Immanuel Wallerstein and Giovanni Arrighi have made significant contributions to the fields of international relations and contemporary capitalist economics. In their works, such as \u201cThe Decline of American Power\u201d (2003), \u201cThe Long Twentieth Century\u201d (2010), and \u201cAdam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of Twenty-First Century\u201d (2009), they offer valuable insights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some of the things that were explored are the ideological corrosion of American power over time, that is, America\u2019s ability to be an example to be followed by the so-called \u201cfree world\u201d and secondly the beginning of the Systemic Cycle of Accumulation\u2019s downfall, currently dominated by the US. These are some of the relevant ongoing changes in the scenario of International Relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite some valid criticisms of the authors\u2019 approaches and conclusions, either by the various analytical schools of international relations, the fact is that today\u2019s geopolitical and economic world is no longer the same as at the end of the Second World War, or even the one inherited from the end of the Cold War. We can say that the idea that the 21st century will continue to be determined by the USA and Europe has completely lost its meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
China\u2019s stability as a largely capitalist economy, global investor, and proponent of its geopolitical project, alongside the resurgence of Russia in recent years, demonstrate that the USA and the European Union (the \u201cWest\u201d) are no longer in control of the economy and world ideology or, more precisely, liberal democracy as an absolute value emanating from countries committed to Human Rights or Democracy as real values. John Mearsheimer, for instance, has analyzed such a process in his work \u201cThe Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, 2018\u201d. Mearsheimer (John Mearsheimer: We\u2019re playing Russian roulette<\/em><\/a>), who offers a logical and geopolitical understanding of the NATO\/Russia dispute, suffers strong criticism for his views. Despite that, he remains one of the few analysts who did not give in to the warlike ideological establishment of the White House. It\u2019s worth noting that Henry Kissinger who also saw NATO\u2019s eastward expansion as a provocation, then changed his mind (Henry Kissinger: Why I changed my mind about Ukraine<\/em><\/a>) to follow Washington\u2019s prevailing directions. Consistently maintaining historical coherence is of ultimate importance<\/p>\n\n\n\n To reassure the argument presented, the very idea of an effective US commitment to Human Rights or respect for International Law loses its meaning when we remember Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan, to speak of the most recent facts, are the clearest examples of violations of territorial rights and human rights<\/p>\n\n\n\n As we have already pointed out (Ukraine war: A new multipolar world is emerging<\/a>), the invasion of Ukraine (2014-2022) marked a significant turning point in this new geopolitical cycle of power that is emerging. It was not just the Russian invasion itself, but also the failure of the West to effectively isolate Russia that demonstrated that fundamental shift. The low influence of the US and EU in enlisting other nations to follow the sanctions strategy against Moscow demonstrated that more than mere rhetoric about territorial violations in Ukraine is required. The lack of global legitimacy of Washington\u2019s policy is evident when the US maintains privileged relations with Israel, which has illegally occupied the West Bank and the Golan Heights since 1967, for example. In addition, the supposed defense of democracy as a fundamental pillar of its foreign policy becomes a fragile object when high-level diplomatic relations are maintained with Saudi Arabia or China, countries with a history of systematic violations of Human Rights according to the organizations that monitor the theme around the world, many of which are based in the US and EU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Matias Spektor in Foreign Affairs<\/em> (May\/June 2023) in the article \u201cIn Defense of the Fence Sitters: What the West Gets Wrong About Hedging<\/a>\u201d analyzes the causes of the so-called Global South\u2019s reluctance to align with the adoption of Western positions against Russia. It is a good guide to understanding what might be happening in international relations and its future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The emergence of BRICS, as a unit of countries with significant global projection in economic terms, and later the creation of the New Development Bank, provided an effective body in the democratization of access to international credit outside the traditional center created in the post-war period as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank. This is an important detail for this new geopolitical and economic configuration, even with the obvious divergences between its founding members. The very possible rise of BRICS to BRICS Plus with other countries postulating to join the group demonstrates that something is outside the traditional pattern that we have known so far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cliff Kupchan, chairman of the Eurasia Group, highlights in his article on the Foreign Policy<\/em> website entitled \u201c6 Swing States Will Decide the Future of Geopolitics<\/a>\u201d,that the new geopolitical dynamic is changing for new players such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Turkey. Such countries are not in the direct US sphere of influence and those should receive more attention from Washington according to the author. These are nations that did not support the sanctions promoted by the EU and the US against Moscow and sought to establish their own lines of action based on their economic and geopolitical interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n