.

In a world where so many challenges transcend borders—from threats to the stability of the global economy to climate change to cyberattacks, terrorism, and the security of food and water—the need for international cooperation has never been greater. But cooperation demands leadership. Leaders have the leverage to coordinate multinational responses to transnational problems. They have the wealth and power to persuade other governments to take actions they would not otherwise take. They finance the plans that others cannot afford and provide services no one else will pay for. In short, they set the international agenda.

Unfortunately, for the first time in seven decades, we live in a world without truly global leadership. In America, partisan rancor, political paralysis and mounting federal debt now preoccupy both lawmakers and citizens, undermining their willingness to continue to accept the costs and risks that come with global leadership. The United States will remain the world’s military superpower for decades to come, and its soft power strengths are formidable. Washington will continue to play an active international role. Yet, its ability to devote substantial political and financial capital to promote its foreign policy goals is now constrained, at least temporarily.

In Europe, policymakers at every level of government face a crisis of confidence of historic scale, one that casts doubt on the future of Europe, its institutions, and its structure. The resourcefulness and resilience of Japan’s people and their leaders ensure that recovery from last year’s catastrophic earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown has made substantial progress, but it is proving profoundly more difficult to reverse more than two decades of political and economic malaise. A generation ago, these were the world’s powerhouses. With Canada, they made up the G7, the group of free-market democracies that dominated international institutions of governance and powered the global economy. Today, they are struggling simply to find their footing.

We cannot count on dynamic emerging markets like China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey and the Gulf Arab states to fill this growing leadership vacuum. Each of these countries will face tremendously complex development challenges in years to come, and their leaders are focused overwhelmingly on domestic, not global, questions. China’s leaders in particular are already grappling with some of the most ambitious and complex reform plans in history. China’s interests now extend to every region of the world, but its willingness and ability to shoulder global burdens and provide global public goods must remain limited for the foreseeable future.

Today’s world has neither a G7 nor a G20 order. The current deficit of global leadership makes this a G-Zero era in international politics, leaving the world especially vulnerable to crises that appear suddenly and from unexpected directions. Nature hates a vacuum, and the G-Zero will not last forever. Crises force cooperation. But over the next decade and perhaps longer, a world without global leaders will undermine our ability to keep the peace, to expand opportunity, to reverse the impact of climate change, and to feed growing populations. The effects will be felt in every region of the world—and even in cyberspace. To mitigate conflict, build upon common interests, and coordinate solutions to increasingly complex transnational challenges in a world without global leadership will prove the defining problem of our era.

For those who would lead nations and institutions through this volatile moment, the G-Zero will demand more than great power or deep pockets. It will require agility, adaptability, and the skill to manage crises—especially those that come from unexpected directions. To further liberalize trade and investment, to help restore dynamism to the global economy though regional economic integration, to strengthen food security at a time of climatic change and rising prices, to establish reliable supply chains and foster innovative growth will require extensive regional cooperation.

In coming years, progress on these transnational challenges will demand coordination among capable, like-minded governments—formal and informal coalitions of the willing that can provide the leadership on individual political and economic questions that is lacking at the global level.

This dynamic will make the work of organizations like APEC all the more valuable.

Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group and author of Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World.

This article was originally published in the CAT Company's special annual APEC Summit 2012 edition. Published with permission.

White House photo by Eric Draper.

The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.

a global affairs media network

www.diplomaticourier.com

A G-Zero World

|
August 31, 2012

In a world where so many challenges transcend borders—from threats to the stability of the global economy to climate change to cyberattacks, terrorism, and the security of food and water—the need for international cooperation has never been greater. But cooperation demands leadership. Leaders have the leverage to coordinate multinational responses to transnational problems. They have the wealth and power to persuade other governments to take actions they would not otherwise take. They finance the plans that others cannot afford and provide services no one else will pay for. In short, they set the international agenda.

Unfortunately, for the first time in seven decades, we live in a world without truly global leadership. In America, partisan rancor, political paralysis and mounting federal debt now preoccupy both lawmakers and citizens, undermining their willingness to continue to accept the costs and risks that come with global leadership. The United States will remain the world’s military superpower for decades to come, and its soft power strengths are formidable. Washington will continue to play an active international role. Yet, its ability to devote substantial political and financial capital to promote its foreign policy goals is now constrained, at least temporarily.

In Europe, policymakers at every level of government face a crisis of confidence of historic scale, one that casts doubt on the future of Europe, its institutions, and its structure. The resourcefulness and resilience of Japan’s people and their leaders ensure that recovery from last year’s catastrophic earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown has made substantial progress, but it is proving profoundly more difficult to reverse more than two decades of political and economic malaise. A generation ago, these were the world’s powerhouses. With Canada, they made up the G7, the group of free-market democracies that dominated international institutions of governance and powered the global economy. Today, they are struggling simply to find their footing.

We cannot count on dynamic emerging markets like China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey and the Gulf Arab states to fill this growing leadership vacuum. Each of these countries will face tremendously complex development challenges in years to come, and their leaders are focused overwhelmingly on domestic, not global, questions. China’s leaders in particular are already grappling with some of the most ambitious and complex reform plans in history. China’s interests now extend to every region of the world, but its willingness and ability to shoulder global burdens and provide global public goods must remain limited for the foreseeable future.

Today’s world has neither a G7 nor a G20 order. The current deficit of global leadership makes this a G-Zero era in international politics, leaving the world especially vulnerable to crises that appear suddenly and from unexpected directions. Nature hates a vacuum, and the G-Zero will not last forever. Crises force cooperation. But over the next decade and perhaps longer, a world without global leaders will undermine our ability to keep the peace, to expand opportunity, to reverse the impact of climate change, and to feed growing populations. The effects will be felt in every region of the world—and even in cyberspace. To mitigate conflict, build upon common interests, and coordinate solutions to increasingly complex transnational challenges in a world without global leadership will prove the defining problem of our era.

For those who would lead nations and institutions through this volatile moment, the G-Zero will demand more than great power or deep pockets. It will require agility, adaptability, and the skill to manage crises—especially those that come from unexpected directions. To further liberalize trade and investment, to help restore dynamism to the global economy though regional economic integration, to strengthen food security at a time of climatic change and rising prices, to establish reliable supply chains and foster innovative growth will require extensive regional cooperation.

In coming years, progress on these transnational challenges will demand coordination among capable, like-minded governments—formal and informal coalitions of the willing that can provide the leadership on individual political and economic questions that is lacking at the global level.

This dynamic will make the work of organizations like APEC all the more valuable.

Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group and author of Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World.

This article was originally published in the CAT Company's special annual APEC Summit 2012 edition. Published with permission.

White House photo by Eric Draper.

The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.