TEMPO.CO, Jakarta-
Written by: Alif Satria, Intern at Centre for Strategic and International Studies
The Pax Americana world order was established in the late 1980s as the world saw the crumble of the USSR. Oddly enough, despite the historical precedence that no world order would stay permanent, many believed that with the end of the Cold War, history has ended and that the US's hegemony will remain unrivaled. However, with recent results of US endeavors, it is wise to start admitting that the United States dominance is declining in relevance and authority.
Now many would argue that such assertion holds little credibility under the US's interim domination over economic and military power, and on those parameters, such opinion might be true. But as Joseph Nye puts it himself, what matters most to the measurement of power is not a state's power resource, but its power conversion. It is on the latter, particularly on converting resource to enforce its intended world order that the US have struggled, and failed to deliver.
A vivid example of US's failure to enforce its order lies in the South China Sea (SCS); mainly shown by the recent confiscation of a US naval glider by China on December 17, 2016. It is worth contextualizing that prior to the incident, there were already six occurrences of the US navy sailing near Chinese disputed areas under Freedom of Navigations Operations recorded in 2015. On these prior instances, China has only responded by issuing condemning statements or, in the rare times, braving itself to run by an escort ship, but nothing more. It is only now that China made retaliatory contact.
Despite the fact that the naval drone was returned a few days after, the act of confiscation alone, which does not seem to be a mistake seeing the absence of clarification from the Chinese government, sets a clear instance of unprecedented defiance from China towards US's authority and intended freedom of navigation order over the region. Crystallizing the perception that US's authority and power over the region is not as strong as it once was; its hegemony declining over its rivals and also, indicated by the recent pivots of US allies in the region towards China (i.e. Duterte and Razzak), its allies.
Another clear example of the US's decline would be the US's failure to establish their intended order in the Middle East, particularly Syria. Aside from US's failure to establish a lasting conflict resolution over the last 5 years, enforce Obama's "red line in the sand", and reasonably contain Russia's complicating intervention in the conflict, a primary evidence of US's declining relevance and authority is neatly shown by the tripartite peace talks conducted by Russia, Iran, and Turkey on the 20th of December 2016.
Two things should be noted; first, that it is unprecedented, as seen in the Geneva Conferences and Vienna Talks, that the US is not involved in a peace talk regarding a possible resolution to the Syrian crisis. Second, that a US ally in the region would blatantly agree to participate in such event knowing it would legitimize Russian and Iranian authority over Syria and isolate the US in return. It is also necessary to point that the participating parties agreed that a "regime change in Syria is not a priority"; a first instance of a US ally publicly contradicting US's intended order of the region. Here again, one can see the declining power of the US to assert its relevance and importance over the region, not only to their rival but also their allies.
Understandably, it is premature to say whether Russia, Iran, or China will succeed in building their respective order. However, what is evident is that 2017 will begin with the steep decline of US's importance and relevance to states of the region; the US's orders failed to be carried out, its rivals becoming more assertive in implementing their own, and allies are pivoting from the former to the latter. Regardless of the outcome, the deteriorating of the US's importance itself is a serious change that one must admit and pay attention to.
The last time the world saw the decline of world order, it also saw with it the crumbling of regional stability and peace. The fall of Great Britain's hegemonic dominance in the 19th century carried with it the eruption of World War I. The 20th century's bipolar-to-unipolar world order transition also saw with it the Cold War. This however, does not imply that the fall of Pax Americana will resulted in the same a major disruption to peace and stability like in prior transitions; a learned distaste towards conflict along with multiple channels of engagement between rising states have cleared out the fog of uncertainty and misinterpretation that could precede the escalation of tensions.
However, this does imply the need for states to be aware of this shift; the US's role as the architect of world order is on struggling to stay relevant and states need to act in anticipation and preparation of what is to come. Although a next world hegemony is unlikely to rise with this fall (i.e. China's military have nowhere near the reach of US's blue water navy, and Russia's economy still cannot support the deployment of Russian troops outside of their immediate region), it is possible to assume that regional hegemony would.
It is thus necessary for states to start actively engaging towards their respective region's rising architect and ensure that the region's interests are catered, or, better yet, strengthen regional organizations that can multilaterally establish a collectively sound regional order. These options would entail many things; the need for regional organizations such as ASEAN to assert their unity and centrality towards solving their region's challenges, for states to ensure member states are willing to prioritize long-term collective cooperation over short-term national interest, and for all relevant parties to ramp up their omni-enmeshment attempt towards regional hegemons, are just a starting few.
The decline of Pax Americana is one event that has only just begun, and its ramification towards regions is still not yet clear. However, what is clear is that no matter how the transition will occur, there is a strong need for states to recognize that, in the process, cooperation works better for everybody than any alternative. (*)
DISCLAIMER
Articles published in the “Your Views & Stories” section of en.tempo.co website are personal opinions written by third parties, and cannot be related or attributed to en.tempo.co’s official stance.
