Walking Back from the End of History.

If Western corporate media reported the truth, this week’s headlines might read: The Global War on Terror is over, unceremoniously interred in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

According to Pentagon Chief James “barking mad” Mattis, the US administration will now be shifting its focus from 'fighting terrorism', to facing off 'competition from resurgent powers which seek to impose an authoritarian model of government on other nations'. “We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order", reads the summary of the new National Defence Strategy, without a hint of irony.

The War on Terror was a thinly veiled proxy war for world domination; a war the Atlanticists could fight from a position of armchair comfort. Great power competition has been largely put on hold since the end of the Cold War, but with China and Russia resuming their historic places on the world stage, that equation has now changed. What Francis Fukuyama once arrogantly proclaimed as the end of history has turned out to be a flash in the pan. Current trends seem to suggest a shift toward a new, multi-polar world order; one of pluralism as opposed to unilateralism, which some have interpreted as revolutionary new paradigm.

Moving forward to the past.

Alas, multi-lateralism seems to have been pretty much the normal state of affairs in early modern Europe up until the end of the 19th century, before two hot wars and a cold one led to the redrawing of the geopolitical map and a new framework of international relations. Seen through this lens, Putin and Xi are perhaps not so much ushering in a 'new world order' as rolling back the changes made to the old one; changes which culminated in the West’s ‘unipolar moment’: the ‘opening up’ of China to western capital, the ritual disembowelment of the Soviet Union, and the end of a period of precarious strategic balance.

It’s hard to think of any reason why recent geopolitical trends – China’s belt and road initiative and win:win approach to global developement; Russia’s military intervention to stabilise the Syrian conflict – would not be welcomed by any peace loving global citizen, but in an era of total war where news is routinely false or misleading, it’s no surprise that the weakening grip of Western hegemony should be sold to us as an existential threat to the principles of liberal democracy.

Best friends or half-siblings?

One characteristic of the West’s unipolar moment has been the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational institutions. This has in many respects been a double edged sword. In a sense, the EU, NATO and ISIS are cut from the same cloth – each in its own way seeking to impose its will across national borders, with complete disregard for the principles of state sovereignty and non-interference – the very foundation stones of international relations. When al-Qaeda declares that "the international system built up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will collapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state", the Atlanticists reply with brazen conceit, citing 'limited sovereignty' and 'Responsibility to Protect'. ‘Democracy' and ‘freedom’ are administered at gunpoint wherever Western hegemony is challenged. NATO’s actions to uphold ‘democratic values’ have been sanctioned by the ‘international community’ from Kosovo to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Sudan to Syria. The results speak for themselves.

Mattis and company take rank hypocrisy to a whole new level in extolling the virtues of a “rules-based international order” given their own records. Was it Russia that unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and now seeks to tear up the Iran nuclear deal? Was it China that invaded Iraq without a UN mandate leaving over a million dead? Were Iran and North Korea caught red handed funding and arming ‘moderate rebels’ from 80 different countries to affect regime change in Syria? Does any other country have 900 military bases in 135 countries? Has any other country ever used an atomic bomb on a civilian population? Has any other country ever used an atomic bomb, period?

Entering the New Cold War

Russia and China make a far more compelling case for a return to international norms, and have repeatedly used their United Nations Security Council veto power as a means to balance American power. Meanwhile, Russia has taken measures to restore strategic balance with a new arsenal of high-tech weaponry. The obvious question is will a return to Westphalian multilateralism open the door to a new era of peaceful relations, or one of neo-imperialist rivalry leading inevitably to great power conflict? While Putin and Xi’s penchant for diplomacy tends toward the more optimistic outcome, the current US military posture and breakdown of diplomatic relations suggests that a lasting peace may be long-fought and hard-won.