Examine the differences between the nature of the current world order and the nature of the world order in 2000 (12)

Point 1: China has risen to prominence in military, economic and geopolitical terms

World Order in 2000:

• In 2000, US was undisputed hegemon in a unipolar world order. Its GDP was the largest in the world at $10 trillion and it had by far the biggest and most capable military in the world, with the US representing 37% of global military spending

• China was still emerging economically with a GDP of $1.2 trillion and was focused on quietly growing in economic power under Deng Xiaoping’s philosophy of “hide your strength, bide your time”
  Had yet to translate much of its growing economic power into its military, which was regionally focused and had limited global reach

•  

Current World Order:

• Today, by contrast, China is far more powerful and considered to threaten US hegemony

• China’s GDP today exceeds $19 trillion, making it close behind the US’ $28 trillion GDP as the worlds’ second largest economy

• It has also become more assertive in global politics – modernised its military and began to assert itself regionally, including by building artificial islands in the South China Sea

• Has grown its geopolitical and soft power influence through the Belt and Road Initiative, under which it has funded infrastructure projects in over 100 countries as part of an intentional strategy to grow its influence over other countries and challenge US dominance

Point 2: Shift from a unipolar world order dominated by the US to a more multipolar world order that has an alliance of countries that aim to dislodge US’ supremacy

The World Order in 2000:

• In 2000, the unipolar dominance of the US was clear – world’s most powerful economy and military power which allowed it to shape the international order in its image and act as the global police force to enforce global rules

• US Dominance in 1990s and early 2000s led to a significant number of US led humanitarian interventions to uphold human rights, maintain peace, and serve American interests, including in Somalia, Kosovo and Afghanistan

 

The Current World Order:

• By contrast, the world order today is far more multipolar and competitive, with numerous powers aligning anf working together to dislodge American dominance

• Since 2000, countries including Chin, Russia and Iran have grown in power and in recent years have began to cooperate economically and militarily to exert influence globally and challenge US interests

• Iranian-built drones are being used in by Russia in Ukraine and both Russia and Iran export a significant majority of their energy reserves to China, therefore supporting its continued economic growth and a manufacturing superpower

Point 3: Decline of liberal ideals such as free markets, rule of law and democracy and decreased influence of liberal international institutions

The World Order in 2000:

• In 2000, liberalism dominated global governance. IGOS like the UN, IMF and World Bank reinforced democratic values, human rights, and open markets under US leadership

• The UN promoted liberal democratic governance and human rights through peacekeeping missions and humanitarian interventions such as in Somalia, East Timor, and Sierra Leone

• WTO also promoted liberal values by encouraging countries to have open markets and respect free trade

 

The Current World Order:

• It is clear that liberal ideals have far less influence across the world today

• Populism & isolationism have grown in West including US, Turkey & Hungary, which has challenged rule of law, democracy and free markets

  • in Trump’s first term he sought to overturn the results of a legitimate election, undermined the courts and started a trade war with China

• China & Russia have grown in power and challenged liberal international order - opposing international action against allies that have committed human rights violations as seen in Russia’s use of its UN Security Council veto to prevent action against Assad in Syria

• Moreover, China has sought to export its model of state-led development and authoritarian governance through the Belt and Road Initiative

.

.