest cities in the world.

The humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict has reached dramatic levels, with most residents of Gaza having limited access to food, water, electricity, and oil. Israel, supported by its key ally, the United States, still refuses to support a second humanitarian ceasefire, leaving the international community unclear about Benjamin Netanyahu's government and the Israeli Defense Forces' end goal.

The two conflicts, at least on the surface, have nothing in common regarding their root causes, dynamics, and impact. However, the world's reaction to each at the official and grassroots levels reflects a profound transformation, if not disintegration, of geopolitics, symbolizing what could be defined as a new "World Disorder" paradigm.

What does this paradigm mean, and why is it new? Since 1945 and the end of the Second World War, the world has seen various geopolitical frameworks that mainly established clear delineations between ideologies. The rivalry between the United States and the USSR was replaced almost immediately after the collapse of the Eastern Block in the late '80s by the emergence of China. Its centralized and directive political model challenged the West's vision that democracy was the only conduit to economic development, de facto ending the unipolar world order.

In his book, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order," first published in 1996, Samuel Huntington, a renowned International Relations researcher, states that the world has become "multipolar and multicivilizational." He writes, "During the Cold War, global politics became bipolar, and the world was divided into three parts. A group of democratic and wealthy countries led by the United States was engaged in economic, ideological, and political competition against the communist bloc led by the Soviet Union. "

According to Mr. Huntington, the confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union primarily took place by proxy in the developing world, in countries that "were poor, lacked political stability, were recently independent, and claimed to be non-aligned." The Non-Aligned Movement, created in 1961 by India, Indonesia, Egypt, Yugoslavia, and Ghana, was designed to allow countries in the developing world to maintain their independence vis a vis these two ideological blocks and the Cold War but realistically, failed to develop a concerted or sustainable approach to geopolitics. Each non-aligned country began to address its priorities, whether decolonization, regional instability, or internal divisions.

For the last two decades, the world has witnessed various geopolitical trends emerge alongside the collapse of U.S. hegemony and the rise of China. They include the rise of Russia as one of the most significant disruptors of the world order, which began with the invasion of Crimea in 2014, followed by the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The two Gulf Wars also increased instability in the Middle East since the early nineties. The region has served as a proxy for regional and global influences, evidenced by the civil wars in Syria and Iraq, the conflict in Yemen, the rise and fall of ISIS, and the reshuffling of alliances with the Abraham Accords. Afghanistan remains a geopolitical riddle for the international community.

Mr. Huntington asserts that "after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the three blocks were replaced by the emergence of seven or eight major civilizations: Western democracies, the Muslim world, China, Orthodox, the Hindus, Japan, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America." His analysis may have set the stage for today's World Disorder as clusters, but more recently, independent geopolitical voices have multiplied. For instance, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, while belonging to the Arab, Muslim, and Gulf State blocks, have developed unique and often competing voices on the geopolitical scene. The same observation applies to several countries in the European Union. Brexit also marked the return of Great Britain as a stand-alone geopolitical actor.

Regional powers such as Turkey and Iran have also become more assertive. In Asia and Latin America, India and Brazil have introduced a unique and differentiated voice on the world stage. Meanwhile, the United Nations has maintained a perennial system where five countries (P5 in the United Nations Security Council) have retained control over critical humanitarian and human rights decisions through their veto power, often impeded by their interests and geopolitical strategies.

States remain the most critical actors in world affairs, but cultural and civilizational factors increasingly shape their interests, priorities, and decisions. The Iron Curtain and the ideological divide between totalitarianism and communism on one side and democracy and capitalism on the other were replaced by a more nuanced approach as the two seemingly different ideologies began to adjust or, in some parts of the world, blend or overlap. Democracy is no longer the panacea for success. Socialism is no longer a code word for communism.

Private and nonstate actors have also emerged as influential geopolitical stakeholders. In the Middle East, terrorist groups have continued to shape regional and global geopolitics since the 1990s and continue to disrupt the stability of the region. The expansion of Al Qaeda and its network in the Sahel has introduced new risks in the geopolitical profile of Africa and its relationship with its former colonizers (e.g., France). The Warner Group is a mercenary group with strong ties to Putin in Africa and is involved in the Ukraine war. Private military groups were involved in the attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan socialist government in 2020.

Developing countries have become less inclined to align with the United States or The European Union. For example, most countries in the Global South have refused to apply sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine or condemn Hamas after the attack on Israel.

The discourse about climate change further crystallizes the schism between rich and poor countries, with developing countries bearing the brunt of the impact of climate change and rising temperatures, assigning responsibility to developed countries and asking for compensation.

Historically, the ideological demarcation line in International Relations required taking a position on many geopolitical issues and declaring alignment with one group or another. The current predicament has introduced independence and the absence of ideology in geopolitical decisions. The two main theories of International Relations, realism, and liberalism, may be taking a back seat, replaced by circumstances and opportunism.

Individual political leaders also play a more prominent role in shaping the geopolitical climate. In Russia or China, Xi and Putin have imposed their unilateral view of the world order, defined by their unique vision, far from any communist or socialist ideology. One could argue that leaders like Trump in the U.S., Orban in Hungary, Modi in India, and Netanyahu in Israel have all influenced and increased the unpredictability of geopolitics away from any doctrine inherent to their respective countries.

Global alliances are based on a community of interest regarding a particular crisis, cause, or project. The United Nations is caught between the West's agenda, the mobilization of the Global South, or even countries with conservative values (e.g., Muslim countries) that challenge the promotion of what they consider values incompatible with their beliefs, such as LGBTQ rights. Governments can create a unified front to respond to a specific cause while being divided about many other geopolitical concerns.

In this new World Disorder, alliances, positions, decisions, and actions have become unpredictable and transactional, driven mainly by isolated factors and self-interest. They no longer indicate any alignment with a particular ideology or provide clues about forward-looking trends and future developments. Rising powers like India or Brazil may signal their position on the Gaza war today but still pursue closer relations with Israel shortly. Alliances are formed but have an expiration date.

The same applies to confrontations and conflicts. The United States and Venezuela have spent years criticizing each other, with Nicolas Maduro becoming one of Latin America's pariahs. However, in recent months, the two countries are negotiating again. They are looking for collaboration to address the energy crisis resulting from the Ukraine war, as Venezuela possesses the largest oil reserves globally. Energy priorities and economic imperatives have trumped the political stalemate, ideology, and human rights considerations.

In the Middle East, a rapprochement between The United States and Iran is not outside the realm of possibilities. Several Arab countries have expressed unwavering support for the Palestinian cause while pursuing rapprochement with Israel. Countries within the European Union have adopted different energy strategies toward Russia after the invasion of Ukraine.

Can anyone predict what would happen if China were to overtake Taiwan and which country would support, oppose, or stand neutral on the potential conflict? The current World Disorder renders any logical prediction unlikely, if not impossible. The alliances formed with or against China have continued to shift, and any state actor will make the best decisions based on current variables rather than ideological loyalty or commitment. Neither the U.S. nor China has enough credibility to feel confident in assessing which countries would firmly stand behind their geopolitical decisions and actions. Most countries may opt to stand by.

Economic considerations have replaced ideology as migration from the Global South to Western countries appears unstoppable, evidenced by the unrelenting waves of migrants at or heading to the U.S. border with Mexico. This new dynamic raises a new paradox: the developing world still sees the living standards of the developed world as aspirational but, at the same time, rejects the societal and political values of the developed world and assigns responsibility for its problems.

African citizens still seek to find a better life in Europe. Meanwhile, a wave of regime changes observed in various African countries (e.g., Mali, Gabon) underscores a shift in alliances away from their former European colonizers (e.g., France) and towards China and Russia. Navigating the maze of African politics and alliances has become challenging and highlights the continent's emergence as an important geopolitical actor.

Are the West or Western Democracies still a homogenous block? The polarization of American politics, for example, threatens the fabric of American society by introducing instability and volatility and even blurring the line between church and state. In 2022, the conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court struck down Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court Case that provided American women the freedom to control their reproductive decisions forty years ago, opening the doors to the most restrictive anti-abortion laws around the country in two generations. Meanwhile, France is looking to enshrine abortion rights in its Constitution.

The values of Western Democracies are diverging and could lead to a more significant divide, particularly among younger generations of North Americans and Europeans. Democratic values are endangered across the world as countries like Brazil, Argentina, Spain, France, Poland, The Netherlands, and Sweden face an aggressive push from right-wing political forces with unclear global and regional geopolitical implications.

Most international institutions were created shortly after World War II and were shaped according to Western interests, values, and principles. The most obvious and controversial is the makeup of the United Nations Security Council, comprised of the five countries (including four Western and European countries) that emerged victorious from World War II. However, in the eyes of many emerging powers, such as India and Brazil, these institutions no longer reflect the geopolitical profile of the world. African, Arab, and Muslim countries denounce their lack of representation in critical security, human rights, and humanitarian rights decisions. As permanent members continue to abuse their veto powers, other member countries of the United Nations seek other ways to assert their voices.

The dysfunctions of the United Nations Security Council have rendered the enforcement of human rights and humanitarian rights laws more challenging, if not impossible, as geopolitical interests and priorities often supersede the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, the latest examples being, of course, the tragedies still unfolding in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan. No one can make sense of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo that has killed six million people, its underlying root causes, and the viable parameters that could help any form of peace or conflict resolution.

Technology and social media have also become geopolitical actors. Notably, TikTok and other social media outlets have enabled global mobilization about the war in Gaza. These platforms have empowered strong grassroots voices that bypass traditional communication channels and speak directly to those who can pressure governments and politicians. These new and uncontrollable actors can no longer be ignored because their influence could sway elections in certain countries, with broad geopolitical implications.

Geopolitical risk has emerged as one of the most significant risks of the last five years and has accelerated since 2022 and 2023 with the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. A recent World Economic Forum survey states, "Continuing volatility in geopolitical and geoeconomic relations between major economies is the biggest concern for chief risk officers in both the public and private sectors." One reason for this concern is the complexity of these different trends and the challenge of trying to understand their interdependence and connect the dots not only to what is happening today but also to underlying variables.

How can geopolitical experts and observers make sense of all of this? The once-clear lines of ideology and alliances have blurred. Pragmatism and self-interest now guide global geopolitical decision-making, challenging established norms and values. This shifting landscape demands a fresh perspective to unravel the intricate web of modern complexities. It also raises questions about the relevance of historical I.R. theories and concepts to explain geopolitical events and, more importantly, to develop forward-looking analyses.

There are thirty-two ongoing conflicts, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, and each one, as well as the protagonists and their proxies, might be a wild card defined as a variable that could have an unpredictable impact on the conflict itself but also local, regional or global security and stability. A worse scenario is the concept of the Black Swan, defined as an event that could have catastrophic consequences for the world order. How could experts identify and evaluate the likelihood and impact of one or several of these conflicts becoming a Black Swan? The highest geopolitical risk has become the unpredictability of geopolitical events.

As the world recognizes this New World Disorder, there is an opportunity to rely more significantly on technology to alleviate the unpredictability. Artificial Intelligence may introduce tools and mechanisms for analyzing all geopolitical events and developing frameworks and scenarios that could provide a better perspective on the evolution of these risks.

See my article on the potential of AI in Geopolitics

It also behooves Graduate Global Affairs and International Relations programs and curricula to rethink the teaching and learning of International Relations and, most urgently, recognize that Western Values, theories, values, and principles may no longer define the World Order or enable the practical understanding and analysis of geopolitical risks. The World Disorder has become a patchwork of complex if not paradoxical, variables that could make this educational field the most exciting and promising yet.

This World Disorder is daunting but offers fertile ground for innovation and adaptability in navigating this dynamic geopolitical reality. In 2024, approximately fifty countries will hold elections, including India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, The United States, and all twenty-seven countries of The European Union. These countries account for sixty percent of the world's GDP and represent influential and unique perspectives on the world stage.

2024 will be a pivotal year in geopolitics. Fresh ideas are welcome.

Interested in hearing more? please subscribe to the Weekly Lift, my weekly newsletter dedicated to positive news worldwide