Nedret Ersanel
“The world is not going to be the same after the virus”: This has now become a cliché.
Nice. In the beginning there were those who did not understand what we were talking about, now they can’t get enough of this phrase.
That is all very well too. Those who said this while the virus was just emerging in China, why do you not tell us what will happen next: What will become of international organizations like the IMF, World Bank, EU, NATO and the UN? What will happen to countries like the U.S., China, Russia, Germany, the U.K.? In fact, what is going to happen to Turkey? What will happen to the global economy and their toys? Who will lay claim to technology?
Does anybody have a justified and clear answer? Of course, it is not possible for everyone to have an answer to all these questions and, as a matter of fact, the order/system that will form within long and painful years is an “organism,” and it is not a simple task to estimate or brush off.
For example, the comparison most referred to with respect to the new world is the order that was established post-World War II.
The critical intersections of that period, for example, the Marshall Plan, in fact the Manhattan Project, were mentioned regarding the current breaking point.
Is there anybody who is able to properly grasp this? The British prime minister was taken into intensive care; the Queen simultaneously addressed the nation to prevent fear from spreading in the U.K. In other words, “trust and stability” is 94 years old!
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “Europe was initially partly blindsided by an unknown enemy and a crisis of unprecedented scale and speed … we will need … a Marshall Plan for Europe.”
In other words?
The Marshall Plan was an American economic aid package initiated for European countries after the world war.
If you consider the question, “What is the EU trying to say with this?” as a sign of transitioning into the new world order with known methods and begging the U.S. for a remedy to the political and economic fracture expedited by the virus, then, in strategic terms they will put you into intensive care as well.
This is the EU’s way of putting itself on the market in the world tender! China, Russia, the U.S., and all the others are invited – some as undertakers, others as contractors.
The outcome?
For example, considering developments from such a flexible perspective is not something the “new order” favors!
Such changes are going to transform all international institutions/organizations we mentioned above in this sense as well.
Naturally, they are also going to change countries! Some are not going to be able to stand the pressure and certain regions will collapse.
A system change is not something that can be controlled by replacing the main cog with a new one. Yes, there will be a new cog, but every gear needs to be structured separately and accordingly controlled! This goes against the nature of the system. Hence, some gears will break and some will be removed.
CAN THE US GET BACK IN GAME?
Henry Kissinger wrote an article on April 3, 2020, on the world order and the virus (“The Coronavirus Pandemic will forever alter the world order,” 03/04, WSJ).
It might become more interesting when we recall that his latest book is titled, “World Order.”
In summary, he says: We need to lead the fight against the epidemic. We must find a cure. In my March 25, 2020 column, I wrote:
“The U.S. wants to do something, but it is too late. It is probably going to try to score a hat-trick in extra-time, which means finding the “vaccine.” Some claim that launching a medical ‘Manhattan Project’ and finding the vaccine may not only save the U.S. but also the world and the elections.”
It is no secret from whom the U.S. will take the leadership, but that is not the main goal; the main goal is the world. He then says, “The U.S. must also revive the economy.”
The world was already being dragged into economic stagnation prior to the virus. Many commodities conduced to this became a game tool.
This is what the scenarios set up through fuel, oil and gold are all about.
Personally, I have always found the moves by main oil producers strange and, in fact, irrational. I wrote about it too. “The Oil Collapse” by Daniel Yergin, published in Foreign Affairs on April 2, 2020, is a powerful article on the subject.
Kissinger then goes on to suggest that the U.S. should reclaim the economic leadership it once held by continuing globalization, liberalization by laying claim to its former legacy of the enlightenment period and continue on its path. The difference from the past is that this should be done “gradually.”
In summary, he says, “Withdrawing from global power balances may lead to the social agreements in the country and world to crack.”
He tells the U.S. leadership to “Avoid America’s introversion and return it to its previous glory.” He implicitly criticizes the government, U.S. President Donald Trump, and says the world order can be rehabilitated if the U.S. gets back in the game.
While this can be considered a way out for some; for others, it may simply be something to stand on. Yet both depend on whether the U.S. has enough power to return to its golden days. According to some, it is good any way, while according to others, the world is no longer that world.
We can repeat Kissinger’s questions, but are global organizations able to foresee the disasters right now?
Are they able to stop their effects? Are they able to maintain stability? How resistant are they?
How susceptible are they? Do societies and people believe the answers, solutions and statements of this order?
We know the answer to these questions. The epidemic has shown us that one who knows how to handle the situation will succeed, and what it is like to be in an atmosphere where the virus knows no boundaries and does not leave countries’ borders. Political distances are greater than social distances.
The disease will end but its economic and political tremors are going to impact future generations.
