haass124_Yuichiro Chino_getty images_global cooperation

Politics

Un concierto de potencias para una era global

Mar 25, 2021 Richard Haass and Charles A. Kupchan

NUEVA YORK – El áspero diálogo que mantuvieron la semana pasada Estados Unidos y China en Alaska no augura nada bueno para las relaciones bilaterales. Y la creciente rivalidad entre los dos países es un claro presagio de que el mundo de múltiples centros de poder que está surgiendo puede traer consigo una era de más competencia y conflicto.

Una parte importante del problema es que la arquitectura de gobernanza internacional vigente (construida en su mayor parte al concluir la Segunda Guerra Mundial) está desactualizada y es incapaz de preservar la estabilidad global. El sistema de alianzas centrado en Estados Unidos es un club de democracias, no adecuado a la búsqueda de la cooperación por encima de diferencias ideológicas. Las cumbres del G7 o del G20 son hechos esporádicos en los que se pierde demasiado tiempo discutiendo por la redacción de comunicados. Y aunque Naciones Unidas provee un foro internacional permanente, su Consejo de Seguridad es una invitación a la impostación y a la parálisis entre los miembros permanentes con poder de veto.

Lo que se necesita es un concierto global de potencias: un órgano conductor informal que incluya a los países más influyentes del mundo. Para ello sirve de ejemplo la historia de la Europa decimonónica. El «concierto europeo» que formaron Gran Bretaña, Francia, Rusia, Prusia y Austria a partir de 1815 logró preservar la paz por medio siglo, sin que hubiera ninguna potencia dominante y en un contexto de diversidad ideológica. Se basaba en el compromiso mutuo de apelar a un mecanismo de comunicación permanente y a la resolución pacífica de disputas para mantener los esquemas territoriales que pusieron fin a las sangrientas Guerras Napoleónicas.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Richard Haass

Writing for PS since 2000
153 Commentaries

Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan. He is the author, most recently, of The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens (Penguin Press, 2023).

Charles A. Kupchan

Writing for PS since 2010
11 Commentaries

Charles A. Kupchan, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and the author of Isolationism: A History of America’s Efforts to Shield Itself from the World (Oxford University Press, 2020).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 13 Comments on this article

Robert Wolff Mar 27, 2021

In light of the current argument over domestic and foreign relations policy, I would categorize myself as a Liberal Nationalist. I want a Liberal Democracy in America, but I despise Neoliberalism (Global Capitalism) that is sacrificing the interests of American workers for the profits of US Global Capitalists.

Max Weber makes a brilliant observation:

“Both within and between nations this requires the maintenance of competition between different groups and individuals for their various ideal and material interests. Rivalry between nation states forms the counterpart to the struggle between classes, entrepreneurs and political parties in the domestic sphere. The contest between world powers not only prevents their internal stultification, it hinders the possibility of one of them becoming hegemonic over the rest. Thus, a plurality of competing nations ensures liberal pluralism is preserved within nations.”

This reflects my own belief, and strictly counters the view of the “Council on Foreign Relations” expressed in Richard Haass which proposes a council of elites from all powerful nations to negotiate peace among themselves, each supporting each elites’ right to rule their own nation and peoples as they please.

The importance of Max Weber’s understanding is that it is extremely relevant today. It is only America’s competition with China that necessitates liberal pluralism within America to unify American citizens (workers and elites) in their combined effort to compete together as a unified force against the Chinese nation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Mar 26, 2021

Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan believe our world today could learn from history. After Napoleon’s deat, the Congress of Vienna was convened in 1814-15 to set new boundaries and restore the European state system - a delicate balance between the various major and minor players that restrained aggression by the powerful, while upholding the rights of the weak. The Congress also dealt with transnational problems, taking up issues such as rivers, slave trade and the rules of diplomacy.
The Concert of Europe - “an informal steering group” of the world’s most influential powers - Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria - formed in 1815, “successfully preserved peace for a half-century in the absence of a dominant power and amid ideological diversity.” It rested “on a mutual commitment to rely on regular communication and the peaceful resolution of disputes to uphold territorial settlement that ended the bloody Napoleonic Wars.”
The authors say, today’s global governance could benefit from a concert of powers made up of China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, and the US. This new construct would be “the best vehicle for managing a world no longer dominated by the United States and the West.” The six global and regional “heavyweights” together represent around 70% of world GDP and global military spending. They “would give a global concert geopolitical clout while protecting it from becoming an unwieldy talking shop.”
The current global system of governance was mainly set up after World War II. “It is outdated and not up to the task of preserving global stability. The US-centered alliance system is a club of democracies, poorly suited to fostering cooperation across ideological lines.” The G7 or G20 summits are “episodic and spend too much time haggling over communiqués.” The UN “provides a standing global forum,” but its Security Council allows the veto-wielding permanent members to grandstand and obstruct.
According to the authors, “a contemporary concert, like its nineteenth-century forebear, would enable sustained strategic dialogue. It would bring to the table the most influential states, regardless of their regime type, thereby separating ideological differences over domestic governance from matters requiring international cooperation. It would shun formal procedures and codified rules, instead relying on persuasion and compromise to build consensus.”
To start with, senior permanent representatives of the concert members meet on a “regular” basis and address crises. Other non-members - such as the African Union, the Arab League, the the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the Organization of American States - would be given a forum. Delegates from these organisations and other “relevant” countries would be invited, when issues affecting their regions are discussed. Member states must stay out of each other’s internal affairs.
However this concert is toothless. It is mainly “a consultative, not a decision-making body, addressing emerging crises, fashioning new rules of the road, and building support for collective initiatives. It would leave operational oversight to the UN and other existing bodies.” The concert would thus add to, not replace, the current global structure, by ensuring that decisions “could then be taken and implemented elsewhere.”
The authors believe this contemporary concert “would promote stability by privileging the territorial status quo and a view of sovereignty that precludes, except in the case of international consensus, the use of military force or other coercive means to alter existing borders or topple regimes. Members would reserve the right to take unilateral action when they deem their vital interests to be at stake. Ideally, sustained strategic dialogue would make unilateral moves less frequent and destabilizing.”
No doubt global cooperation is required to tackle “longer-term challenges, such as combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as well as terrorist networks, promoting global health, forging norms in cyberspace, and combating climate change.” It is important to have a venue where the US and China can meet and sort out their ideological differences and geopolitical interests, minimising the risk of a military confrontation, while seeking a peaceful resolution to a conflict
It is obvious that such a global concert would be “no panacea.” It remains to be seen whether the six “heavyweights” are willing to sit at the same table and reach “a consensus among them.” The goal is to manage, not eliminate, “threats to regional and global order.” As this is such a small group, it is doubtful whether members would whole-heartedly accept each other, because “both liberal and illiberal governments as legitimate and authoritative” are lumped together.
The authors say, “a global concert has one enormous advantage. It offers the best and most realistic way to advance great-power consensus, and what is workable and attainable is always preferable to what is desirable but impossible. And the most likely alternative to a great-power steering group – an unruly world managed by no one – is in no one’s interest.”
Such a group reminds of BRICS, which makes up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa - countries that have more differences than similarities. So fare the group had been laying low. Despite the shifting balance of global powers, the “West’s longstanding vision of a global order” has still its appeal. Now it will have to be more inclusive and take members on board that do not share its liberal values and worldviews.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Leo Arouet Mar 25, 2021

It really is hard for me to imagine a concert or meeting where ideology is out of it. Ideology has allowed the European Union to be created, it has almost shaped the 20th century, and it is ideology that allows China to be more assertive and aggressive. I see almost impossible that the ideology is out of place.
- P. Kamath Mar 26, 2021
  
  Ideology! What ideology? It was the fear of being run over- ,invaded by a common foe!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Robert Wolff Mar 25, 2021
  
  Ideology is the rule of the Ruling Class via regimentation of thought and "The Way to Live" as dictated by the ruling ideology.
  
  The piece tries to justify geopolitical rule by elites with highly disparate ideologies of rule classes, and that the ruling class in each nation should be free to rule its own citizens as they please without the interference of other nations. This would lead back to the situation of the Ruling Princes of Europe prior to Capitalism, reciprocatively doing business with the 'Other Princes' of Europe, and demanding financial compensation for goods and services imported from other palatinates to insure the colluding princes and their hierarchies would remain in power in each princely State.
  
  Such is/was the consensus among princes. A return to that era is not unlikely under the scenario described in this article. In fact the article promotes such a return. The growth of commercial hierarchies and their princes due to 'Economies of Scale' creates princely economic elites in each competing nation today. The idea that these princes alone and in Concert can create a stable rule of the world through individuated specialized ideological rule of their own serfs, loyal only to their own liege lords is certainly a rational prediction.
  
  The article does not just promote the return of the Rule of States by Princes, but admits it was/is the only stable world establishment for peaceful relations among the current palatinates/states/nations in the current world.
  
  I.e., Liberalism in all its forms (Classical, Neoclassical and Postmodern) were all a big mistake.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Mar 25, 2021

I think I know what the European Concert was like. I think I have a generalized history of the concert. But I don't know and I shall never know what Prof. Haass and Prof. Kupckan wrote this nonsense for.
- P. Kamath Mar 29, 2021
  
  Yoshi: welcome back. According to suggested model, should Korea remain divided as is or report to the Japanese or Chinese ? What do you say? And what about Australia?
  - Yoshimichi Moriyama Mar 30, 2021
    
    Kamath,
    Long time no hear. Who said, "I love Germany, so two Germanies are better than one?"
    The United States and China seem to be sharply divided on the peninsular unification. Not only that, what makes the situation far more complex is that there is a very deep division of opinion within South Korea. Japanese would not feel against the unification if the matter was brought on the table of discussion as a concrete problem but for the moment we are very worried how we can denuclearize the North.
    Australian economy was rather hit hard, I guess. What are they thinking? It is time we should think of a more or less discriminatory trade with China.
    What do you think?
    - P. Kamath Apr 5, 2021
      
      Yoshi: At this moment, I don’t have any meaningful suggestions. I share and agree with many of your views about China’s history, mindset, culture, religion and it’s historic achievements from ancient to modern times. However , I believe you are far more informed than I am in these matters because of historic interactions, politics, war and geographical closeness of Japan and China.
      Unless major nations like Japan and Asian nations band together along with Western powers, and pose united political , industrial and military front, aggressive behaviour of authoritarian China won’t change for many generations ie long after we are all gone!
      Take care.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Robert Wolff Mar 25, 2021
  
  It is worth noting that in 1914 at the end of the 100 years of peace supposedly created by the success of the European Concert, Europe returned to intertribal warfare and fell into two of the most heinous wars in European history -- WWI and WWII.
  
  Even more interesting than why the Concert engendered peace for 100 years is why it utterly disintegrated and failed in 1914 (which the article does not address).
  
  Similarly, why has Pax Americana (US-Led Capitalist New World Order) which lasted for 60+ years failed at this time in history. I surmise the reasons for the failure of the European Concert and the New World Order are quite similar. Both are characterized by the return to Culture Wars typified by intractable intertribal conflicts.
  - P. Kamath Mar 29, 2021
    
    Richard Haas, no doubt, has some interesting model for his new world order. The League of Nations is now dead and UNO is limping if not impotent. Why not muse over it? After all, tectonic plates of geopolitical world are constantly shifting. I wish he had suggested some practical methods to draw lines between his suggested satrapies. Who will decide who goes where! Will Indonesia opt to report to the Japanese or Chinese😯?
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  - Yoshimichi Moriyama Mar 26, 2021
    
    I agree with you.
    
    Goethe (1749~1832) was scared of the new age being unfolded by the French Revolution and industrialization. Metternich (1773~1859) knew he was fighting a losing battle.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Mar 25, 2021

Haass muses that the next stable world order is for all autocracies that control the most powerful nations to establish a “Concert” of autocracies, so leaders with radically different ideologies can meet and decide on peace-keeping agreements among their nations while allowing each autocracy its right to control its own citizens in whatever manner they choose. Sounds like the Medieval structure of Europe under Liege Lords of Middle Age fiefdoms (the longest period of peace in Europe).

Under Haass’s concept, each Lord rules his own fief and has a right to control his own fiefdom and its bound serfs as He sees fit. A “Concert” is the meeting of the Lords of the Fiefdoms to ensure there are no inter-fief wars among themselves or between their loyal serfs, and each Lord is responsible for maintaining order within His own fiefdom without the interference of [foreign] Lords or their ideological propaganda. No Lord will have a right to interfere with another Lord’s rule of his own fiefdom as He sees fit.

• The “World” is a series of Tragedies caused by Wars between Fiefdoms.
• If “they” are not under control, then “they” are revolting against control in order to
takeover control themselves.
• If you make “them” Equal, “they” will become superior.
• “Freedom” is the right of each Lord of the fief to be in control of his own fiefdom
and its serfs.
• “Democracy” is the appeasement of the Masses by the Controlling Authority.
___________________________________________________________________
A new reply to this comment has been posted.