The article was based on an appearance at Food & Agro Conference 2023, organized by Bank BNP Paribas.
Before I explain what the transition in global relations is from liberal order to what I call a multipolar labour power politics, we should ask ourselves what this mythical but already ending liberal global order, which began after the end of the Cold War. 3 aspects request to be considered here. Firstly, as regards the political system, it was an expansion of the democratic model, namely democracy, the regulation of law, human rights and all related issues.
The second component of this order was the open marketplace economy, which was supported by globalisation. This, on the another hand, (the second wave of globalisation – the 1 that began to form in the planet in the late 1980s and 1990s) was generated by TNC (transnational corporations) and their counterparts in another areas of life. Countries, entering the liberal order period, "released the locks", so that non-governmental entities could actively participate in the shaping of global processes (and transnational corporations played specified a large function in moving us to another world).
The liberal global order was based on 3 pillars: the expansion of a democratic model, an open marketplace economy supported by globalisation and the dominant function of the US-Europe duo.
The 3rd component of the liberal global order is simply a geopolitical element. The function of the West, that is, the duo: the United States and Europe, was dominant. The Western planet served as an umbrella protecting the 2 previously mentioned elements of this order. It seemed that the future of the planet was defined by the liberal concept of human development. Poland joined this elite club and became 1 of the largest beneficiaries of the liberal global order. Not only due to the fact that we have regained full sovereignty, independence; that we have become part of the developed West, a associate of the European Union and NATO. Poland has evolved into a completely different country. erstwhile we compare the reality of the 1980s with the Polish contemporary, we will conclude that these are like 2 another countries. It is besides worth remembering in the context of material prosperity. The years 199~0–2015 is the best 4th century in Polish past since Lives I, since the last 4th of the 10th century. This may be hard to believe, but I have counted, examined and assessed these quarters of the century according to 4 criteria that find the long-term welfare of nations and states. The first is interior peace – that is, the deficiency of revolutions, civilian wars, insurrections, confederations, the word: everything that destroys the country from within. The second is peace in relations with the outside planet – without wars, occupation, unchangeable independence. The 3rd criterion concerns GDP growth per capita and material growth. The last is the improvement of civilisation, namely education, life expectancy, contact with the cultural world. The analysis of these 4 criteria allows me to conclude that the best 4th century in Poland's past was in the period between 1990 and 2015.
Russia's aggression against Ukraine is on the 1 hand an effort at a decisive blow to the planet order based on the primacy of the West. On the another hand, a manifestation of the overlapping of 2 "geopolitical tectonic plates": a planet of liberal democracy, an open marketplace economy and the other world. Russia's actions are a multipolar trailer power politics.
Now we are leaving the liberal global order, at least in terms of its global ambition. It shrinks under different circumstances and processes, both of these objective: secular, economic, cultural, demographic (a small independent of us) and of our own mistakes.1. Since our enemies from the outside saw that as the West we were retreating (the Russians even considered that we were wobbly), they considered that we had to perform, known from battles on white weapons, "the last thrust." So that (as the communists have already announced) capitalism, and with it democracy, they will leave the planet for good2. The Russians stated that the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan proves Joe Biden's weaknesses3 and shows that the United States no longer has the capacity to control the situation worldwide. They expected the full West to fall apart like a home of cards. Of course, they performed to a large degree on behalf of China, the actual “patron” of the fresh order. Russia's actions are therefore, on the 1 hand, an effort to carry out specified a decisive blow, but on the another hand, a manifestation of the overlapping of "geopolitical tectonic plates". As it is known, erstwhile tectonic plates push each other, there is an earthquake or tsunami. Russia's aggression against Ukraine is simply a manifestation of this kind of push – here are 2 big, global tectonic plates: a planet of liberal democracy, an open marketplace economy and the planet against it. What Russia did is actually a multipolar trailer power politics. How is it different from liberal order?
Power policies is linked to the above-average increase in the importance of the military factor, a simplification in cooperation between countries and a deficiency of respect for global goods specified as clean air or liable usage of natural materials.
First of all, power politics is linked to the above-average increase in the importance of the military factor; military possible in state policy. This does not necessarily should be expressed in wars, but in the way of argument: “I have the muscularity, so you gotta give me a step back”, “we are the greatest, step back.” Secondly, we will observe an expanding number of unilateral, egoistic behaviours, i.e. in global relations there will be little cooperation. Countries questioning the liberal order of the planet will want to decide individually without looking at others. They don't feel connected to the environment, they look alternatively shortsighted, but mostly they think only about their own interests. They don't care about everything else, but it means – it's besides the 3rd component power politics – complete disrespect for global commons (global goods), specified as clean air, liable usage of natural materials, or the provision of the alleged freedom of the seas, or trans-sea communication – in the word: a full scope of things that liberal order cared about. Liberalism is based on cooperation, due to the fact that erstwhile we are open, we have a free market, it creates interdependence. And if there is codependence, there is peace, due to the fact that erstwhile we depend on each other, we will not go to each other's throats. About power politicsNone of this is right.
Liberalism is based on cooperation, due to the fact that erstwhile we are open, we have a free market, it creates interdependence. And if there is codependence, there is peace, due to the fact that erstwhile we depend on each other, we will not go to each other's throats. W power politics no of this is right.
This is where the problem of China arises, which a fewer years ago declared that they want to be number one, that now is their time, their minute to take a place on top. They hid that ambition for a long time, and it was Xi Jinping who recruited it. Their message was something like this: “We, too, in place of America, want to be a promoter, a generator of globalisation. Not the West, but we – China – as the mill of the planet will now deal with globalisation.” This was all inactive happening erstwhile Donald Trump was president of the United States and decided to turn distant from globalisation. What resulted from this transformation that Trump made? For any time, globalisation has served the U.S. very much, but it has late begun to service countries far better than Western countries, so Trump, standing vis‐à‐vis Chin, he's starting to learn from it. Today, the situation is being explained as an example of the "Tukidydes Trap", but this is not a correct analogy.4. Fortunately, we are not threatened by a bipolar strategy as toxic and dangerous as during the Cold War, due to the fact that powers of large possible (so-called. swing power, swing states) there is much more. They will ease the focus of this antagonism. But the fact is that we don't know how the tension between China that aspires and America that is determined to defend its leadership position will develop.
However, China is (completely objectively) a bad candidate for being number one. First of all, they're an incredibly selfish power, perfectly functioning in logic. power politics. The outside planet (which is clearly seen at global conferences) is not curious in Chinese people; they are alternatively curious in their own position, their own profit and their own interests. Therefore, China is not fit to be a leader due to the fact that the leader, including hegemon, besides cares about those he takes care of, provides them with a chance of growth or prosperity. Moreover, China, openly – and this is absolutely scandalous – supports the violations of global law, i.e. the simple "rule of the game". If they support the violation of basic principles – principles that service the full global community, if they support an aggressor, a criminal (because Putin, despite being the leader of Russia, is undoubtedly a criminal in terms of global law), then these are weak letters to authenticate the mediate State as the future planet leader. China in its policy, like no another country, is besides driven by anti-American obsession. If they support Russia in her aggression against Ukraine, it is only due to the fact that Russia saw in this action the movement against the West, against the United States.
China is an egoistic power that supports violations of global law and is driven by anti-American obsession. They are definitely a bad candidate for global leadership.
Let us look at the crown Chinese task “One belt and 1 road” with a purely geopolitical background. The presumption of China is that they will collect natural materials from the planet (mainly from Africa), process "at their own" (like in the "world factory") and sale to countries like Poland. With my imagination, I can see these railway tracks from Chengdu to Łódź utilized to throw their goods at us. Of course, I am simplifying the substance a small bit, but this example shows how the Chinese behave towards African countries – in an exploitative, colonizing way, but besides how they perceive their “partners” from another regions of the planet (as a outlet: consumers). Fortunately, the Russians, by creating a war, someway closed this road.
So where are we now? It must be made very clear that the return to power politics in 1 form or another, even in "changed decorations", would be very unfavourable for Poland. We are a country on the border of these tectonic plates, and not peculiarly large. No substance how many military "toys" we would buy – in dealing with what is in the East, we have no chance. These changes will be unfavourable for Poland if we are not an inseparable part of a larger whole. Fortunately, we are inactive an integral part of the European Union and NATO - and this is simply a strategical alliance that we should be highly afraid about.
1 See R. Forge, Twilight Liberal global Order 2011-2021, student technological Publishing House, Warsaw 2022.
2 I remember how in Poland, in the late 1970s, texts written by ideologists of that order, containing a akin thesis: that possibly even this capitalism will not request to be killed, no war will be needed – he himself will fall by a prolonged siege. I was then a PhD student at the University of Warsaw and wondered what it would look like. Fortunately, things have changed completely.
3 Donald Trump even contributed to the creation of the pseudonym Sleepy Joe, which is expected to emphasize Joe Biden's alleged physical and intellectual inability to service as president.
4 This word was adopted to describe the inevitable conflict between the emerging and dominant powers. Meanwhile, the Peloponnesian War described by Tukidides was primarily due to the decay of the large Athens – developed, democratic, but besides brutally exploiting its dominance towards another Greek cities-states. This provoked a coalition of tiny states against the large Athens, but it was not a typical conflict for dominance between a falling power and a contender to the primacy of the world.
