Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s and the transformation of the international system from a bipolar to a unipolar order, the United States emerged as the world’s sole superpower. However, around 15 years ago, the world changed again, becoming more complex. Washington became less interested in being responsible for global security or even promoting global values. Other countries, which had grown stronger, started ignoring international rules, creating a new geopolitical reality. In light of this, “Foreign Policy” published an article by Ian Bremmer, founder and president of the Eurasia Group, titled “The Next Global Superpower Isn’t Who You Think,” on June 17, 2023. This article attempts to outline the future features of the new world order.
Key Issues
The article points to three issues causing this geopolitical stagnation, where the global structure no longer aligns with the fundamental balance of power:
Russia’s Challenge to the Current International System: Russia, now a former superpower in serious decline, feels deeply resentful and views the West as its primary adversary on the global stage. Whether the blame lies with the United States and its allies or with Russia, the article sees this as a major factor in the current state of the international system.
China’s Strong Engagement in the Global Economy: The assumption was that as the Chinese became more integrated, wealthy, and powerful, they would also become more “Americanized.” This meant that a free-market democracy would be willing to become a responsible stakeholder in the U.S.-led system and play by the rules without wanting to change them. However, as it turns out, the Chinese and Americans are not ready to accept this.
The West’s Neglect of Globalization’s Negative Consequences: The article argues that the United States and its allies have ignored tens of millions of their citizens who felt left behind by globalization, exacerbating their grievances due to rising income and wage inequality, demographic changes, identity politics, and polarization from new media technologies. After decades of neglect, most of these citizens no longer trust their governments and democracy itself, making their leaders less capable or willing to lead. The article believes that 90% of all geopolitical crises in the world, including the war in Ukraine, the confrontation over Taiwan, and nuclear tensions with Iran and North Korea, are direct or indirect results of geopolitical stagnation caused by these three issues. Therefore, the author considers these crises to be structural features of the geopolitical landscape rather than related to individual leaders.
A New World
The article argues that geopolitical stagnation doesn’t last forever. The coming world order will be something entirely different from previous systems, consisting of multiple, separate but interconnected global systems, for the following reasons:
Fragmentation of the International System into Multiple Global Systems: The article states that we no longer live in a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar world because we no longer have multidimensional superpowers wielding global power in all areas. The absence of superpowers means no single world order exists, resulting in multiple, separate, and overlapping global systems.
A Unipolar International Security System: The article notes that the United States is the only country capable of deploying troops, sailors, and military equipment to every corner of the globe. It argues that Washington’s role in the security system today is more significant and dominant than it was a decade ago. While China is rapidly building its military capabilities in Asia, it is not doing so with the same importance elsewhere. This concerns U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific region, who now rely on the American security umbrella more than ever. Similarly, Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine has made Europe more dependent on NATO, led by Washington.
A Multipolar International Economic System: The Russian military has weakened due to the loss of around 200,000 soldiers and much of its important equipment in Ukraine, making it difficult to rebuild in the face of Western sanctions. While Moscow, Beijing, and other countries have nuclear weapons, their actual use remains “suicidal,” according to the article. Therefore, the United States is the only global security superpower and will remain so for at least the next decade. However, this power doesn’t allow Washington to set the rules for the global economy, as the economic system is multipolar.
Mutual U.S.-China Economic Dependence: Despite all the talk of a new Cold War, the U.S. and China are economically dependent on each other to such a degree that separation is impractical. Bilateral trade between the two countries continues to reach new heights. Other countries want access to both American power and the growing Chinese market, which will soon become the largest in the world. Therefore, an economic Cold War cannot occur if no one wants to engage in it. Meanwhile, the European Union remains the world’s largest single market, capable of setting rules and standards that Americans, Chinese, and others must accept as the price of dealing with them. Japan remains a global economic power, and India’s rapidly growing economy is increasing its influence on the global stage. The relative importance of these and other economies will continue to shift over the next decade, but what is certain is that the global economic system has been and will remain multipolar.
Tech Companies’ Dominance in the Digital System: The article points out that between the security and economic systems, a third rapidly emerging system is expected to have a greater impact soon, the digital system. Unlike any other past or present geopolitical system, the dominant actors setting the rules and wielding power are not governments but tech companies. While NATO’s weapons, intelligence, and training helped Ukrainians defend their territory, the rapid response of Western tech companies to counter Russian cyberattacks and enable Ukrainian leaders to communicate with their frontline soldiers thwarted Russia’s plans to topple Ukraine within weeks and win the war.
The article suggests that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would not remain in power today without the tech companies and their power in the new digital system. These companies were also able to ban former U.S. President Donald Trump from speaking on their platforms. Without social media and its ability to promote conspiracy theories, the January 6 Capitol Hill insurrection, the January 8 uprising in Brazil, and others would not have occurred. Thus, the article argues that this is an astonishing amount of power accumulated by tech companies, making them geopolitical players in their own right. These actors, i.e., tech companies, control aspects of society, the economy, and national security that were long the exclusive domain of the state. Their decisions directly affect the livelihoods, interactions, and even thought patterns of billions of people worldwide, increasingly shaping the global environment in which governments operate.
Three Scenarios
Given the above context, the article raises an important question: How will tech companies use their newfound power? It offers three potential scenarios:
A Cold Tech War Between Major Powers: If American and Chinese political leaders continue asserting themselves more strongly in the digital space and tech companies align with their local governments, the article predicts a Cold Tech War between the U.S. and China. The digital world will split into two parts, forcing other countries to choose a side, and globalization will fragment, with these strategic technologies dominating national security and the global economy.
The Emergence of a Global Digital System: If tech companies commit to global growth strategies, refuse to align with governments, and maintain the gap between physical and digital competition, the article foresees a “new globalization,” or the emergence of a global digital system. Tech companies will remain sovereign in the digital space, largely competing with each other for benefits and with governments for geopolitical power, much like major government actors currently compete for influence in the intersecting economic and security systems.
Digital System Dominance Over Geopolitics: If the digital space itself becomes the most important arena for great power competition, with governments’ power continuing to erode relative to tech companies’ power, the digital system itself will become the dominant global system. If this occurs, the world will be dominated by tech companies as primary players in 21st-century geopolitics.
In conclusion, the article notes that all three scenarios are entirely plausible and could happen. The outcome will depend on how the explosive nature of artificial intelligence changes current power structures, whether governments can and want to regulate tech companies, and, most importantly, how tech leaders decide to use their newfound power.
