Finnish President Stubb Won’t Succeed In Convincing The Global South To Abandon Multipolarity
This collection of countries, which is unofficially led by India (the most populous and fastest-developing state among them by far), knows that its interests are best served by accelerating the implementation of the Global East’s Neo-Realist multipolar vision.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb published a piece at Foreign Affairs, the influential Council on Foreign Relations’ bi-monthly magazine, in December about “The West’s Last Chance: How to Build a New Global Order Before It’s Too Late”. He perceives the world as being divided into three blocs; the US-led Global West, the Chinese-led Global East, and the Global South. The interplay between them will shape the world order, he believes, which will result in either a liberal restoration, persistent disorder, or outright chaos.
This model resembles the one described here in March 2023. The Global South is the kingmaker, but it won’t help restore the declining liberal world order unless the Global West implements systemic reforms by expanding number of permanent UNSC seats, removing their veto power, and updating global trade and financial institutions to make them more representative. In parallel, the Global West should also practice what Stubb calls “values-based realism”, which is his neologism for geopolitical pragmatism.
He describes it as “committing to a set of universal values based on freedom, fundamental rights, and international rules while still respecting the realities of the world’s diversity of cultures and histories.” Stubb elaborated that “The aim of values-based realism is to find a balance between values and interests in a way that prioritizes principles but recognizes the limits of a state’s power when the interests of peace, stability, and security are at stake.”
His “values-based realism” requires implementing the earlier enumerated reforms, improving the Global South’s standard of living, and eschewing aggressive democracy promotion within their societies. All of this is sensible. According to him, “The global West cannot simply attract the global South by extolling the virtues of freedom and democracy; it also needs to fund development projects, make investments in economic growth, and, most important, give the South a seat at the table and share power.”
Likewise, “The global East would be equally mistaken to think that its spending on big infrastructure projects and direct investment buys it full influence in the global South. Love cannot be easily bought.” Another difference that he makes between the two is his claim that the Global West represents multilateralism and the Global East multipolarity, correspondingly described as a “system of global cooperation that rests on international institutions and common rules” and an “oligopoly of power.”
Stubb is just fearmongering about the return of Neo-Realism to International Relations. It’s poised to take the form of civilization-states – those that left lasting socio-political legacies on their neighbors over the centuries – re-establishing their sphere of influence for security-related reasons. The quid pro quo is that they’ll provide for relatively smaller states’ economic interests. This is arguably a fairer and more sustainable system than ruling over them through exploitative institutions per the Neo-Liberal model.
His promotion of “values-based realism”, basically geopolitical pragmatism of the sort that others have already proposed, therefore likely won’t convince the Global South to perpetuate its servitude within the Global West’s Neo-Liberal multilateral system. This collection of countries, which is unofficially led by India (the most populous and fastest-developing state among them by far), knows that its interests are best served by accelerating the implementation of the Global East’s Neo-Realist multipolar vision.
Freedom and democracy....
Where?
In western Europe?
I can't speak for others countries. I will speak of what I know, France, listing what I can do no more compared with 40 years before:
I can't say I don't like jews, muslims( christians I still can), Arabs, Israelis, Africans( Russians and Asiatics, whites, Americans,I can), homosexuals, transsexuals. I can't say that without risking a ruinous legal proceedings by NPOs founded by french government or UE or Soros. I I say, I hate them, I risk prison.
And every body who want to lynch me on line for that risk nothing.
I can't protect me against an aggression without risking prison and ruin, I can't protect my belongings, my family, somebody agressée in the street without risking ruin and prison.
Today, there is a president, elected after a mediatic-,judiciary coup. Today, ha has 12% popularity and he has no parliamentary majority, and he ruled since years with a law of exception, set by de Gaulle for major case and never used by him.
In France, MSM survive only with subsidies provided directly by the presidency.
I can't read Sputnik or RT because it's forbidden.
I can't call for Israël boycott without risking ruin.
I can't say that I want expulsion of foreign criminels without risking ruin and prison.
I have not the right to know exactly how much Arabs or muslims there is in my country.
I have not the right to know who own the debts of my country.
I have not the right to critic publicly a minister or president without risking ruin.
My European leaders are speaking very seriously to forbid every critic of official narrative, they call it "hate crime".
Yes, yes, freedom and democracy.
Stubbs advice sounds a little like what an industrial psychologist might give to an employer whose employee's are becoming restive, and need to be lulled and seduced back into compliance with the masters always benevolent aspirations. The tone of the west seems unable to escape undercurrents of bourgeois exasperation at the desire for freedom and autonomy from those unruly denizens of the jungle beyond the neatly clipped hedges of the garden, who must at all costs be brought into line with privately controlled market calculations.