These days the world is witnessing a strange and unprecedented phenomenon. In the USA the two presidents, they bikeroutes in the eyes of society and exhibit the strongest power in the world to ridicule.
The US President-elect Donald trump appoints Ambassador to Israel, a supporter of settlement construction and promises to transfer the Embassy to Jerusalem, while Barack Obama, the first time the Security Council vetoes a resolution condemning the construction of Israeli settlements.
And this is the most recent example, which yesterday led by URI Friedman (Uri Friedman) from the magazine the Atlantic:
“Barack Obama promises to avenge the Russian government’s interference in the election campaign in the U.S., while Donald trump doubts in Russia’s intervention and thanked Vladimir Putin for his “very friendly” Christmas greeting. Obama’s Pentagon demands that China returned underwater drone seized in the South China sea, while trump describes this episode as “unprecedented,” but then suddenly changes his position and invited the Chinese to leave the device itself,” writes URI Friedman.
Pax Americana — which translates from Latin as American world — the designation of the period after the Second world war until today, when the US due to its power to ensure peace and prosperity in much of the Western world. The name was inspired by the Pax Romana, used in relation to the 206-year history of the Roman Empire from 27 BC to 180 g of a new era when the rule of Rome and Roman law provided the harmony, even in those regions that are normally at odds with each other.
It is difficult to imagine more convincing evidence that the days of Pax Americana are gone. Because Pax Americana refers to the era since the end of world war II, when the United States was the standard, which — positive or negative — were required to identify everything in the world: both friends and enemies.
It was a world order that has led to the fact that everything is clearly understood that was referring to President George W. Bush when he declared after September 11: “Either you are with us or against us.” Nobody asked: “Who is this “we”? Today it would have to do. Because who we are today? It Is Trump? Or Obama?
The collapse of the old order
In many countries the answer to this question is of no interest, because there have long since ceased to focus on the United States. I will give only three a very eloquent example. On Tuesday Turkey, Iran and Russia held in Moscow a meeting with a view to formulating a plan of peaceful settlement in Syria. Neither the representative of the United Nations for a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis, Staffan de Mistura, nor any of US was not even invited. It was a shame, and it was done on purpose.
In the Philippines, from 1950-ies were US allies, the new President, Rodrigo Duterte in November, said that if China and Russia decides to establish a new world order, he’ll be the first to join him. No doubt that the military junta in Thailand, another traditional ally of the Americans, may think the same thing: here recently also changed the United States on Russia as a partner.
If someone still doubts, then we can recall that the so-called “trilateral working group” recently held a meeting on Afghanistan in Moscow. And from whom did this group consist of? In it, senior officials from Russia, China and Pakistan. The Afghans themselves are not invited, which, according to Deutsche Welle, is a consequence of the fact that between Afghanistan and India, there is some convergence that has led to the fact that Pakistan, a longtime enemy of India, now wants to unite with Russia and China to prevent the growth of the influence new Delhi to Kabul.
And what about the US? The United States, which in Afghanistan are still 8 thousand troops? Well, at that meeting was not. And as far as we know, is not to say that someone is their there is not much missing.
In Europe, most notably that the old order had collapsed.
In March, the American journalist Anne Appelbaum (Anne Applebaum) predicted that a collapse of a liberal world order can result in a triad of events: brakcet, the election trump and the election of French presidential candidate marine Le Pen. To date, pexit and trump became a reality, all eyes will be on the upcoming presidential elections in France. But, Epelbaum do not understand that change does not depend on these three events. The change has already happened.
Putin is a natural ally
Because if the presidential elections in France will not win marine Le Pen, we can expect that it will make the Republican candidate, françois Fillon. It also means a change of the political system. It is also with pride and warmth speaks to the nation-state, close the borders, and French identity.
“We have to minimize immigration. Our country is a conglomerate of different societies, there are one national identity”, — he said in a recent meeting with voters. According to the New York Times, he described radical Islam “as totalitarianism, such as Nazism.”
Like Le Pen, to NATO, he only has sharp words because, in his opinion, the Alliance has become a tool of “American expansionism”. And just like Le Pen, Putin, he can only say good, as he believes that Putin is a natural ally in the fight against terror.
The fight for the presidency in France will be not between globalist and nationalist, then the choice between the left and right nationalism, and françois Fillon to its requirement of large-scale reductions in the public sector — right.
The assertion that the liberal world order can stand or collapse depending on the selection of certain persons of Geert Wilders in Holland and marine Le Pen in France, Frauke Petry of the “Alternatives for Germany” in Germany or Heinz-Christian strache of the “freedom Party” in Austria — the surface. It is a consequence of a policy that excessive attention to individuals. To the Geert Wilders was not even necessary to be elected, because the Dutch government is already actively pursuing his policies. The maximum that can offer Heinz-Christian strache of the “freedom Party” in Austria is a cosmetic change policies of the social democratic coalition government, because it’s an exact copy of what is its own party.
But if Merkel next autumn will once again be elected Chancellor of Germany, it will be more experienced and Mature alter-ego Frauke Petry of the “Alternative for Germany”. Transformation of Merkel has already begun: when she was recently re-elected to the post of Chairman of the CDU, she answered that fell on those who cover the face (niqab — approx. ed.) and demanded to ban it wherever possible.
This, of course, can be explained by the fact that the protest movement in the West — contrary to widespread opinion, is not what leads to change. They are the result of changes in the world, where the collapse of Pax Americana, where it is impossible to impose its values on others outside the EU, but where you have to use all their strength in order to prevent them to spread their values on us.
The protest movement — a reaction to the fact that we do not make decisions, and what decisions are made about us. Some time ago we fought with the pirates in the Gulf of Aden and introduced democracy in Iraq; now we cover the sculpture in Rome, when rides past President of Iran, and pulls out of the hands of protesters with Tibetan flags when in Copenhagen comes the leader of China.
In this world the supporters of the old order will have to be overcome: because the old order collapsed. The new order has not yet replaced the old one, politics has become a big fight: how will we protect ourselves from the looming threats.
Roughly speaking, the struggle for the future world order is culturaliste between the left and liberals.
According to culturalists, the world consists of different civilizations that are incompatible with each other. During the cold war was a struggle between the Christian West and the atheistic Soviet Union. Now we are talking about the struggle between the Christian West and Islam, which threatens to destroy us.
For liberals, the world looks different. According to them, the struggle is not between civilizations, but between freedom and unfreedom, between democracy and dictatorship.
These different worldviews stem from different views about who will be the main player on the world stage.
Naturally, for culturalists national state is the alpha and omega. It is a cultural product, improved with the help of special geographic, historical, religious and political circumstances.
Otherwise, liberals who believe that democracy and legal state are based on principles and values that should join everyone in the free world, and Muslims too. So the liberals want to save the EU, NATO and other major Western forums where democracy all together fighting for the preservation and dissemination of these values.
In the last 25 years, these two areas made common cause: because the West was strong enough to dominate, and what the rationale was, it was less important.
But the West is not the same.
Now paths have diverged, recently wrote to another author in the Atlantic, Peter Beinart (Peter Beinart): “the Ideological and civilizing (in this article, the liberals and culturality — approx. ed.), the forces were United in the fight against the Soviet Union. But they disagree about whether Russia is a totalitarian enemy or defender of the Christian West.”
Pax Americana collapsed. We are no longer fighting for something that others are like us: we must now fight to not become like them. But the worst, in fact, that we for the first time since the end of world war II can not agree about who our enemies are.
Anna Libak — editor of foreign policy Department of the newspaper Berlingske