-OpEd-
BUENOS AIRES — January, which has now come and gone, is the month of the god Janus. His two faces look to the past and the future. His temple in Rome symbolized peace and war; the doors were opened in times of war and closed in times of peace. They were closed for a few years during the Roman empire — most of the time, they were open.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
The United States has lived in peace for only 13 years, and in the other years, it has participated in some 114 military conflicts. Today, the temple doors are ajar. With Donald Trump‘s return to the White House, will they be closed or thrown wide open?
Geopolitical analysis has two basic aspects: political and economic.
In the first, the realist perspective sees state powers as seeking to maximize their security as part of a basic goal of survival in an anarchical world (without a world government). From this perspective, the American effort to impose liberal values on the world failed due to nationalism and cultural differences. For a while, the United States considered itself to be the indispensable world empire. Today, it is an impossible empire.
Strategy vs. ideals
International policies should be based on strategic interests, not moral ideals. War is a logical, but not inevitable, consequence of competition between powers. There is a war logic that is difficult to avoid, but there are cases of balance of power and sustained mutual deterrence.
The realist may argue that NATO‘s eastward expansion threatened Russia’s strategic interests, pushing it to act in defense of its security and zone of influence. Russia, in this perspective, saw Ukraine as critical to its strategic survival, which explains its invasion.
Was it inevitable? No, not if the United States and its allies had chosen a more realistic strategy and dealt with Russia, not as a disposable (if frightening) former great power, but as a regional power that must be recognized and considered in that part of the world. Undoing what has been done will not be easy.
Realism comes with a sociological theorem that “if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” Misjudgments lead to different realities. In this case, the American establishment began playing war with a rival that is not a competitor of equal power but armed with nuclear warheads. There is a chance that the incoming Trump administration will put an end to this fickleness.
Economic solutions
The second aspect is economic. It is based on a premise and a promise. The premise is that economic liberty and free trade lead to shared and overall prosperity. The promise is that when people focus on material interests, they will moderate their fight for power.
The enthusiasm for this idea continues to this day despite longstanding doubts about its destructive tendencies. The economy-oriented system has two major flaws: great inequalities that fracture society; and over-development that destroys the environment.
Production and destruction are an intrinsic combination in the modern economy with its unchecked momentum. Material interests can be as destructive as the hegemonic drive. And the reason is that economic growth can be as lawless as power rivalries.
The absence of a higher authority leaves humanity at the mercy of a “natural” market balance. This faith is as reassuring as a prayer is to atheists. The uncontrolled use of resources, motivated by particular interests, can lead to their exhaustion, and this harms everyone.
There are three possible solutions: state regulation, privatization and collective agreements. The absence of a supranational authority and the rivalry among powers effectively make the third option the only viable solution.
The Janus dilemma
Every geopolitical trends carries with it a promise of peace and threat of tragedy. How can these two faces of Janus be reconciled? Realistic diplomacy is essential here, as it moderates both power rivalries and market dysfunctions. Sadly, the proposals we’re hearing from the new U.S. administration combine market excess with more geopolitical rivalry.
Even so, world powers and other nations still have points of common interest. We know states cannot trust other states to assure their security. Yet a prudent foreign policy can mitigate risks, avoid clashes and manage strategic alliances. As the world’s primus inter pares, the United States can play simultaneous chess games here.
With China as its only real rival, it might play a peaceful game of Go with a prior agreement on both sides not to throw the board into the air at any point. Will “America First” be up to the diplomatic challenge?
Otherwise, each nation will have to compensate with a great deal of prudence. Adventurous countries will have to be restrained without letting themselves be dragged along by their great rivals. Perhaps in this way we will escape a very unpleasant collective fate.
