In a really seminal piece/idea Ian Bremner from Eurasia described the evolution, or perhaps descent, of global leadership to a “G-zero” world. Bremner describes a scenario where the unipolar world dominated by the US, and which followed the collapse of the USSR in 1991 is gradually eroded over the next thirty years or so by US missteps.
Perhaps this reflected US arrogance and its failure to prudently use its newfound powers, which were eventually wasted/fritted away in failed military interventions in the Middle East, Afghanistan et al. But Bremner describes a world (G-zero) where the demise of the US created a vacuum in global state leadership/governance - a void which some would argue others like China, Russia, et al are now trying to step into to recreate a new multipolar world. Those states would already argue that we are already in that multipolar world, and the US needs to just smell the coffee and accept its own demise.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
One might argue that efforts to share global leadership in the G7 (then 8, and then 7 again) and the G20 were an early acceptance by the US of its declining ability to lead from the front in response to globalization, and an increasingly complicated and joined up world and hugely complicated global issues such as the global financial crisis and climate change. One might argue that these were efforts by the US to be more democratic, globally, sharing some of its burden. But essentially these structures have failed. Alternatives, such as the BRICS - created to rival US dominated structures - have similarly failed to fill the G-zero void or vacuum.
Eurotopics: Trump’s Team – Is Loyalty All That Counts?
But what to say that this leadership void has to be filled solely by state actors. What happens if in the new world of social media, AI, and the resurgence of populism/nationalism that individuals, or egos have who could be non-state actors) could fill the global leadership void. The rise of the personality cults around Trump, Putin, Xi, even Modi and Musk could suggest that prominent leaders, or personalities, have reach beyond their own states, and while they might be state actors (leaders of states) their own interests typically end up pre-empting, subsuming overwhelming those of the states that they are supposed to represent.
During Trump’s first term were the interests of the USA at the fore of the then POTUS, or were his own personal interests front and center in his decision-making process? Why did Trump feel the need to have private meetings with Putin, Kim et al, without leadership teams present?
One can perhaps now say the same about Netanyahu in Israel - in the extended pursuit of the war in Gaza. Is it Netanyahu’s personal interests to avoid legal and political accountability (for the war) that is at the fore or the interests of Israelis more generally?
I mention Musk above, but he is now surely, through the global leverage that X/Twitter has given him, a global ego with huge powers of influence. We can now see that being played out in the US election with his siding with Trump against Harris. And if we had to draw up a list of global egos which have the potential to fill the global state leadership vacuum, he would surely be on that list and quite high.
The idea here is that it is in a work of social media and AI is increasingly becoming a work of global egos and personalities as much as states or even ideologies - and often the three are intertwined with egos such as Trump using the platform as POTUS, and the ideology of populism, to push his own agenda which seems to be one to achieve pre-eminent global fame (infamy to many) and ultimately huge wealth.
In a G-Ego world we could perhaps think of who would be in the top ten of global egos with power, or influence, which extend beyond their state, but which threaten the pinnacle of global leadership or influence. As already mentioned, the likes of Trump, Musk, Putin, Xi, MBS, MBZ, Modi, Netanyahu, Orban, Erdogan would be high on the list, but some might include the likes of pop stars (e.g. Taylor Swift, Kanye West, the Kardashians) who have potential in this regard but likely would be lower on the list.
My G-E top three would include Trump, Xi and Musk, with Trump topping the list if he wins the election in November but dropping down the order fast if he loses to Trump. Xi and Musk then fight it out for the top slot in Trump’s absence. The likes of Putin, MBS, MBZ, Erdogan, Modi, and Netanyahu are in the next tier, with a slew of pop stars and social media influencers further down the list. I would be interested to hear others’ views on the idea of the decline of the state (G-world), and the rise of the global ego (G-E world).
Reprinted from the author’s @tashecon blog. See the original here.
The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
