The Emerging World Order is Post-Western and Pre-Plural

Despite this reluctance to shift the status quo, the world is nonetheless advancing. The conflict in Europe is both a symptom and a catalyst of the emergence of the post-Western world, which began as far back as the decolonization period post-1945. Others are a result of Western actions, such as the brutality of the wars waged in Algeria, Kenya and Indo-China, of which the Vietnam War was one part. Or, more recently, the Iraq War and Afghanistan War. These exposed the first cracks in the edifice of Western moral superiority, on full display for the rest of the world to see. What transpired during these military interventions was viewed by many in the non-Western world as crimes against humanity. For example, the use of the agent orange herbicide in Vietnam, which is to this day found in the milk of breastfeeding mothers and capable of causing cancer, or the fact that the US/UK-led invasion of Iraq had no legal basis and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths over the course of 13 years, not to mention the catastrophe in Afghanistan.

Yet the severity of these crimes is actively downplayed or denied by the West: few Western nations would support an investigation into George W. Bush or Tony Blair for war crimes. Attempts by organizations such as WikiLeaks to disclose sensitive information about what constitutes war crimes by the West have been blocked and punished by the West. The Trump administration even passed an executive order to apply sanctions to the International Criminal Court for investigating the possibility of war crimes in Afghanistan. Western interventions that cause horrific tragedies are often later labeled as mistakes by Western leaders, but in the non-Western world, they are crimes for which no justice has been delivered.

The ‘bad’ side is also inclusive of non-aligned countries, which are conflated by the West as being pro-war, pro-invasion and anti-Western, thereby removing invaluable space for impartial diplomacy led by non-Western actors such as China or India (which is in itself anathema to the belief that only the West is qualified to lead in global diplomacy).

In so doing, the West has let its liberal ideologies develop into a deep sense of moral superiority that its systems are the best - even the only - way for nations to operate. Moral fig leaves - democracy, individual freedoms, human rights, etc - are then used to justify Western intervention across the world, and to deny the West’s implications in causing many of the global tensions we see today. Hence the wilful intellectual rejection of a future in which the West does not dominate: if we do not have a Western world order (obscured behind and synonymous with the "rules-based" world order), then a bleak future surely awaits us. This is promulgated by political leaders, media houses, academics, business leaders, civil societies, policymakers and the public. To many in the non-Western world, this is now being perceived almost as a concerted industry effort to provide revisionist versions of global and historic events, build narratives with the veneer of academic credentials to support ideological prescriptions with the objective of arguing that only the West can be trusted to lead the world.

The West should now pay attention to these non-Western perceptions if it is to peacefully transition into and thrive in the inevitable post-Western world. This means coming to terms with new geopolitical and economic arrangements between non-Western countries, and not dismissing them with suspicion when they do not include the West. This also requires accepting non-Western countries into global power structures (such as including India and the African Union in the UN Security Council) or understanding that there are non-Western doctrines to diplomacy and trade that are different from Western norms (for example, the ASEAN Way).

Coloniality shapes world order

Shifting the emphasis away from the West in this way is important, and not just for optics. The reality is that prevailing Western centrism is a hallmark of contemporary colonial thinking, and behaviors that still characterize the West’s view of itself and its relations with the non-Western world - this is partly why Europeans were late in recognizing that the post-Western/pre-plural world had already arrived before the onset of the Russia-Ukraine war.
 
Although many will claim that we live in a post-colonial era, the reality is that the past is not divorced from the present. Colonial influences preserve Western dominance in three major areas: economics, geopolitics, and culture.
 
Economically, it is no secret that Western businesses have collated immense amounts of wealth through the exploitation of the non-Western world. The externalization of costs through underpricing labor and exploitation of environmental resources in poorer countries with less mature regulation lies at the heart of the offshoring business model that so many Western companies adopt. Not only that, but the global command structure of multinational businesses is comprised of Western banks and rating agencies (Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch), enabled by Western auditors (the Big Four), facilitated by Western law firms (the Magic Circle), and fine-tuned by Western management consultants (the Big Three).

Interventions have become part of the Western discourse around the "responsibility to protect": the idea that sovereignty is conditional upon state governments not crossing human rights lines as defined by the West. If a state fails in this regard, its sovereignty becomes forfeit, and war is allowed. Multilateral machinery supports these whims. Key international institutions (i.e. the UN, World Bank, World Trade Organisation, and IMF) have evolved according to Western values. One should also not be surprised that the people involved who are decreed most qualified and elected to leadership positions are Western, establishing a permanent ‘ruling class’ when it comes to global and elite institutions.

Culturally, the selective use of education to immortalize Western successes - ranging from wars to the evolution of science, technology, and philosophy - as well as common narratives in Western media, and even the cultural weight of Western films, music, sport, and fashion, all prop Western civilization up.
 
Taken together, these brief examples of contemporary Western colonial behavior help describe how Western centrism is actively maintained and reproduced, even in areas such as climate change mitigation and adaptation. Recognizing this is essential for Western leaders looking to navigate the pre-plural world, because this is a norm that must be dismantled. If left unaddressed, it will make the initial onset of the pre-plural world an immensely divisive period - it has contributed to the pain being felt in Europe, and the consequent deepening of existing polarities.

How Europe should respond

Given that Europe is late in responding to the new world order, it must now promptly chart a new course if it is to thrive in the pre-plural world. There are three main shifts it can make.

But the nature of this special relationship is now changing. With the Russia-Ukraine war, Europe is now in a position of subservience to the US. By colluding with the US and its ambitions for NATO’s eastward expansion and in the process putting Putin in a position to justify invading Ukraine, Europe’s leaders have abdicated responsibility and failed to protect their citizens. This is by no means excusing Vladimir Putin’s actions, but war is avoided through diplomacy, communication and an acute understanding of the fears and concerns of others. This means forging relationships, especially with adversaries, to avoid catastrophic outcomes. The arrogance borne out of imperial history and thus believing in being masters of the universe meant that this age-old logic was cast aside, and now Europe finds itself embroiled in war, with its largest industrial power, Germany, arming itself for the first time since the World War II, while Finland and Sweden scrambled to join NATO, further isolating the region from Russia. Simultaneously, the Euro has plummeted to be on par with the US dollar for the first time in 20 years, giving the US even greater financial leverage over Europe.

The outcome is a Europe that is increasingly beholden to the hegemonic direction of the US, through the funding it provides, the weapon it sells - the one nation that has a military-industrial complex so large that it is central to its economy -, the sanctions it implements, the trade deals it favors, and the enemies it chooses to pursue. It should have been clear to European leaders that since the turn of the millennium, America’s political system was beginning to become a destabilizing global force, its political leaders captive to private interests, rather than unifying ones. If Europe is to disentangle itself from the US, then the natural next step Europe should consider is to repair and renew its relationships with certain non-Western nations. This is the second shift and requires working hard for peace with Russia, rather than creating a future that rejects the nation as a pariah state, as unsavory as that may sound to European leaders. It also means reaching out to the rising powers in the Middle East and large Asian and African countries in the spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding, to create a new trajectory that works with the pre-polar world order, rather than against it.

For example, Europe has traditionally perceived China as a trading partner rather than a geopolitical ally and, more recently, as a threat, in step with the US’ fears. Yet this stance is a position that is singularly unsuited to guarding Europe’s self-interest in the pre-polar world, given that China will inevitably play an extremely pivotal role. It is critically important that Europe discards this approach (and in the US’ case, which should re-evaluate its post-war self-declaration as the leader of the "free world") to embark on a new geopolitical direction, given the pre-plural world will be multipolar in ways that the current global system is not.

Democracy is just one approach to this. As such, dividing the world into two camps along the axis of democracy is limiting, regressive, and reflects a Cold War mentality that is counterproductive - particularly as the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues. After all, in all academic studies of social systems, ecosystems, and economic systems, diversity is recognized as the norm and efforts are made to accept them. But with regard to political systems, the West seemingly rejects plurality.

Thus, the West should work to recognize that diversity in political systems is the natural order of things in a complex and changing world that, as a global community, we must learn to accept and work with to make multilateral cooperation more effective. The responsibility of the members of this community of nations is to learn from each other, encourage, even teach, and seek to make the community stronger. This process of learning is what will define the pre-plural world order. Of course, this is not to take away from the very legitimate concerns surrounding dictators and repressive political systems. However, contemporary non-democratic systems are not equivalent to their 20th-century counterparts. They are not as morally bereft as the West believes, not least given that the vaunted democratic systems that operate in the West are also extremely flawed - the US is more a plutocracy than anything else. Yet Western populations have great difficulty accepting this most liberal of ideas: that plurality should be respected, in line with the Westphalian values that are still quoted to this day.

For many Western nations, the concept of the post-Western/pre-plural world evokes images of a world divided. But to non-Western countries, it is not something to be feared nor fought. To them, it presents a rare opportunity for global unity. The world will continue to advance, and the West should recognize that the new world order will be one of de-Westernization, not of de-globalization or regression. To many in the non-Western world, it will be a fairer world order, given that de-Westernization is synonymous with a struggle for liberty from their history’s longest period of oppression. The new world order offers an opportunity to have sovereign rights respected at last.
 
Importantly, this does not imply that the non-Western world is rejecting the West; rather, non-Western nations are forging new trajectories for their identities and cultures and want to see the West support them in this process: for Western and non-Western nations to work together in the pre-plural world order - as true members of the international community of nations - for the best outcomes at national and international levels.