The US is swamped by refugee children from collapsing Central American countries; efforts to contain the major Ebola outbreak in west Africa are straining governments there; jihadists have carved out a bloodthirsty caliphate inside Iraq and Syria; after having already eaten Crimea, Russia keeps taking more bites out of Ukraine; and the UN’s refugee agency just announced that “the number of refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced people worldwide has, for the first time in the post-World War II era, exceeded 50 million people.”
If it feels as though the world of disorder is expanding against the world of order, it is not your imagination: There is an unfortunate logic to it.
Three big trends are converging: The first is what one of my teachers, Dov Seidman, calls the growing number of “unfree” people in the world — the millions who “have secured a certain kind of freedom, but yet feel unfree because they’re now aware that they don’t have the kind of freedom that matters most.”
Seidman, author of the book How and chief executive of LRN, which advises global businesses on governance, says that while there has been a lot of warranted focus on the destabilizing effects of income inequality, there is another equally destabilizing inequality emerging at the same time: “It is the inequality of freedom and it is even more disordering.”
That may sound odd. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the toppling of dictators in the Arab awakening, how could more people be feeling “unfree”?
Seidman looks at the world through the framework of “freedom from” and “freedom to.”
In recent years, “more people than ever have secured their ‘freedom from’ different autocrats in different countries” — Ukrainians, Tunisians, Egyptians, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis to name a few — “but so few are getting the freedom we truly cherish, and that is not just ‘freedom from,’ it is ‘freedom to,’” he says.
“Freedom to” is the freedom to live your life, speak your mind, start your own political party, build your own business, vote for any candidate, pursue happiness and be yourself, whatever your sexual, religious or political orientation.
“Protecting and enabling all of those freedoms requires the kind of laws, rules, norms, mutual trust and institutions that can only be built upon shared values and by people who believe they are on a journey of progress and prosperity together,” Seidman says.
Such values-based legal systems and institutions are just what so many societies have failed to build after overthrowing their autocrats. That is why the world today can be divided into three kinds of spaces: countries with what Seidman calls “sustainable order,” or order based on shared values, stable institutions and consensual politics; countries with imposed order, or order based on an iron-fisted, top-down leadership, or propped-up by oil money, or combinations of both, but no real shared values or institutions; and, finally, whole regions of disorder, such as Iraq, Syria, Central America and growing swaths of Central and North Africa, where there is neither an iron fist from above nor shared values from below to hold states together anymore.
Seidman says that imposed order “depends on having power over people and formal authority to coerce allegiance and compel obedience,” but both are much harder to sustain today in an age of increasingly empowered, informed and connected citizens and employees who can easily connect and collaborate to cast off authority they deem illegitimate.
“Exerting formal power over people, is getting more and more elusive and expensive” — either in the number of people you have to kill or jail or the amount of money you have to spend to anesthetize your people into submission or indifference — “and ultimately it is not sustainable,” he adds.
Seidman argues that the only power that will be sustainable in a world where more people have “‘freedom from’ is power based on leading in a two-way conversation with people, power that is built on moral authority that inspires constructive citizenship and creates the context for ‘freedom to.’”
Yet because generating such sustainable leadership and institutions is hard and takes time, we have a lot more disorderly vacuums in the world today, where people have won “freedom from” without building “freedom to.”
The biggest challenge for the world of order today is collaborating to contain these vacuums and fill them with order. That is what US President Barack Obama is trying to do in Iraq, by demanding that Iraqis build a sustainable, inclusive government in tandem with any US military action against the jihadists there. Otherwise, there will never be self-sustaining order and they will never be truly free.
However, containing and shrinking the world of disorder is a huge task, precisely because it involves so much nation-building — beyond the capacity of any one country. Which leads to the second disturbing trend today: how weak or disjointed the whole world of order is.
The EU is mired in an economic-unemployment slump; China behaves like it is on another planet, content to be a free-rider on the international system; and Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing out some paranoid czarist fantasy in Ukraine, while the jihadist world of disorder encroaches from the south.
Now add a third trend and you can really get worried: The US is the tent pole holding up the whole world of order, but Americans’ inability to agree on policies that would ensure the country’s long-term economic vitality — an immigration bill that would ease the way for energetic and talented immigrants; a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would replace income and corporate taxes; and government borrowing at these low rates to rebuild our infrastructure and create jobs, while gradually phasing in long-term fiscal rebalancing — is the definition of shortsighted.
“If we can’t do the hard work of building alliances at home, we are never going to have the strength or ability to build them around the world,” says David Rothkopf, author of the upcoming book National Insecurity: American Leadership in an Age of Fear.
The Cold War involved two competing visions of order; that is, both sides were in the world of order and all those in the West needed to do was collaborate enough to contain the East-communism.
Today is different. It is a world of order versus a world of disorder, and that disorder can only be contained by the world of order collaborating with itself and with the people in disorder to build their “freedom to.”
Yet “building” is so much harder than “containing,” it takes so much more energy and resources. We in the US have got to stop messing around at home as if this moment is just the same old, same old — and our real and tacit allies had better wake up, too. Preserving and expanding the world of sustainable order is the leadership challenge of our time.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing