Introduction
The Corona Virus outbreak is a pandemic which at the moment has swept across countries all over the world. In a time like this where humanity has lost multitudes of lives to this plague, world powers are the objects of focus in terms of their responses. Institutions, nation-states, the international system are put into question.
In view of some great powers strategic actions, are we being launched into a new era of a global power?
Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19, Russia and China have been brought into the limelight, and seem to be at the peak of their goals at the moment and have become the centre of attraction in the International system.
Russia has been making waves in the International system, especially in recent times and with the Corona outbreak, Russia has been making efforts in order to boost its national image and also fosters its national interests in the International system, by providing foreign aids to Countries in Europe who need their assistance.
China on the other hand, could be seen as the birth country of the Virus and has received tons of criticisms from various countries in the International system. Despite all these China’s efforts in the fight against the virus has been noted and this have considerably improved her national image in the International system. In a way China has been given a free pass to becoming the centre of world leadership.
Russia and China, at the moment are in a favourable situation and it is not unreasonable to say that there is a slight possibility that they can become the new world hegemony, considering the fact that United States which is the world global power, has been neglecting its leadership assignments.
Now the question which comes to mind is will it be actually possible for Russia or China to actually be the global leader, with a more and more nationalist America under President Donald J. Trump? This is the question which would be addressed in this paper.
1. Balance of power in the international system in the post cold war era
A balance of power is a state of stability between competing forces. In international relations, it refers to equilibrium among countries or alliances to prevent anyone entity from becoming too strong and, thus, gaining the ability to enforce its will upon the rest.
By balance of power we mean that states counter any threat to their security by aligning with other threatened states and by increasing their own military capabilities.
The cold war was a series of tensions, proxy wars, espionage mainly between U.S.A and the Soviet Union with respective allies; which lasted from 1947 till 1991. The post cold war era is the period after the end of the cold war and despite the ambiguity, the end of the cold war symbolized a victory of liberalism and capitalism, giving a boost to the rising world powers of the United States and China. The period has seen the United States become by far the most powerful country in the world and the rise of China from a relatively weak developing country to a fledgling potential superpower.
The Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991 left the US as the sole superpower in the world. Balance of power theory implies that the United States, as the dominant world power, would face difficulties in its relations with states such as China and the European powers, without the Soviet threat. Key countries like China, Russia, France and Germany, for example, all opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq in political forums like the United Nations. Yet this resistance did not stop the U.S. from intervening, exposing the significant gap in military capability that now exists between the U.S. and other world powers. Small states that fear the U.S. can no longer enter a counterbalancing alliance to protect their security. Instead, others are designing nuclear weapons to try to extend their military capabilities drastically. North Korea, for example, reported in 2003 that it was developing nuclear weapons to counterbalance US power.
In the contemporary international system, the changing essence of influence further complicates the operation of the global power balance. Globalization, the Internet, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and other technological advances have allowed the acquisition of significant power by small states and even non-state organizations. Such considerations also dilute the relative importance of military strength. For example, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S. formed a large coalition to invade Afghanistan, using military force to overthrow the Taliban government and weakened the Taliban’s support for al-Qaeda terrorists. This application of military force did not trigger a balanced alliance of other nations, but it did not avoid the threat of terrorism to the United States either.
In this same period, Russia, a remnant of the Soviet Union has not said its last words. Some aspects of the USSR such as the strong stance against a liberal world and the promotion of communism have remained firm in this last bastion due to a rise in power of President Vladimir Putin, a symbol of the hope for the USSR’s renaissance.
2. A resurgent Russia
On December 31st, 1991, an era ended when the Soviet Union collapsed. The reign of the Soviet Union seized and the attention of the West was diverted from Russia. However, this latter stepped up to embark on a journey to reform its economic and political background. In1945, the Soviet Union gained victory and in the following years, the Soviet economy and polity knew some failures which contributed to a liberal world snowball effect.
Economically, Russia initially embarked on an ambitious program of “shock therapy” and embraced capitalism to an extent (though there is a free market, the State controls it majorly). However, by the end of 1990s, it became clear that all the attempts made towards the economic liberation of Russia became a disaster as it was destructive and didn’t work out.
The reformation of Russia began by the perception that liberation and privatization could provide a large quantity of actors that would support the reforms and also these actors would require the development of important market institutions like an amplified rule of rule and protection of the property rights. Economic insecurity affected investment negatively and led to a decrease in capital formation because the country lacked efficient institutions. Less attention was given to the foreign policy of Russia during this period partly because Russia was seen as a nation uncertain about its boundaries and interest despite its long period of serving the Soviet Union.
In the early 2000s, Russia began to pull away from the West as it sought to recover its power that was lost after the cold war. The rise to power of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin assisted in the speedy fulfilment of this process as a result of his capability to integrate his domestic political power. The 1998 financial crisis and extreme devaluation however shook the economy. Despite the trauma the country was in, Putin appealed to the citizens as a strong leader he was and adopted some schemes to centralize power and re-establish control over the boundary. Checks and balances in the political system was also eliminated which limited the strengths of the judicial branches and the ability of the Russian legislatives.
Russia grew more confident and independent with its government authority centralized and the marginalization of its political opposition. The inauguration of Vladimir Putin and his presidency marked a turning point for Russia and was a notable memory for Russia’s revival on the world stage. In addition to Putin’s leadership, Russia’s economic recovery played a major role in driving its resurgence. The most notable point of Russia’s economic resurgence has been its massive increase in the earnings from oil and gas exports. A notable promotion to the resurgence of the oil industry in Russia was the rise in the prices of crude oil in the world in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
High energy prices allowed Russia to build up its currency reserves and start repaying its foreign debts. High energy prices allowed Russia to build up its currency reserves and start repaying its foreign debts.
The current foreign policy of Russia is focused on the prestige of the country while encouraging speedy economic growth and recovery and maintaining its influence in its “near abroad. ”Russia’s attempt and interest in restoring its great power status has been evident in various ways. The resurgence of the great nation, Russia has been seen by various Western observers in an aggressive light. However, out of the two great nuclear powers in the world, Russia is one of them, possessing almost half of the world’s nuclear weapons. Apart from its military influence, Russia has also ensures and reassured its influence through diplomatic and economic means. The abundance of natural gas and oil in Russia has played a major role in the process of reassuring its influence to the world today.
Russia is re-emerging. As the European Peninsula fragments, the Russians will do what they always do: fish in muddy waters. Russia expansionist in nature has been in constant dispute with Ukraine over Crimea. Also, it is giving preferential terms for natural gas imports to some countries, buying metallurgical facilities in Hungary and Poland, and buying rail terminals in Slovakia. Russia has always been economically dysfunctional yet wielded outsized influence. The deals they are making, of which this is a small sample, are not in their economic interests, but they increase Moscow’s political influence substantially.
But is this influence enough to counter the one of the United States or is there another global power that fit in better as many argue that China can be that candidate.
3. A rising China
Historically, one of the most important developments in the world system over the last few decades has been the rise of China. How has this happened?
China’s rise is the result of a combination of factors since it reoriented on production within global capitalism in the 1980s. First, in contrast to the Soviet bloc, China found a way to benefit in a twist of historical irony from its colonial legacy. These colonies and protectorates connected China to the world economy even before its full entry into the world system. After the end of the Cold War, China used this, to import all sorts of things including high technology, and to take advantage of its skilled labour force, like management professionals. Secondly, China possessed called the “privilege of historical backwardness. It also took advantage of an atomized pre-capitalist peasantry, which had been accustomed to absolutism for two thousand years, to squeeze labour out of them for so-called primitive accumulation from 1949 through the 1970s. China’s backwardness also made it possible for it to leap over stages of development by replacing archaic means and methods of development with advanced capitalist ones China has accomplished capitalist modernization that took one hundred years in other states.
In the immediate aftermath of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, which causes the disease now referred to as COVID-19, the missteps of Chinese leaders cast a pall on their country’s global standing. The virus was first detected in November 2019 in the city of Wuhan, but officials didn’t disclose it for months and even punished the doctors who first reported it, squandering precious time and delaying by at least five weeks measures that would educate the public, halt travel, and enable widespread testing. Even as the full scale of the crisis emerged, Beijing tightly controlled information, shunned assistance from the CDC(Centre for Control Disease), limited World Health Organization travel to Wuhan, likely undercounted infections and deaths, and repeatedly altered the criteria for registering new COVID-19 cases perhaps in a deliberate effort to manipulate the official number of cases Chinese leader Xi Jinping who had been uncharacteristically quiet in the first weeks began to put himself squarely at the centre of the response. This month, he personally visited Wuhan despite continuing questions over the accuracy of China’s statistics; Beijing is working to turn these early signs of success into a larger narrative to broadcast to the rest of the world, one that makes China the essential player in a coming global recovery while airbrushing away its earlier mismanagement of the crisis.
In China’s moves to take over the world, President Xi understands that providing global goods can burnish a rising power’s leadership credentials. He has spent the last several years pushing China’s foreign policy apparatus to think harder about leading reforms to “global governance,” and the coronavirus offers an opportunity to put that theory into action. Consider China’s increasingly well-publicized displays of material assistance including masks, respirators, ventilators, and medicine. At the outset of the crisis, China purchased and produced (and received as aid) vast quantities of these goods. Now it is in a position to hand them out to others. When no European state answered Italy’s urgent appeal for medical equipment and protective gear, China publicly committed to sending over 1,000 ventilators, two million masks, 100,000 respirators, 20,000 protective suits, and 50,000 test kits. China has also dispatched medical teams and 250,000 masks to Iran and sent supplies to Serbia, whose president dismissed European solidarity as “a fairy tale” and proclaimed that “the only country that can help us is China.” Alibaba co-founder Jack Ma has promised to send large quantities of testing kits and masks to the United States, as well as 20,000 test kits and 100,000 Masks to 54 African countries each, Beijing’s edge in material assistance is enhanced by the simple fact that much of what the world depends on to fight the coronavirus is made in China. It was already the major producer of surgical masks; now, through wartime-like industrial mobilization, it has boosted production of masks more than tenfold, giving it the capacity to provide them to the world
China’s chief asset in its pursuit of global leadership in the face of the coronavirus and more broadly is the perceived inadequacy and inward focus of U.S. policy. The ultimate success of China’s pursuit, therefore, will depend as much on what happens in Washington as on what happens in Beijing. In the current crisis, Washington can still turn the tide if it proves capable of doing what is expected of a leader: managing the problem at home, supplying global public goods, and coordinating a global response. That leadership will also require effectively cooperating with China, rather than getting consumed by a war of narratives about who responded better. Little is gained by repeatedly emphasizing the origins of the Corona virus which are already widely known despite China’s propaganda or engaging in petty tit-for-tat rhetorical exchanges with Beijing. As Chinese officials accuse the U.S. military of spreading the virus and lambaste U.S. efforts, Washington should respond when necessary but generally resist the temptation to put China at the centre of its Corona virus messaging. Most countries coping with the challenge would rather see a public message that stresses the seriousness of a shared global challenge and possible paths forward (including successful examples of coronavirus response in democratic societies such as Taiwan and South Korea). And there is much Washington and Beijing could do together for the world’s benefit: coordinating vaccine research and clinical trials as well as fiscal stimulus; sharing information; cooperating on industrial mobilization (on machines for producing critical respirator components or ventilator parts, for instance); and offering joint assistance to others.
4. The politics of COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease – 2019) discovered in November in China precisely Wuhan, last year, is now the third major unconventional security crisis in the 21st century overturning present day life, globalization, and relations between nations. The episode of COVID-19 is a wellbeing emergency, with roughly 3 million cases and more. It is additionally a monetary one, with the different stay-at-home laws and travel limitations forced to break the chain of transmission prompting drastically decreased financial movement, enormous joblessness, and pay misfortunes around the globe. The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced global relations and caused conciliatory strains. The conciliatory relations have been influenced because of the strains around exchange and transport of meds, demonstrative tests, and clinic gear for Corona virus ailment 2019. Pioneers of certain nations have blamed different nations for not containing the malady adequately and bringing about the uncontrolled spread of the infection. Creating countries in Latin America and Africa can’t discover enough materials for testing for Corona virus ailment, mostly due to different nations in Europe and the United States and outspending the assets.
The current pandemic; COVID-19 has affected the political activities of different countries worldwide which has caused the deaths of political leaders, elections on hold, deaths of multiple politician and isolation of leaders due to the fear of contacting the virus. An estimate of 84 countries has declared a state of emergency in response to the pandemic, which has led to fear of power misuse. Reporters have claimed that 38 countries have restricted freedom of the press as a result of this. Other examples include banning mass protests, postponing elections or holding them while the opposition cannot effectively campaign, selectively enforcing lockdown rules on political opponents, handing out relief payments to political supporters, or scapegoating minorities.
China’s worldwide reputation, in the meantime, has clearly persevered through a superstar in the United States just as in Europe and the Indo-Pacific because of the issues raised beforehand. The Chinese Communist Party has in like manner named each and every new occurrence of the contamination in China as outside, inciting exploitation untouchables around the country, especially African transients in and around Guangzhou. This poor treatment of Africans who have lived in China for a significant long time has harmed China’s reputation in Africa, which had been energized over various years through money related participation and established adventure. Despite some critical reactions in China after the epidemic was uninhibitedly seen and despite attempts to assist various countries with clinical apparatus and capacity and subsequently bolster China’s worldwide picture.
The Chinese government has been reprimanded by the United States for its treatment of the pandemic, which started in the Chinese territory of Hubei. In Brazil, the Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, child of President Jair Bolsonaro, caused a conciliatory debate with China when he retweeted a message saying: “The fault for the worldwide coronavirus pandemic has a name and last name: the Chinese Communist gathering.” Yang Wanming, China’s top ambassador in Brazil, retweeted a message that stated: “The Bolsonaro family is the extraordinary toxic substance of this nation.’’
All the more questionably, China has additionally endeavored to divert reactions by accusing the United States Armed Forces for starting the coronavirus pestilence. It is generally concurred this isn’t the situation. Hazardously, Xinhua, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, distributed an article taking steps to drag the US into “the forceful ocean of coronavirus” by completion pharmaceutical fares, considerably after legitimate Chinese sources asserted the scourge in China was leveled out. The US response to this risk, especially in moderate circles, has been incredibly negative, and relations between the two nations have soured since. As a result of China’s apparent misusing of the coronavirus pestilence, the biggest newspaper paper of Germany set up a 130 billion euros harm that they might want for China to pay to Germany. China reacted that this demonstration works up xenophobia and prejudice. Spain, Turkey and the Netherlands reported that a huge number of testing units and clinical veils traded from China are underneath standard or damaged. The Dutch wellbeing service reviewed 600,000 face veils, Spain experienced issues with 60,000 test packs and Turkey had issues with precision of some test units.
But will the international system look like in a post-Corona virus world? Is this a golden opportunity for a country like Russia which knows how to turn this kind of geopolitical situation in its favor or China, the new world economic power or still is the United States going to continue driving the system, already with Trump populism, the country has been pulling back from all international commitments it is known for. With Donald J. Trump probably going to win the next election, can we say American global leadership is doomed?
5. The International System driver’s seat in the Post-Corona Virus world
Epidemics from the period of the black death to the one the world is battling currently which is the Corona virus. The effect these periods have continued to expose the flaws within the structures of society, with those flaws being corrected to inspire social change. Being the kind of event which many are going to remember for years to come, 2020; the year the whole world stayed shut. In the Covid-19 pandemic focus has been with areas of health and medicine however, it has also put focus on the lines of security various nations of the world. With this focus the perception of what national security is will also change and will continue to evolve as a result of what happened this year.
Thinking about it, Covid-19 has made pandemic disease the new most dangerous threat to national security. Showing how badly unaware and unprepared the countries of the world are, whether existing independently or together. Germany being the last country to close its borders, Europe’s network of open borders is close to collapse also the transatlantic routes between the members of NATO. Countries have begun to make attempts to be ahead for one another during this time. For example, attempts by Donald Trump to lure a German company working on a Corona virus vaccine to the US. It has become a period where monopoly over a vaccine might as well overturn the balance of power, the international system has become one where even the countries who are in alliance with one another have shifted their focus to something more of nationalist isolationism. This pandemic, has begun to stretch the world and its alliances. Covid-19 is the arrival of “Disease X” which the WHO predicted in 2018. The Meeting was in February 2018, taking place in Geneva where for the first time WHO’s panel of respected virologists, epidemiologists and bacteriologists included a “known unknown” in their planning assumptions, an as-yet unknown disease with the potential for pandemic. With President Trump’s rash response to dismiss the specialist team within the National Security Council which was set up back then during the issue of Ebola in 2014.
Looking at global balance of power, the Corona virus is already causing a deep shift which can be said to be from the West to the East. The concept of American leadership and the post-cold war system of multilateral institutions seem to be failing. Normally the case would have been America leading the way but in these times there is an obvious lack of leadership and defined coordinated effort in global response as everyone is struggling to keep their own areas strong while forgetting that Viruses transcend borders and that keeping single interests rather than looking for the common good of all. This attitude is a threat for US global leadership which is already perceived to be in decline.
In America’s place many perceive China as the next global leader who in the midst of their own corona crisis they are still able to engage in a battle of power during this pandemic. Engaging in propaganda, apart from subtly passing blame for the pandemic to America and also the influence of Trump in fast tracking the spread. The Jack Ma Foundation, seen as a structure under the State influence, has been busy spreading news about their offer of a donation of 500,000 testing kits and 1 million medical masks to the US out of their good nature. Also following is the talk of China giving out aid, supplies and personnel to other countries. Something America is supposed to do, the activities of China has created a comparison as to who truly should be the global leader. The ideology of Trump being Americanism attacks the nature of their global leadership allowing for China to enter the picture. After the pandemic of Covid-19, the international system may not remain the same again, countries would have reshuffled their perception about their so called allies and priorities while also strengthening their security to be able to defend against not only physical and foreign policy threats but also future viruses that may come up.
With the existence of a new type of power conflict, the Chinese government realizes this and has remembered Rahm Emmanuel’s words about never letting a crisis go to waste. In further thinking, the pandemic will reinforce nationalism and promote state centrism. Governments of all types will adopt emergency measures to manage the crisis, and many will be loath to relinquish these new powers when the crisis is over. The Corona virus will also accelerate the shift in power and influence from West to East. South Korea and Singapore have responded best, and China has reacted well after its early mistakes. However, the response in Europe and America has been slow and some actions have further worsened cases for example the chloroquine saga which caused some deaths further tarnishing the image of the West.
The shift in power can be viewed from different angles but the thinking it will end America’s reign as a global power seems far from the truth. The fundamentally conflicting nature of world politics won’t allow such a change. Previous plagues including the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919 did not end great-power rivalry nor usher in a new era of global cooperation and neither will Covid-19 do the same. Balance of power after the pandemic will remain multi- polar.
6. Conclusion
It is now undoubtedly clear that the post-COVID-19 world will not be the same as before. A lot of things will change. Even though some scholars argue that we are entering a stage where globalization will give way to nationalism; others think that globalization is a never-ending process. Both are correct for the facts that, firstly, the reason why the Coronavirus has spread so fast is due to the free movement of people across the globe and the interdependency of our economies has been the reason for an economic crisis in view. No wonder the first approach adopted by states was to close their borders. Secondly, it needed a nation-state approach to put down measures such as lockdowns, social distancing, well equipped hospitals and tracking the movement of those infected by the virus; only the state can do that. Thirdly, the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China will intensify in a post-liberal international order in which neither the U.S. will continue to assume its leadership position nor will China accept being subdued.
The fight against the COVID-19 has shown that while the U.S. is shying away from its leadership position (if at all its still has the intention to detain it or has lost it in the meantime); China has not wasted time in taking upon itself this role. Globalization might experience a downturn across the globe but not at the regional levels. China a centred power in East and South East Asia will be looked upon by its neighbours to revive and sustain their economies, a role which the U.S. can no longer play with its new adopted foreign policy. China’s global leadership position and its medical diplomatic efforts (Mask Diplomacy) are tilting the balance in its favour. The Belt-Road Initiative is adding to its diplomatic ammunition to win the battle. Unless the U.S. develops another version of the Marshall Plan which is unlikely. Only time will tell.
Referencing:
Herspring, D. (2005). Vladimir Putin and military reform in Russia. European Security 14 (1): 137–155.
Mankoff, J. (2009). Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics . Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Oliker, O., Keith C., Schwartz, L. and Yusupov, C. (2009). Russian Foreign Policy: Sources and Implications . Santa Monica, Calif: The RAND Corporation.
Pandey, S. (2018). Balance of power in International Relations. Retrieved from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l326-Balance-of-Power-in-International-Relations.html
Savic, I. (2010). The Russian Soldier Today. Journal of International Affairs 63 (2): 219–229.
Sutela, P. (2010). Russia’s Response to the Global Financial Crisis. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Policy Outlook.
