Abstract
As the world battles a global health pandemic, America’s ability to lead has come under question, both at home and abroad. How President Donald Trump has focused on his ‘America First’ policy and made sharp departures from previous policy positions such as on Afghanistan and Syria among others; his limited respect for multilateral organisations such as the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization; his withdrawal from multilateral agreements such as the Iran nuclear deal and the climate change agreement; and his public disagreements and inappropriate language for other heads of governments have raised questions on American leadership in the future.
Written before the current health crisis, the book under review, nonetheless, attempts to look at a world that does not have the United States in the role of a ‘global policeman’. The author, Sreeram Chaulia, in his effort to understand the impact of the Trump Presidency on international order, has opined that disruption caused would not necessarily lead to chaos. His central argument is that the choice is not between an America-led or a China-dominated world order, but there is an alternative. It is this alternative that is the focus of the book. He believes that emerging powers can rise to fill the vacuum created by a disinterested America. To develop further on this idea, he has identified four emerging powers in four continents—Brazil, India, Nigeria and Turkey—and the space that they can occupy as the United States led by President Trump starts to withdraw from the international system. The author wanted to look beyond the China–US rivalry and the trans-Atlantic relations. He has selected four ‘non-Western’ powers that play an important role in the global south and have distinct relations with President Trump, but find themselves in a fix due to his unpredictable nature of conducting foreign policy. It might be added they also have relations with what can be called the political establishment beyond the White House. According to the author, the liberal order has neither been liberal nor equal to the four nations and they have been critical of the US-structured order. Their strength lies in being large economies with substantial stakes in their regions, ambition and a desire to be recognised as a regional power. The author highlights some reasons for his choice of case studies. India has the potential, goodwill and capabilities to overcome the imbalance of power in Asia and coordinate a new Inter-Asia stabilising mechanism. Turkey and US interests have shifted from convergence to increasing divergence with Turkey now an ideological adversary, deepening its ties with Iran and Russia to form new partnerships. Brazil has played a role in strengthening the fundamentals of global south cooperation. The author points out that it has the economic and military power to lead the region while helping to build political, trade and investment collisions such as an India, Brazil, South Africa ( IBSA) plus network for economic diversity. Nigeria has been identified by the author as democracy in an authoritarian neighbourhood and a keeper of the balance of power in the region. The author also feels that these nations are poised to lead their regions in a multiple ‘post-American’ regionally based order.
Nonetheless, the question remains why and how would these four countries, which have internal struggles and in neighbourhoods in conflict, be able to contribute to their respective regions as leaders. The forecasts of economic growth and prosperity have not come true, putting a question mark on their ability to shape regional responses. To his credit, the author has pointed to some domestic and regional challenges that hinder their growth. The four compete with other nations for a leadership role, and unlike the United States, they also have to keep in mind the extra-regional powers in their respective regions. This is highlighted in the cases of Nigeria, which is trying to overcome French efforts to block its path to becoming a regional power. The other is the trustworthiness of the regional powers, and this is something the author has brought about especially concerning Turkey. As emerging powers, they need the support and trust of other nations of the region. All the nations under study do not have the trust of their regional partners. Chaulia has recommended some steps that the emerging powers can take to gather more support and build cooperation mechanism in the regions. And herein lies the critic: the problem is that the predictions and prescriptions for the future may not materialise given the changing nature of international politics along with the constantly changing foreign policy of President Trump. In such a situation, will the emerging powers continue to become a viable alternative to either a China or US-dominated world order?
The author claims that the emerging states have to change their policies and strategies to work with the dual-track presidency in America. The nations are faced with the question of—should they approach President Trump directly and through trusted aides, who like him are nationalists, or should they continue to appeal to the established bureaucracy that is more permanent than the two-term president through those who have a globalist view of foreign policy. While states have adapted themselves to work with the dual-track presidency, it is not elaborated if this phenomenon had aided the emerging powers and undermined the international order. It would seem that in some instances such as the withdrawal of US support to the Kurds in Syria was helpful to Turkey, but seeking action for the death of Mr Jamal Khashoggi, Turkey faced failure. Similar examples are available in the US relations with the other three nations as well. They all have deep trade, investment and military relations with the United States. If states are dependent on the United States for support, their emergence as capable leaders to lead regional alternative to US power comes under some doubt. The other pertinent issue that is left unexplored is apart from the Trump Presidency what are the other signs that are propelling the decline of US leadership. If the issue is only of the policy of President Trump, the next administration may likely do a course correction and strengthen the liberal order. In such a scenario, the emerging powers may likely have to change tactics and strategies again.
In building his views on President Trump, the author understands that President Trump has changed the international liberal order; nonetheless, the book is looking at this, not as a threat but rather as an opportunity. He represents a ‘double-edged’ sword. On the one hand, he wants regional powers to step up and take charge of regional issues, giving nations the space to emerge. On the other hand, he is upsetting the existing liberal order, leaving the emerging powers to deal with problems and an aggressive China. President Trump is hastening the changes in the liberal order and has contributed to the change in the liberal global order using both the position he holds and the ideas he has. He is neither the first nor the last president to use the principles of nationalism, isolationism and focus on domestic needs. World over today we have nations being led by leaders/governments that are nationalist in their views. The author feels that President Trump has set the stage for a multipolar world and the four emerging powers have to seize the moment as the Trump administration provides them with the best chance to rise as great powers.
The current discourse on US foreign policy and its trajectory has largely focused on the disruptions that have been caused by the ‘transactional nature’ of operations by the current White House. Similarly, the decline of US power, the phenomenal rise of China and the resulting rivalry or clash of the two powers have been predicted and written about. The book under review is different that the focus is not the United States and President Trump but rather the changing dynamic of relations between the two and each of the emerging powers. It looks at how these four nations are adapting and evolving to the Trump Presidency. The book also looks at a future in which the hegemony of the United States is replaced by a multipolar world and focusses on the four emerging nations taken as case studies rather than the China–US rivalry and competition. China does find mention, as the author himself admits that China is a factor and cannot be ignored. Nonetheless, it remains in the background and is written in the context of how the four nations are balancing these two relations.
The book by Prof. Chaulia helps understand the current crisis facing the international liberal order and the need to look beyond the China-U.S. rivalry to other regions and nations. The idea of multipolar world order is here to stay but has the Trump Presidency helped it grow and how far will the emerging states be able to strengthen it remains to be seen. President Biden has championed the need for multipolarity as he tries to rebuild America’s image in the international community.