By Mr. Maverick
In the past, an “open” relationship between two people was something frowned upon in most social circles. Nowadays, aside from their impact on the social fabric, “open” relationships seem to gain even more ground. “Open” relationship status, or at least an “it’s complicated” one, is gradually becoming the rule. New generations are likely to be attracted to it, since it increases their options and lessens their sense of commitment. Frankly, they can’t be blamed. As humans, the more troubled and unsure we feel, the more we’re likely to become hesitant and doubtful, avoiding any kind of commitment. Surprisingly, however, in our age, the “trend” of the fear of commitment has started to pervade international relations too. Let me elaborate.
Undeniably, in the world we currently live in, insecurity has become the new norm. A blend of regional wars, stiff geopolitical competition and rising uncertainty – not to mention other shared questions like climate change and AI, the pinnacle of an alarmingly fast technological evolution – make for a highly fluid and unpredictable international landscape.
What sets this conjuncture apart from previous times of crisis is the very concurrence of this series of unfortunate and unexpected developments. This concurrence fuels an already intrinsically volatile international system, creating a “cocktail”, perilous enough to render any estimation on where we’re headed futile. In fact, the only safe prediction we can make about change right now is that it will accelerate.
On top of everything else, in this “wobbling” state, the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China is the X factor that takes it up a notch. The two superpowers are diametrically opposed, and their long-term strategic objectives irreconcilable, at least based on the current state of affairs. The two giants are standing at the peak alone, far apart from everyone less, and their antagonism is a parameter that shapes the behavior of all other states below them. However, in spite of their obviously uncontested predominance, a paradox has emerged.
Notwithstanding their strong gravitational pull in a divided world, the weight of the “midfielders” is constantly growing. In football, the midfielder is a player who primarily plays at the center of the pitch. He typically travels the greatest distance during a match, acquiring the titles “holder” or “creator”. Midfielders are distinguished by their ability to pace the game, by dictating the tempo of play from the center of the pitch.
In the same spirit, many countries, regardless of their political system, economic state, power or overall stature, appear determined to diversify their options, by maintaining relations with both superpowers. By hedging, that is avoiding a direct affiliation and a “monogamous” geopolitical relationship with either China or the United States, they adopt a “positively neutral” position, maximizing their options and, theoretically, minimizing risk. Nonetheless, this “hybrid” approach of staying in between, although seemingly benign and positive, carries a big risk.
The non-involvement in the major competition between the US and China does not automatically erase minor competitions between some of these midfielders. In other words, the world, and especially the two elephants in the room, need to be mindful of rivalries between the growing number of middle powers, because, due to their centrality and binary approach, they could potentially spark a collision between the two major ones.
The rigid structure of the post-war era has given its place to the present fluidity, and, the complexity of choices that the latter poses is the root of our era’s vexing problems. The teams are still under formation. Depending on their assigned roles as either offense-intensive or defense-intensive, the midfielders and their comportment will literally shape tomorrow. After all, they are the ones who set the pace. Or, are they?
