In a social media post shortly before signing a much-anticipated trade deal with China, US President Donald Trump highlighted that a G2 world order is underway. The idea of G2 was coined in 2005 by the American economist C. Fred Bergsten. Initially, the idea was primarily economic in nature, but in recent times it has become an all-encompassing phenomenon.
The idea of G2 is intended to signal that the world’s largest and second-largest economies can peacefully coexist and cooperate in many areas, with the possibility of becoming partners in the long run.
The idea of G2 seeks to send home the message that bipolarity — the division of the world order into two superpowers, with others becoming a part of either alliance is back in play. However, if one looks at the world order today, one will see that it is very different not only from the days of the Cold War but even the globalisation days of the 1990s and early 2000s.
Emergence of New Centres
In today’s world order, several other nation-states play a critically important role in shaping the global landscape. India, for example, is a formidable player in global politics, not only from the economic and military points of view but also from the human capital standpoint. Turkiye, a Eurasian country, is not only playing an important role as a member of the military alliance NATO but has emerged as a trans-regional player as far as the geopolitics of Europe and Western Asia is concerned.
The idea of G2 means bipolarity of the world order is back in play. However, several other countries, including India, play key roles in shaping the world’s landscape today
Qatar, a tiny country in the Gulf, has developed a formidable reputation for acting as a peacemaker between warring parties, whether it is the Taliban and the US or Israel and Hamas, and most recently in brokering peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Russia, despite being under tremendous pressure emanating from its invasion of Ukraine, is a formidable player in global politics due to its hydrocarbon reserves as well as its military strength.
Apart from some of the countries highlighted here, others such as Brazil, Germany and Japan continue to play a critical role in shaping the international political order one way or the other.
Fragile Nature of the Truce
The renewed emphasis behind this concept comes from the US trade deal. The deal involves the US reducing tariffs on China from 57% to 47% in exchange for Beijing loosening curbs on the export of its rare earth minerals. Apart from this, the Chinese will step up purchase of US soybeans and some other agricultural commodities.
A deeper analysis of the trade deal clearly demonstrates that it is, at best, a stopgap measure. The US has merely bought time for it to try and reduce its unhealthy reliance on China’s rare earth minerals, which form the basis of many American frontier technologies. A key part of this strategy is to win the race in the field of Artificial Intelligence. The massive spending initiatives the Trump administration unveiled earlier this year, along with agreements with partner countries on exploration and eventual use of rare earth minerals, highlight the fact that America doesn’t trust China.
The US-China trade deal is just a stopgap measure. The US has bought time to reduce its reliance on China’s rare earth minerals, which form the basis of many American frontier technologies
On the other hand, successive American administrations since the time of Barack Obama have labelled China “America’s greatest rival”. When such a nomenclature is used for the world’s second-largest economy, it is quite discernible that even when the Americans are extending a hand of comradeship, the Chinese are bound to feel paranoid about it.
The transactional nature of the trade deal underscores how the history of international politics is witness to how great powers who would otherwise be rivals build a relationship of convenience for an ephemeral period of time, only to be followed by the revival of the rivalry. The Soviet Union’s relationship with America during the Second World War, followed by the Cold War and China’s relationship with the US in the early 2000s are examples worth noting.
China’s history of statecraft underlines how two tigers cannot co-exist in the same mountain. Both would try and gain the upper hand. The US-China trade deal is such an example.
In a world wracked by wars, climate-change-related disasters, humanitarian crises and a shaky global economy, only a multilateral world order can deal with myriad problems
In this situation, the emerging global powers need to prioritise multilateralism. In a world wracked by wars, climate-change related disasters, humanitarian crises and a world economy on the path of a shaky recovery following the devastating Covid-19 pandemic, only a multilateral world order governed by multilateral institutions such as the UN, BRICS, and SCO, that follow the rule of law and are anchored in ideas and doctrines, which enjoy universal consensus, would be the only way to deal with myriad problems. This is not a diplomatic choice but a strategic necessity.
–The writer is currently working as a Research Associate at Defence Research and Studies (dras.in) and is a columnist. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
