There is much discussion today about how contemporary international processes are characterized and what might be the content of the new order that is still taking shape. We hear many interesting opinions and comments in this regard. In our view, what we are witnessing and where the said formation is heading, we would briefly and aptly call at worst “disorganized order” and at best “unplanned order”.
Obviously, neither option will comfort us, because in either case, it’s the substance that matters. And the substance is that the world is searching for a new point of equilibrium, a process characterized by deep divisions, disharmony and renewed confrontation between the great powers on systemically important issues of international relations.
It is also worth noting that against the background of ongoing wars and conflicts, open mention of the use of brute force has become a “protocol necessity” of conversations, making 21st century relations resemble medieval ones. The bludgeon and the shield and sword were naturally replaced by sensory weapons, and by said similarity we do not mean the methods and means used and employed, but rather the dominance of the force factor and its almost unlimited use.
“Framework” for the context
Here, we will note the convergence of the modern stage with the “spirit of the Middle Ages” under several fundamental circumstances:
(1) Weakening of the role of the state and activation of other competitors (private or/and unofficial military associations, “borderless” corporations, technological and media giants, etc.);
(2) The increasing influence of non-state actors on the creation of global “rules of behavior”;
(3) Fragmentation of social unity and destruction of the consolidating ground;
(4) Institutionalization of information warfare;
(5) Blurring the boundaries between the “hot” and “cold” phases of a military conflict;
(6) Enhancing the role of domestic security to deter extremism and radicalization;
(7) Economic dysfunction and inequality at both the interstate and intrastate levels;
(8) Extensive use of economic coercion and protectionist measures (embargo, sanctions, export controls, tariffs, etc.) to achieve foreign policy goals.
Here we will add that the moral behavior or position in the interaction of countries at this time is only a fictitious myth, which since the establishment of the category of the state is confirmed by the relevant historical material. The more absurd it is today to talk about moral norms where “everything is allowed” for the satisfaction of one’s own ego, and for this purpose, taking into account the power and resources of a particular actor, the blatant “privatization” of the global agenda has become the rule. Thus, all actors have developed their own understanding of what is “right” and what is “wrong”, resulting in a significant weakening of international law and institutions. Moreover, we mentioned adapting understandings and standards to suit ourselves and, in the same spirit, ‘High and Mighties’ offered actors with weaker resources their interpretation of “right and wrong” for sharing. The result of this deformation has been an erosion of trust and authority of large countries, a refusal to be a so-called “role model” for others. However, medium and small countries also followed the same trend (at least those who had the courage, talent and ability to do so) and established the style of opportunism, populism, transactionalism, simply put, “business” politics as the leading line in foreign policy.
All of the above is noteworthy, as it is directly related to the renewal of the foreign policy of Georgia’s Western partners, including the United States of America, in terms of a greater focus on its real, practical and tangible results.
Furthermore, current and expected trends are important for Georgia insofar as they are relevant for:
(1) better understanding and predicting the actions of strategic partners by the Georgian side, as well as –
(2) the effectiveness of an adequate “policy of realistic possibilities for Georgia”.
About the systematicity and consistency of the approach
Today there is a process of formation of new centers in the global balance of power. This process is the reason for the challenges in determining a new equilibrium point, which we have already mentioned. In such a confrontation and struggle, the firmness, systematicity and consistency of the Western approach are of fundamental importance. Otherwise, the reality will be the words of former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: “I don’t think anyone is afraid of us anymore,” which obviously meant that they are no longer reckoned with.
The confrontation between the West, including the United States, on the one hand, and Russia and China (not to mention other members of the anti-Western axis) on the other, differs significantly from the Cold War period. The point is that today much less attention is paid to ideological clichés, and the main emphasis is placed – openly and overtly – on the geographies of influence. Therefore, the opposing sides are much more straightforward about their stated goals and ways to achieve them.
To give a concrete example, the consistency and firmness of the US approaches has a direct impact on its reputation and image in the eyes of its allies around the world. Once the unity of the above-mentioned components secured the achievement of success in the marathon confrontation with the Soviet Union. Even today, the task and its essence have not changed, despite the fact that both the global context and the composition of the anti-Western bloc are different.
Strengthening of reputational image includes specific actions – public or non-public, or even their combination, and specifically with regard to Georgia – such public measures on the part of the US as initiation of a number of legislative acts (MEGOBARI Act, Georgian People’s Act, Black Sea Security Bill (this is more in the regional sense), etc.) and open declaration of consistency and systematic foreign policy. Obviously, we are also well aware that one thing is a declaration and another is practical implementation, which is affected by the specifics of current processes and also the psychology or political handwriting of political leaders.
Moreover, such public actions serve as a turning point in the information war. From this point of view, if the West, in particular the US, “face the truth” – they are significantly behind in Georgia, and the hybrid conflict coming from inside or outside the country is becoming more and more uncompromising. Thus, a strong comeback to the information space requires a lot of effort. For the same purpose, it is not enough to only appeal to the “rule of law” and “democracy”, because, as we have already said, competition in the modern version, instead of ideological clichés, is largely based on the redistribution of spheres of influence.
It is also very important, when speaking of the reputational source of consistency and firmness in foreign policy, to say: in such times, the most important basis is the soundness of one’s own political system and its attractiveness in the eyes of others. This type of soft power cannot be completely replaced by any – be it military, financial or any other form – of manifestation.
An “audit” of US foreign policy?
Talks about realigning the United States’ foreign policy emphases and adapting them to modern realities are not only the outcome of this year’s presidential election in the country. In our view, the intensification of this process coincides with the Obama presidency and was particularly marked by the Russian-Georgian war of 2008.
Since then, there have been many attempts to put an ideological spin on US foreign policy in the form of its “focus on the average American,” “democracy versus autocracy,” or some other appeal. By far, perhaps the most heated debate is about how active foreign policy should be, should this activity be global or selective?
This reasoning is based on a new concept defined by the search for the right balance between “primacy” and “prioritization”. Its essence can be summarized as follows:
(1) In a military or economic sense, what is the vital national security interest of the country?
(2) According to this interest, which geographic regions of the world are considered to be of substantial (primary) interest and which are considered to be of non-substantial (peripheral) interest?
(3) Based on such division, to what extent is a country self-sufficient in terms of resources to be equally active in primary and peripheral geographies?
Needless to say how relevant this topic is not only from the American, but also from the Georgian point of view, especially in connection with the specifics of the South Caucasus and various geopolitical claims to our region.
In any case, it is a fact that the proposed equation requires a rational solution from our partner, and the process involved is much more complex and calls for rethinking a number of key issues.
Let us begin by stating that the United States of America, in terms of its role and influence in the world, is naturally the hegemon. At the same time, we think it is right to call, exactly in order to preserve a healthy hegemony – which is in the interest of the stability of the system of international relations – that it is advisable to distance US foreign policy from excessive egocentrism.
Instead, we would refer to a possibly more effective approach that involves seeing and conceptualizing current processes in the world not only from the perspective of Western maximalism, but also through the eyes of others. Assessing the problem from all possible angles becomes all the more adequate when we remember that the clichés of the Cold War and the post-Cold War order no longer work, and clinging to them is only counterproductive. By the way, Donald Trump’s 2017-2021 presidency, if it stands out in any way, is notable for reviving a number of taboo topics and making them the subject of public – often uncomfortable – discussion.
Modern US foreign policy requires greater unconventionality. As has been said, this is not only in the interests of our strategic partner, but also in the interests of global stability and, among other things, the national and state interests of Georgia. That is why it is important to us that our country not fall into the peripheral geography for the United States and at least be as relevant as it has been for the past three decades.
This is why our expectation that American policy finally frees itself from nostalgia for the past and fully refocus on current and future challenges is relevant. Accordingly, along with the use of economic influence, it is desirable that American interest in us and in our region be represented by more than just proactive diplomacy. Together with diplomacy, it must be constantly emphasized and reminded that strengthening the security of “supposedly peripheral” but partner countries with US assistance simultaneously strengthens its own security.
OP-ED by Victor Kipiani, Geocase Chairman
