Every Nation For Itself - Book Summary

Unlock the geopolitical complexities of a world without a leader

Picture a universe devoid of gravity, a place where every entity floats aimlessly, independent of any guiding force. Now, imagine a parallel in the realm of international politics – a world without a leader, a scenario where no individual country or coalition of nations navigates the global agenda. Sounds disconcerting, doesn't it?

Interestingly, that's the reality of our present-day world. Instead of a world without gravity, we are now navigating a "G Zero" world, one without any dominant global leadership — be it a singular nation or a robust coalition like the G8 or G20, which are alliances of the world's most powerful and affluent nations. This leadership vacuum has been our reality since the 1990s, and we find ourselves examining the causes that led us to this state and contemplating the potential future of geopolitics.

In this series, you will explore:

- The significance of food protectionism in a world without a leader,

- The role of Brazil and Turkey as so-called pivot nations in the global arena, and

- The potential shape and implications of a second Cold War.

Imposing domestic challenges hinder nations from shouldering international leadership.

Let's consider a scenario: Your debts are accumulating, your job stability is waning, and you need to repair your damaged car. Would this be the right time for you to take the helm of a neighborhood committee? Not quite!

This paints a relatable picture for numerous nations across the globe, which are grappling with significant domestic issues. Even developed nations like Japan and the United States are caught in the crossfire of monumental debt and an increasingly elderly population.

Every day, the United States takes on nearly four billion dollars of additional debt to manage its national deficit, a trend that will persist until some form of stability is reached. The government's expenditure on pensions and health coverage for the elderly and less fortunate individuals constitutes 40 percent of the national budget.

Meanwhile, emerging powerhouses such as Brazil, China, Russia, and India have showcased their ability to handle domestic issues with strategic finesse. Take China, for instance, which is heavily invested in nurturing its middle class and creating a robust social security system to cater to its vast population of 1.34 billion. But despite its status as an economic behemoth, China's per capita income amounts to only a third of that in Portugal.

In sum, the weight of domestic tribulations has led nations to shy away from undertaking international leadership roles, despite the urgent global challenges that stare us in the face. The 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit is a classic example of this widespread reluctance.

Established powers like the United States and France exerted pressure on emerging nations such as China and India, urging them to commit to binding targets for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

The emerging powers retorted that the Western world has been polluting the planet for the past 150 years, while the established powers highlighted that the lion's share of future pollution would stem from these emerging nations. The outcome? Neither the old guard nor the new were ready to spearhead the initiative.

Currently, no single nation or consortium of nations wields enough political and economic might to drive the necessary transformations to address looming international problems. Discover the grave implications of this trend as we move forward.

A dearth of international cooperation exacerbates global environmental challenges.

Whether we accept it or not, we're living in a world that is increasingly globalized and interconnected, where nations and individuals across the globe grapple with intricate and interlinked problems.

This inability of nations to collaborate on environmental issues directly triggers food price shocks and protectionism. It's easy to see why: food production hinges on climatic conditions. Droughts, floods, and other severe weather conditions brought on by global warming pose formidable threats to worldwide agriculture, leading to poor harvests, food shortages, and escalating food prices.

Between 2007 and 2008, the prices of staple crops like corn, wheat, and rice saw a significant surge. In response, countries like Russia and Argentina curtailed exports to protect their local food supplies, thereby keeping domestic prices low. This strategy, known as food protectionism, is often deployed by politicians to ward off internal unrest from a population struggling with hunger.

However, food protectionism is fraught with risks. It impedes economic growth, damages diplomatic ties, and stifles international cooperation. Often, food protectionism takes the shape of import barriers set up under the guise of "safeguarding" local agriculture. These barriers deter cross-border competition in the food industry, thereby stifling the adoption of innovative technologies that can increase yields and reduce costs.

An illustrative incident is the E. coli outbreak in Germany, when German authorities unjustly accused Spain of exporting contaminated cucumbers. As a result, Russia banned the import of all fresh vegetables from the European Union. However, it was eventually proven that the Spanish cucumbers were not contaminated. The Spanish agriculture minister demanded compensation for the unfounded accusations, unsurprisingly straining diplomatic relations between the nations involved.

How can we characterize a world where cooperation is lacking and countries are solely self-interested? It can be described as a G-Zero world, a place where the protectionist decisions of world leaders are progressively reducing our chances of successfully tackling imminent global challenges.

In a world devoid of leadership, those who adapt with flexibility will prevail.

A planet lacking in international leadership paints a daunting picture of imminent economic and political difficulties. Certain nations, gifted with the ability to remain malleable, could prosper in our G-Zero world, while others may falter. So, let's explore the potential winners and losers.

Countries capable of carving out opportunities independently will flourish, unhindered by reliance on a sole ally. Take Brazil as an example — a pivot state that has skillfully forged a slew of profitable relationships with other countries, without being tethered to just one. Once, the United States was Brazil's principal trade partner, but in 2009, China took up this mantle, becoming Brazil's chief source of imports.

Then there's Turkey, another pivot state, which holds immense value for both the European Union and the United States. Turkey's per capita income outstrips China's by twice and India's by four times. Among all the countries in the Muslim world, Turkey boasts the most robust trade ties with Israel.

On the flip side, nations that operate under the presumption of a barrier-free single market helmed by the United States will likely struggle to thrive in a G-Zero world. Look at Japan, for instance. Presently, Japan enjoys significant military and economic security from the United States, with US military bases still located in Japan and the United States representing Japan's interests. However, as China's regional clout continues to expand, this relationship may soon lose its efficacy.

Mexico is another country currently under the economic umbrella of the United States. Its primary revenue streams come from oil exports and tourism, particularly from US citizens. Mexico's living standards and financial stability are closely entwined with the economic health of the United States.

The last thirty years have witnessed states that leveraged Western-led globalization emerging as winners. But the G-Zero landscape is a different ball game altogether. Nations that can adeptly adapt to a leaderless world will weather this stormy phase. Of course, the G-Zero era won't last indefinitely. The issues it generates will eventually necessitate a solution in the form of global leadership.

If China and the United States work together, two distinct versions of global leadership could take form.

The United States and China are two powerhouses that will be instrumental in shaping the future of global leadership in the aftermath of the G-Zero era. Let's imagine two potential scenarios where these nations choose to join forces.

In the first scenario, we could be heading towards a G2 world — one where China and the United States collaborate closely, leaving little room for other nations to exert substantial influence.

The United States and China are presently bound together by trade ties. The United States is China's biggest customer, whereas China holds the title of being the United States' largest creditor. Between 1998 to 2007, these two nations collectively accounted for 40 percent of global growth.

When working in tandem, these two giants have the capacity to effectively tackle global challenges. Countries like France and Germany might be hesitant to cede their influence, but in a situation where their power is dwindling, they might not have any other option.

But what if nations apart from China and the United States also rise to power? This leads us to the second scenario — a G20 world.

Under this model, China and the United States would work collaboratively, with other countries wielding their influence as a fully functioning concert of nations, unlike the current setup. However, for this scenario to play out, a singular threat of such magnitude would need to exist that it impacts all powerful nations simultaneously and to the same degree.

Imagine a scenario where an unknown source executes a cyber attack that disrupts power grids in the European Union, the United States, and China in quick succession. Facing the same threat, these nations would band together to identify and neutralize the perpetrator. While such a scenario is entirely plausible, the longevity of this cooperation remains an open question. Once the common enemy is defeated, the partnership may very well dissolve.

But what if China and the United States can't find common ground? There are two additional scenarios that could unfold under these circumstances. Stay tuned to find out what our world might look like in such a situation.

If the United States and China fail to collaborate, we could witness a revamped cold war or increased regional division.

And what happens if China and the United States are unable to cooperate? Two possible scenarios emerge in this circumstance.

In the first scenario, we could see the advent of a new cold war if other countries remain weak while the United States and China refuse to cooperate. In such a situation, less powerful nations might find themselves compelled to align with one of these two superpowers.

The rivalry would no longer be between the United States and the USSR as in the original cold war. Instead, it would be the United States versus China, with NATO countries and other western nations siding with the United States, and Asian and African countries aligning with China.

Given their superior military, economic, and political prowess, the United States and China have the capacity to wage economic wars against each other. However, their tightly interwoven commercial relationship is a crucial factor that differentiates this potential cold war from its predecessor. Unlike the United States and USSR, who could inflict damage on each other without causing self-harm, the United States and China would both suffer economic setbacks in the event of a conflict.

In the second and final scenario, we could face a world of increased regional divisions if China and the United States fail to collaborate and other nations maintain their strength. In such a world, every state would primarily focus on its internal challenges, and some would rise to manage regional and transnational issues.

For instance, Brazil, as South America's most robust nation both economically and militarily, could ascend as a regional leader. Likewise, Germany could emerge as a leader in Europe, given that it boasts one of the region's wealthiest economies. Without Germany's leadership, it's unlikely that the European Union could effectively address financial issues.

These regional leaders would strive to tackle global challenges like greenhouse gas emissions — but only on a transnational scale, all while turning a blind eye to the activities of other regional powers.

Wrapping it up

The central takeaway from this book is:

We live in an era defined by a concerning absence of global leadership. Despite confronting major transnational and international challenges, no single nation or group of countries is prepared or capable of guiding our world towards sustainable solutions. However, this power vacuum is a temporary condition, and will eventually give rise to a new model of global leadership in one of four possible forms.