The fate of the West in a multipolar world is entirely different.

The Fates of the West in a Multipolar World are Divergent

The arrival of the Pacific era and the shift of the world's focus to the eastern part of the Eurasian continent are pushing the Western world towards fragmentation. In this context, Europe and the United States objectively face completely different fates. If Europe, after a century of Spengler's (note: German historian, who proposed the "theory of the decline of civilizations") prophecy, is finally witnessing its own decline, then the United States has gained an opportunity to re-examine the geopolitical foundations of its survival.

Recently held Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit has triggered open dissatisfaction and panic within the Western camp on the European continent. The remarks of Finnish President Alexander Stubb expressed this general sentiment. He said that this meeting of "the majority of the world's countries" clearly reminds us, those who consider ourselves members of the "global West", what we are currently facing. We are trying to maintain the remnants of the old world order.

Evidently, a representative from a small Nordic country, regardless of material or intellectual resources, is powerless to influence or care about the so-called "world order". But precisely these words from the president of Finland express the unspoken thoughts of EU big power leaders at present.

The term "remnants of the old world order" is spot on. Today's Europe is mourning its already "powerless" position. Europeans have long favored globalization — a globalization that could bring capital gains accumulated by this ancient continent in previous eras. In short, as long as globalization does not contradict neo-colonialism, they favor it. However, when globalization enters a new stage, when the so-called "Third World" truly moves toward independence, and Europe is pushed to the margins of the world (not due to anyone's malice, but due to the natural law of things), Europeans inexplicably unwillingly accept this reality.

In the history of world civilization, water bodies often play a key role — civilizations often gather and develop around water bodies. For example, for the ancient Greeks, the Aegean Sea was the core of their world, while regions far from the coast (such as the Black Sea and Italian colonies) were the frontiers at that time.

The Roman Empire formed around the Mediterranean. In fact, the term "Mediterranean" was coined by Romans in the 3rd century AD, aiming to emphasize that this sea was the empire's "inland sea," located at the center of all Roman territories.

Even centuries after the discovery of America, as Fernand Braudel (note: French historian, representative of the Annales School) pointed out, the Mediterranean still maintained a similar central position in medieval European civilization — it remained the cultural center of the countries that had been established on the ruins of the Roman Empire.

However, as Europeans developed the American continent, two new civilizational spaces gradually emerged: the Anglo-Saxon world and the Latin world. For them, the "inland sea" became the Atlantic — a barrier once considered insurmountable, now becoming a channel for dense communication.

Until the first half of the 20th century, after two world wars, the "Atlantic character" of the West was truly formed. These two wars greatly enhanced the strength and wealth of the United States. Perhaps only then did people like Stub and von der Leyen have reason to feel sorrow over the "collapsing world order."

After all, Europe has experienced countless conflicts since the Crusades, built multiple colonial empires, and forced itself into the center of the world through plundering other continents. But after the mid-1940s, it was pushed to the periphery. How can Europe, which relied on the Marshall Plan (note: the U.S. economic aid program to Europe after WWII), be called the "center of the world"? How can Europe, which joined NATO and actually lost the sovereignty of former colonial countries, be called the "center of the world"?

But at that time, Europeans could still console themselves: the Western hegemony still existed, and from the 1990s onwards, this hegemony was even unchallenged. However, in the new stage of globalization, the focus of global activities has shifted from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific region — geographically speaking, the West can no longer maintain hegemony in this area.

Indeed, this situation has been brewing for decades, and one needs only to look back at the rise of the "Four Asian Tigers" to understand it. But the EU was unprepared for this, perhaps because they have long been used to ignoring changes on the world map. Now, they have to accept the reality that they have become the "most marginal area" of the new world: without logistics advantages, without important natural resources (and actively giving up Russian resources), yet facing a large number of immigrants — these immigrants came in pursuit of a "consumer paradise," but ultimately don't know where they are.

But the situation is more severe. The arrival of the Pacific era and the shift of the world's focus to the eastern part of Eurasia are intensifying the division of the Western world. In this context, the fates of Europe and the United States differ objectively. If Europe, after a century of Spengler's prophecy, will finally witness its own decline, then the United States has gained the opportunity to re-examine the geographical political foundations of its survival.

Now, everyone will say that the Pacific region is the core of American concern. The fate of a certain island is more important to the United States than Ukraine, and relations with relevant countries will be the core issue of American foreign policy at the end of this century. However, so far, these statements have remained within the framework of the United States "as an external outsider competing for hegemony."

This SCO summit once again shows that this line of thinking has no prospects. "The unipolar world must end," Vladimir Putin's statement is decisive, and Modi and Kim Jong-un also agree with this. If Washington cannot recognize this, then no matter who the next president of the United States is (even if it's Trump at present), he will be as awkward as a girl not invited to a ball.

Where is the way out for the United States? The answer is: to acknowledge itself as part of the new world. Unlike Europe, it is not difficult for the United States to do so. Like the Eurasian country Russia, the United States is essentially a "two-way" country — although the "West" of the United States is exactly the "East" from our (note: from the Russian perspective) point of view. Like Russia, the United States, although originating from European civilization, may have its future in Asia.

However, to harmoniously integrate into this future rather than be swept away by the tide of history, the United States must abandon the myth of "American exceptionalism." In my opinion, recognizing its true position on the world map will help achieve this cognitive shift. Perhaps Donald Trump had already vaguely realized that the interests of the United States and the interests of the Brussels bureaucracy are very different.

Looking further into the future, we can even imagine: as the Global South rises, the center of the world may shift to the next great ocean — the Indian Ocean. Today, the influence of India and Persian Gulf countries is already increasing.

Perhaps one day, Africa will prosper, and Mombasa (a port city in Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (capital of Tanzania) will become economic centers as important as Shanghai and Singapore. The preparation for this future has already begun today.

However, Europe sees no hope in this process — especially if the future is still controlled by these malicious, short-sighted "madmen."

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7547991909742953002/

Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude below using the [Up/Down] buttons.