A confusing world without a hegemon

A growing concern dominates Western politics and diplomacy: the unraveling of the so-called rules-based world order. Many place the blame on the Trump administration. However, this shift was inevitable because of geopolitical, geoeconomic and demographic forces, regardless of who occupies the White House.

This world order – never truly universal – provided a framework for relative global stability under Pax Americana. From the 1950s until the collapse of the Soviet Union, it served as the foundation for peace and prosperity in the free world. The threat of mutual nuclear destruction created a tense balance between the capitalist and communist blocs. Meanwhile, nonaligned emerging countries remained on the margins.

After the Soviet Union’s collapse, the United States appeared to be the sole remaining hegemon. China, long repressed under Mao Zedong, was only beginning to emerge. There was a prevalent belief that democracy would now spread across the globe.

Selective engagement over foreign entanglements

But what does “hegemon” mean? A hegemon exercises leadership by virtue of its strength and superior capabilities, guiding countries and institutions that share aligned interests.

Historically, the U.S. rarely embraced the role of global hegemon. As early as George Washington, American leaders warned against foreign entanglements. The American public, secure between two oceans, has long leaned toward isolationism. President Woodrow Wilson struggled to gain support for entering World War I, and the country quickly retreated afterward. It took the attack on Pearl Harbor to bring the U.S. into World War II.

From that moment, Washington assumed the mantle of hegemon for the free world. America was instrumental in defeating Nazism and, for the next 45 years, in resisting the brutal ideology of Soviet communism – a historic achievement that deserves lasting gratitude.

The rising world majority is charting its own course, and its way will be neither Western nor Chinese.

 

As global crises multiplied, the world repeatedly turned to Washington. Over time, American willingness to act diminished. Many Americans now reject globalism, preferring intervention only when national interests are directly at stake. Frustration with allies, first and foremost in Europe, has grown, with Americans feeling exploited for their security guarantees.

This shift did not begin with President Donald Trump. Under President Barack Obama, a more restrained foreign policy emerged, seen in the Middle East and in his dismissive stance on Russia, which he called a mere “regional power.”

The Trump administration accelerated this trend dramatically under the “America First” doctrine: less engagement abroad, but a readiness to act forcefully when U.S. interests are threatened.

The warning signs had long been visible but were largely ignored, especially in Europe.

Rough awakening for the old continent

Russia no longer poses a strategic threat in Washington’s eyes. China is a different matter; U.S. interests in the Pacific are at stake. Yet as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently emphasized in Singapore, the U.S. expects its Asian allies to contribute more meaningfully to regional defense.

Meanwhile, the global power structure has shifted. The world’s political and economic center of gravity is no longer confined to the West (North America, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc.) nor to Russia or China. Emerging economies now represent over two-thirds of the global population and carry growing weight. They are no longer content to operate under Western-defined “universal values.” This rising world majority is charting its own course, and its way will be neither Western nor Chinese.

In this multipolar world, a new balance must be found. The rules-based order had already been weakening before Mr. Trump; his administration merely exposed its fragility. This reckoning was necessary.

Europe finds itself disoriented. Without a hegemon to lean on, who will solve its problems?

The continent must now face geopolitical and economic reality. American protection is no longer guaranteed. European countries must take responsibility for safeguarding their own interests in security, economic competitiveness and political stability. This will require significant effort and coordination.

On defense, Europe needs a cohesive structure – perhaps a “European NATO” – that includes Turkey and the United Kingdom. On the economic front, the continent must urgently deregulate and embrace open trade to foster innovation and competitiveness. Hypocritical value-based arguments that mask protectionism must be dropped. Overregulation, like the Digital Services Act, artificial intelligence rules and supply chain laws to name just a few, has hampered Europe’s ability to lead in key industries.

A stronger, more self-reliant Europe could become a better partner to the U.S. in addressing shared challenges.

The road ahead will be difficult, but it is filled with opportunity. Europe’s people and businesses must hold politicians accountable and demand action.

This comment was originally published here: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/world-hegemon/