What Kind of World Order in the 21st Century?

How can the United States maintain its primacy in an age of shifting power balances and interdependence? Changes in the distribution of power have given rise to new powers that, after establishing dominance in their own geopolitical zones, have gone on to challenge the leadership of the United States on certain strategic international agendas, resulting in an increasingly tangible deterioration in the latter’s primacy. Conversely, growing interdependence has led to a generalized recognition that all countries face structural and systemic threats that none —not even the United States— are equipped to deal with on their own. Paradoxically, the outcome is the same: if the United States wants to maintain its primacy, it must assume leadership by addressing the challenges posed by interdependence. Notwithstanding, for this leadership to be effective, efficient and legitimate, it must share power and cede its status as the “leading actor”. Can the United States escape this strategic dilemma? The Obama administration has implicitly redefined the meaning of primacy, saying that the United States acts as primus inter pares, as the “indispensable partner” in a “world of multiple partners”. In other words, “primacy based on coalitions” has replaced the primacy of the “unipolar moment”. We can therefore assume the hegemonic transition will be neither violent nor rapid, and that common threats that call for collective action will translate into joint policies. In this article, Graeme P. Herd suggests that the sum of these two opposing forces, rather than undermining the power of the United States, will help underpin its primacy. In light of changes in the balance of power, compounded by the perception and prospects of a relative decline, strategically speaking, the United States would be well advised to veer on the side of caution, as this will reduce the risk of making hasty decisions and prevent it from coming over as arrogant. The country also has the potential to become a “point of geopolitical inflexion” in the maintenance of the global balance of power. Greater interdependence calls for mechanisms of “network governing”, cooperation and alliances that, in turn, require guidance and coordination. And since it wields power in all spheres, the United States could not be better positioned to continue calling the shots by assuming leadership and proposing solutions to strategic security threats. According to Herd, the primacy of the United States will be opportunist, pragmatic, ad hoc, flexible, adaptable and, above all, sustainable, because it has both the power and the strategic context to maintain it. The question is will it be able to muster up the political will and ingenuity?