The World: A Brief Introduction

by Richard Haass

  Meanwhile, the United States, the principal architect of the post–World War II world, the country that began the post–Cold War era with a degree of dominance rarely if ever seen in all of history, began to pull back from its role. Costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq introduced a significant degree of fatigue that made many Americans wary of military intervention. Across the political spectrum, there are signs that the early twentieth-century aversion to a leading world role is reappearing, as calls for retrenchment become commonplace.

  As we close out the second decade of the twenty-first century, we can draw some conclusions about the post–Cold War era. This has been a period in which new information and communication technologies have burst onto the world scene in forms that have made them widely available. There have also been great advances in development, including in medicine and life expectancy. Economic growth has been considerable and widespread. Wars between countries have become rare.

  But this has also been an era in which the advance of democracy has slowed or even reversed. Inequality has increased significantly. The number of civil wars has increased, as has the number of displaced persons and refugees. Terrorism has become a global threat. Climate change has advanced with dire implications for both the near and the distant futures. The world has stood by amid genocide and has shown itself unable to agree on rules for cyberspace and unable to prevent the reemergence of great-power rivalry. Those who maintain that things have never been better are biased by what they are focusing on and underestimate trends that could put existing progress at risk.

  It is too soon to say when or how this era will end or what will succeed it. But what is clear is that a good many of the trends are worrisome. If, for example, a Sino-American cold war materializes, it is quite possible this era may come to be known as the inter–Cold War era, one bookended by the U.S.-Soviet Cold War and one between the United States and China. Such an outcome would result in lower rates of economic growth for both because trade and investment would inevitably be curtailed. It would also reduce the potential for cooperation on regional and global issues. If the liberal world order is sustained and strengthened with the United States resuming a leading role, this could continue to be an era largely characterized by stability, prosperity, and freedom. It is possible, though, that the United States will choose to largely abandon its leading role in the world. In this case, we could in principle see an era of Chinese primacy, but given China’s character, internal constraints, and the nature and scale of the domestic challenges it faces, this is improbable. More likely is that this will turn out to be an era of deterioration, one in which no country or group of countries exercises effective global leadership. In that case, the future would be one of accelerating global disorder.

  Part II

  REGIONS OF THE WORLD

  The world can be approached on many levels. It needs to be treated as a whole, at the global level, but it is also essential to tackle the world at the regional level, where much of history takes place. Few countries can exert meaningful influence across the world, although more can do so now given the reach of modern technology. Geography creates constraints. A country cannot pick up and move to another region; it is either blessed or cursed by the one it is in. The most significant interactions that a country has are often with its neighbors, especially in terms of economic and political issues and matters of war and peace.

  Here I have divided the world into six regions: Europe, East Asia and the Pacific, South Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Americas. This grouping is inevitably arbitrary, because what shapes a region is more than geography. A number of countries are included in the Middle East even though they are physically located in Africa because their orientation, identities, and interactions are mostly in the Middle East. Other countries physically span more than one region (Russia, for example, is in both Europe and Asia) but are placed in the region that reflects most of their focus and activity, which in Russia’s case is Europe.

  When one discusses Europe, it is important to not just talk about the individual countries but also think about the European Union’s role. Europe is the region that has pooled sovereignty to the greatest extent, with powerful supranational institutions that in some realms take precedence over national governments. While Europe is where much of twentieth-century history took place, it is less likely that either Europe or European countries will occupy so central a role in this century.

  East Asia and the Pacific (sometimes referred to as “Asia” here for simplicity) is the largest, wealthiest (when measured by overall output), and most populous region of the world, although the populations of both South Asia and Africa are growing at a much faster rate. Asia, like Europe, was a principal venue of World War II and the Cold War; it is likely to emerge as the principal venue of this century’s history. The role of China, as well as regional powers including Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia, will be central.

  South Asia is dominated by India, which will soon surpass China as the world’s most populous country. As a democracy, India offers an important alternative to China in many ways. But the region is also defined by India’s rivalry with Pakistan, by the long-running war in Afghanistan, and by efforts to improve living standards for hundreds of millions of people in all these countries. Bangladesh, in particular, faces the additional challenge of providing for tens of millions of people likely to be displaced by the effects of climate change.

  The Middle East has received a great deal of attention in the news in recent years as a result of its conflicts, dramatic political events, and diplomatic undertakings. The region’s energy resources and its terrorism affect the world in profound if fundamentally different ways. The Middle East is changing as fast as any other region, which makes it a challenge to encapsulate. That said, the changes tend to affect details more than fundamentals, so what is observed here will likely remain true for a time, which is a shame because much of what this book says about the Middle East is unavoidably downbeat.

  Africa, or more precisely sub-Saharan Africa—with those African countries north of the Sahara treated as part of the Middle East—is difficult to deal with as a whole, because there is no dominant country or shared geopolitical challenge. The common thread turns out to be more one of political and economic development, or the lack of it, within countries. The same mostly holds true for Latin America, where a defining challenge is that some governments are too weak to perform the tasks that they are expected to do.

  I should note at this point that two regions do not receive separate treatment. The first is the Arctic, which is only just emerging as an area of strategic competition, in part due to climate change, which has opened up new sea lanes and raised the prospect of tapping the region’s natural resources. The second, Central Asia, is mentioned in the section on South Asia, but because its global impact is modest and it has largely been within the purview of Russia (and to a growing extent China) it does not have its own chapter.

  One difference that continues to animate the dynamics of many regions is religion. No religion claims a majority of the world’s people. Nearly a third of the world’s population, or 2.3 billion people, are Christians, while close to a quarter of humanity, 1.8 billion people, are Muslims. Just over 1 billion are Hindus, nearly 500 million are Buddhists, and some 15 million are Jews. And more than 1 billion people claim no religion of any kind. The Muslim population is expected to grow twice as fast as the overall global population so that by 2050 (when there are predicted to be as many as ten billion inhabitants of the planet) there are projected to be nearly 3 billion Muslims and only slightly more Christians. The Middle East is predominantly Muslim, but most of the world’s Muslims live in Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.

  Changing demographics will also have an impact on regional dynamics. Certain regions, including East Asia and Europe, face demographic stagnation or even contraction. Others, especially sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, face the prospect of
significant increases. What’s more, age distribution across countries is wildly uneven. Some countries, including many in Africa, have a youth bulge, and in sub-Saharan Africa more than 40 percent of the population is under fifteen years of age and roughly 3 percent is over sixty-five. This places stress on a nation to fund schooling and find jobs for those entering the workforce. By contrast, much of Western Europe and parts of Asia have an elderly bulge; in Asia, less than 25 percent of the population is under fifteen and nearly 10 percent is sixty-five and over. (Some 27 percent of Japanese people are over sixty-five.) This increases the burden on those who are of working age (because they need to care for many others) and on the society as a whole because older people often live past their savings and require more health care. Interestingly, the United States has a relatively balanced age distribution, in large part because of immigration. Approximately 20 percent of the population is under fifteen years old, and another 15 percent (including this author) is sixty-five or older.

  As you might expect, no single language is spoken by a majority of the world’s peoples. (It seems Esperanto has failed to catch on.) English, though, comes closest to being a common language; it is spoken by as many as one out of every seven people in the world. Nearly as many people speak Mandarin, but almost all of them live in China.

  One final word about the United States. While the United States is located in the Americas, it is discussed in the regional section only in the context of its influence in Latin America and its relations with Latin American countries and Canada. The United States is truly a global power, with military forces stationed around the world, alliance relationships in Europe and Asia, and the ability to project power into any corner of the globe. As a result, the United States is discussed in every regional chapter.

  In each case, I have done my best to discuss the most powerful and influential countries, relevant regional organizations, critical history, economic performance, essential demographic data, and the principal challenges confronting the region that will determine its future. The aim is to capture why each region matters and what makes it tick.

  What emerges is an uneven tale in that the regions of the world are far from equal. They are distinctly different when it comes to anything and everything, including size, population, religion, language, wealth, stability, political orientation, and relationships with those outside the region. It should also be said that every region has undergone enormous changes in recent decades and will likely continue to change at a rapid rate.

  Europe

  Contemporary Europe stands out from much of the world because of its relative wealth, its large number of democracies, and its considerable peace and stability. Europe’s economy is slightly larger than that of the United States and represents one-quarter of the global economy. Nearly all of the region’s fifty countries are judged to be free or partly free. The region is largely at peace, with the important exceptions of Ukraine and Georgia, both of which are contending with aggression supported or carried out by Russia. Other parts of Europe, such as Cyprus and parts of the Balkans, still suffer from communal tensions and territorial disputes.

  Overall, Europe must be considered extraordinarily successful. During the first half of the twentieth century, Europe was the principal venue of two of history’s costliest wars. Intolerant political movements came to power, denying basic freedoms to hundreds of millions and setting into motion events that cost the lives of tens of millions. By contrast, since the conclusion of World War II, Europe has known unprecedented stability, prosperity, and freedom. Much of the credit goes to the two great undertakings of the post–World War II era, namely, the NATO alliance and the project of European integration.

  Still, there is a question of whether Europe’s best days are behind it. The future of both NATO and the European Union (EU) is in some doubt. Support for both within many countries is diminished, and there is no consensus as to the desired structure and role of the EU. Centrist parties have lost supporters to more radical parties of both the left and the right. There are also renewed concerns over Russian intentions, and there is no broad agreement on how to deal with China. Economic growth has slowed, while economic inequality has in many countries increased. What was once the world’s most successful region now finds itself facing a demanding future with less confidence and consensus.

  HISTORY

  What we think of as Europe (in the political sense) emerged in the mid-seventeenth century in the aftermath of the Thirty Years’ War. The nineteenth century began with the wars that ultimately brought down Napoleon and his empire. A period of stability lasting several decades followed, but this came to an end amid a war involving the major European powers in Crimea. In the second half of the nineteenth century, what we think of as Italy and Germany were created when a large number of smaller entities joined together. And Europe was the principal arena of the two world wars of the twentieth century, wars with a combined cost of tens of millions of lives and trillions of dollars.

  The best place, though, to begin a consideration of today’s Europe is in 1945 with the end of World War II, because we are still living with the consequences of decisions made at that time. Three challenges preoccupied those concerned with the Continent. The first was how to deal with an aggressive Soviet Union that had no intention of leaving the countries that it had occupied during the war or of demobilizing its military forces, which had been pivotal in defeating Germany. In the war’s aftermath, the Soviet Union maintained a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, where its military was just one instrument for ensuring the subservience of these countries. Soviet military forces would also threaten Western Europe as the Kremlin worked to fuel Communist revolutions across the Continent and beyond.

  The ultimate answer to this predicament was to create an alliance that would keep the peace in Europe. NATO, or more formally the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was built to maintain the security tie between the United States and Europe that was central to victory in both World War I and World War II and that continued to be necessary given Soviet strength and European weakness. By integrating West Germany into an alliance system, NATO also anchored German democracy and offered an insurance policy against the reemergence of extreme German nationalism and militarism. Ideally, this peacetime alliance would keep the Cold War cold and also keep the countries of Western Europe secure, free, and prosperous. More succinctly, NATO’s purpose (according to one clever official at the time) was to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” It succeeded in achieving these goals and more.

  The second post–World War II challenge was to help the countries of Europe get back on their feet. Industries needed to be rebuilt. Refugees were scattered throughout the Continent. Millions of people needed assistance. The rationale for offering assistance was not just humanitarian and economic, as important as both considerations were, but also political, because Europe needed to begin a process of economic recovery if political stability was to be achieved and Communist parties aligned with the Soviet Union were not to seize control. There was also a security dimension to granting aid. European countries would not be able to contribute to the collective defense if they lacked the desire and the means to do so.

  The policy that addressed this second challenge is known as the Marshall Plan, announced by Secretary of State George Marshall in June 1947. The focus was on Europe’s recovery; the aid ($150 billion in today’s dollars) was extensive but transitional, with the goal of getting Europe to the point where its economic growth would be self-sustaining.

  The third challenge for post–World War II Europe was averting a return of the circumstances that had led to two costly world wars. At the heart of both of these wars was the struggle between Germany and its neighbors. The question Europe faced after 1945 was how to prevent geopolitical rivalries from reemerging without keeping Germany weak, because weakness would limit its contributions to the security of the Continent and its economic recov
ery. Disarming Germany would also risk alienating the German populace again, as had happened in the wake of World War I, when the punitive peace imposed by the victors at Versailles helped fuel Hitler’s rise.

  The idea that emerged to resolve this dilemma, normally attributed to the French statesman Robert Schuman, was to knit Germany and France so closely together that another war between them would become unthinkable. To be precise, Schuman’s idea applied to West Germany, because Germany was divided between a democratic, capitalist West and a Soviet-dominated, Communist East. This solution would reconstruct West Germany’s economy, its society, and its political institutions in order to prevent the rise of another militaristic regime that would be a threat to its own people and its neighbors.

  The initial step to realize this idea was to create the European Coal and Steel Community, consisting of France, West Germany, and Italy, as well as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (often referred to as the Benelux countries). This pact fully integrated the coal and steel industries of these countries so as to make their economies mutually dependent. This marked the beginning of the European project, one that over the following decades would evolve into the European Community (EC) and later still the European Union, which over time came to broaden its membership and enhance the authority of its institutions of collective governance to extend to economic and foreign policy.