The international order as it emerged after the Second World War with key principles of international law and the UN System, appears to become irrelevant due to international power struggles. The superpower rivalry manifests itself in increasing militarisation.
According to a new SIPRI report, global military spending rose to USD2 718 billion, 9.4% up compared to the previous year and the 10th consecutive increase of world wide military spending. In that amount a lot of money is invested in nuclear arms.
President Trump is ditching existing certainties with an authoritarian domestic and foreign policy with little regard for international law or its allies. But the essence of US politics is its imperialist nature that hasn’t changed.
After the cold war, in 1992 a first draft of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–1999 period by US undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was leaked in the NYT. The major objective of what became known as the Wolfowitz doctrine was "to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere". The document outlined an imperialist policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action with the fundamental goal of keeping the US in the role of sole superpower in a 'new world order'.
More than 30 years later this hasn’t changed and through NATO, Europe was used to serve US interests to a great extent. Although the Warschaupact and Sovjet-Union ceased to exist, Washington successfully managed to strengthen NATO in the post-cold war period with the purpose of defending its interests in Europe, but also globally. The US stepped up its confrontation and provocations with Russia with successive rounds of NATO enlargement, the abolishment of the ABM Treaty followed by building a new missile shield in Eastern Europe or forcing a green light for future NATO membership for Ukraine… NATO’s provocative behaviour under de leadership of the US, helped shaping the current pivotal moment towards what is regularly called Cold War 2.0. In a cold war, superpowers fight their mutual rivalries through third countries.
That is what was and still is at play in and around Ukraine where a nationalist conflict took on an armed character and turned into a proxy war as of 2014 with finally the illegal Russian invasion that turned into a horrible protracted war. For the US, that was the ultimate moment to realise its hegemonic goals according to old geopolitical guideline as it was defined by the first NATO Secretary General Hastings Ismay in the 1950’s to summarise NATO's raison d'être: to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in and the Germans down".
Economic ties between European countries and Russia were severed and replaced by a comprehensive package of sanctions that also immediately strengthened the US position in Europe, including by seizing much of the energy market. US LNG (liquid Gas) exports to Europe tripled in three years (between 2021 – 2023). Russia's position as a superpower was to be curtailed with a war of attrition at the expense of Ukraine. The US was very open about the purpose of massive arms deliveries to Ukraine. It was not so much about ending the war quickly, but about weakening Russia as confirmed in April 2022 by US Secretary of Defence, Lloyd Austin. By following US priorities the EU failed to negotiate an end to the war.
And suddenly Trump appears on the scene starting negotiations with Russia, while Washington after the Russian invasion vetoed peace negotiations and was the driving force behind the war strategy. Trump wants an end to the war in Ukraine with, moreover, an interesting resource deal to confront China, for him the real ‘strategic rival’. Europe reacted in shock. The transatlantic crisis started to take shape after it appeared that Europe would not be included in the negotiations while Ukrainian President Zelensky was humiliated in the OVAL office. To make things worse, the White House seemed to suggest that European NATO member states should take own responsibility for their military defence.
Suddenly, Europe realises that decades of loyalty to the US ally doesn’t bear fruit and must work towards strategic autonomy. Problem is that the EU-Commission seems to believe that strategic autonomy will be obtained with the development into a military superpower with possibly an own nuclear Eurodeterrent while many European proponents advocate the transformation to a war economy to tackle “the danger of Russian imperialism” even though the military relation with Russia is unbalanced, while Moskou is forced to concentrate all military efforts in Ukraine with little means of expanding its war.
It is an illusion to believe that militarism will ensure strategic autonomy and security. First, the EU, as mentioned, has been made dependent on energy supplies from the US. Even 64% of all European arms purchases come from the US. This will not change much in the coming years.
Second, strategic autonomy requires political unity. Strategic priorities are different in Eastern Europe than in Southern Europe, where people are more concerned about the impact of migration from volatile Africa and the Middle East than Russian aggression.
Third, EU foreign policy, meanwhile, is mostly transaction-oriented where authoritarian regimes can form alliances in exchange for energy security and migration control (Tunisia, Libya, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Israel,...). A militarily strengthened economic bloc in search of raw materials is not strategic autonomy, but neo-colonialism.
Fourth, the militarism of the EU contradicts its identity as enshrined in the Treaty on European Union: ‘The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.’ (Article 3(1)). Moreover, the EU's international authority and thus its strategic impact is undermined by double standards as we can see in Gaza.
Europe is part of a capitalist system that is grounded in competition for market domination, control over resources and capital accumulation that is accompanied by militarism and confrontations. The livelihood insecurity and environmental problems faced by large populations in the global south as a result of exploitation, unequal trade relations and the neoliberal policies of institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank are a breeding ground for violent conflicts and civil wars. This is not the kind of Europe we want.
Peace and capitalism are two concepts that are difficult to combine. Militarism and capitalism go against fundamental values of equality, solidarity and humanity. We need to revive the idea of a new international economic order (NIEO), to counter neoliberalism, imperialism and neocolonialism. There is a historical reference. In 1974 a declaration for a new international economic order was voted by the UN General Assembly. However it was immediately and strongly rejected by the US for obvious reasons.
It is also up to us, social movements and left forces to keep fighting for the principle that there is no peace without social justice and that peace is impossible if people have no access to essential needs in a healthy environment. It is a struggle that social organisations, trade unions, environmental groups, human rights and peace activists must fight together even if the balance of power is very unequal. Resistance pays off. History proves it. Workers rights came by struggle.
Militarization and a new arms race come at the expense of necessary environmental and social investments. Tensions between militarized blocs prevent swift action to save our planet from climate change, address unsustainable inequality and poverty, and avert the nuclear weapons threat. We need a new security system that is people-centred, inclusive and based on respect for mutual security interests, on common security. We have to emphasize that real security is based on the principle of ‘I am only safe if my neighbour also feels safe’.