The Dangerous Interregnum

As The Unipolar World Reluctantly Gives Way to Multipolarity

May 28, 2024

The Dangerous Interregnum

You may have heard me talk about the emerging Multi-Polar World Order and I have explained aspects of this though never in detail. We are privileged to be alive at a time when changes are happening in our world that are unprecedented. Some of these are changes to things that have been in place for centuries (i.e. for example the prevalence of military conflict to drive economic, social and political relations between countries). But the most recent changes taking place relate to the change from a Unipolar -’rules based order’ to a multipolar world based on a respect for the political, economic, cultural and moral sovereignty of Nation States.

I felt that I should at least provide a brief summary of this because many of my readers will not be aware of the issues involved though I know that such things will be familiar to many others. But I was prompted to do so by a discussion I watched between three people who know about such things - see below. I am providing a separate article rather than adding it to the Update so that people who are aware of all this can ignore it - though the video discussion of the interregnum at the bottom may interest some.

In practice, the so called ‘rules based order’ is based on a nebulous and conflicting set of rules which allow the US/West to pick and choose rules that suit its objectives. Thus, for example, the wishes of minorities to become separate from their state could conflict with another rule which values territorial integrity. In the Serbian conflict (1998/99), the US promoted the first rule in allowing Kosovo to be created as an independent state in spite of the fact that this broke the rule relating to the inviolability of Serbia’s territorial integrity. This suited US objectives. Yet in the case of Crimea, after the CIA backed Maidan coup, it opposed the rights of minorities to break with their state - because this suited its objectives vis a vis Russia.

The ‘rules based order’ came into existence following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early nineties. Triumphant Western capitalism reveled in the words of one of its academic champions as Francis Fukuyama declared the end of history. Whereas Marx had theorised that the higher form of socialism (i.e. communism) will mark the end of historical development, Fukuyama believed that the collapse of the Soviet System demonstrated that capitalism was the pinnacle of development. Of course, this sort of thinking is more ideological than it is philosophical or scientific. Neither liberals nor Marxists can discount the possibility that other forms of development could occur in the future. It’s just dogma really.

Yet this erroneous thinking and the assumptions that go along with it permeated the leadership of the Western world giving it a false sense of its moral rightness and economic efficacy as it attempted to impose liberal values on errant neighbours in the RoW. The US could now boast that it was the only superpower (Sleepy Joe is still doing this). The system of diplomacy that had characterised relations between states for centuries was replaced by a system based on certain moral assumptions that were thought to be Universal. Liberals told the RoW that it must extend rights to minority groups (LGBT) or that it must be governed by liberal democratic political systems similar to the Western Model.

Even more absurd, was the expectation that the developing world should conform to energy policies based on a dubious assumption that human activities, including the production of carbon dioxide in fossil fuels, was causing catastrophic global warming. This forced many African nations into poverty. The West was trying to impose its morality and its pseudo science onto the RoW whose countries were rewarded (e.g. IMF loans) or punished (e.g. economic sanctions) in accordance with their conformity to all this nonsense. Over the years, the nonsense became more and more ridiculous as Wokeness began to take hold.

On the other hand, the fact that a number of nations, hitherto economically inferior to the West, were growing rapidly, meant that the balance of economic power in the world was shifting towards these nations (i.e. e.g. China, Brazil, Iran and India). China’s ‘Belt and Road’ initiative was part of this.1 Such developments are inevitable and cannot be prevented by the forceful methods of Western ‘democracies’. Faced with a challenge from Russia, with support from other BRICS nations, the West, having abandoned diplomacy, could respond only with force: by imposing sanctions, by making threats and by supporting its proxy wars to the point of speeding up its own demise. The fact that Biden is calling Putin a ‘brutal dictator’ says much about Western diplomacy which has always included the idea of being friendly at best but being civil at the very least. When this has gone, then so has diplomacy - which relies, to a large extent, on harmonious relations between individuals.

If Biden ever sits down at a negotiating table with Putin, he may have to apologise as a condition for further discussion. Honestly, I am getting a very strong impression of the Uni-Polar World Order as a perfect reflection of its senile leader. I have called it childlike in the past, but it is actually senile.

Because there is a strong moral/emotional element in the thought processes associated with all of this, there is little room for a diplomatic treatment of the issues under consideration. Russia is wrong, according to the rules created by the rules based order and should be punished. Mitigating circumstances, which Russia can quite easily appeal to, cannot be allowed by the West because there is no room for forgiveness in this excuse for a moral code. In fact, Western morality in this connection is no different from that which is embodied in Western Wokeness.

Morality is relative, in my view, but it cannot count as morality unless it is logically coherent and consistent. Anyone examining Western actions on a moral basis at this moment in time will not find these attributes.

This is, very much, where we are at the moment - as I understand it. There is an interregnum - a period of uncertainty: a transitory phase between the past and a future that breaks with that past in many ways: as the Unipolar World Order reluctantly gives way to multipolarity. It is an interesting time to be alive but it is also a dangerously unpredictable time as the West has to come to terms with the fact that it will have to share power with other nations over which it is not strong enough to dominate. Both a third World War or Armageddon are possible but so is the creation of a better world. Being an optimist, I will focus on the latter.

If you would like to learn more about the interregnum, have a look at this discussion between Geoff Roberts, Glenn Diesen and Matthew Blackburn. It is long (1 hr. 47 mins) but rewarding for people who want a detailed understanding of complicated issues. Alexander Mercouris provides an introduction. If you want anything clarified or can add to the exposition please let me know. Best Rob.

Thank you for reading The Busker. This post is public so feel free to share it.