American academic Ali Mazrui said that the US, Secretary of State Marco Rubio in particular, should be saying ‘what is good for the world is good for my country’.
American political scientist Joseph S Nye Jr, who died last month, recently wrote in an op-ed article titled The Future of World Order that we may not know until 2029 whether we are entering a totally new period of American decline or the second Trump administration’s attacks on the American Century’s institutions and alliances will prove to be another cyclical dip. One thing is certain. Nye will be proved correct, regardless of what happens.
But we do not know what the post-American world order will look like, should we indeed be “entering a totally new period”. Will it be a multipolar world order of the same Westphalian states with reformed global institutions or one of civilisations and cultures?
Will democracies and non-democracies constitute each of the multiple poles or will it be one that is composed of poles formed around key states in each major world region? Will it be a Sino-centric, unipolar international system or more balanced?
All we can say for now is that the future world order will be a product of the interplay between cultural processes and existing global structures. Beyond that, nothing is certain. A discourse on the future world order is, therefore, appropriate and timely.
Ideally, the future world order will be based on at least two interrelated normative principles.
The first principle is a steadfast commitment to respecting diversity, encompassing cultural, ethnic, racial, religious and ideological differences. We recognise that diversity is not a popular notion in some circles today.
Indeed, globalisation has significantly contributed to greater global homogeneity, as lifestyles have become increasingly similar across vast distances. But let us not forget that the lifestyle that has become globalised is predominantly Western. At the same time, we also have a rich intermingling of racial, cultural, ethnic and linguistic groups at the local level. The primary drivers of this local heterogeneity have been the forces of migration and colonialism.
In other words, the local landscape has evolved into a microcosm of the world. On the global level, the world has become an approximation of a village, without the empathy of the village. This creates a compelling paradox — as we experience local heterogenisation, we simultaneously witness a vibrant explosion of global homogenisation. The future world order must rise to the challenge of embracing both emerging trends as its normative foundation.
We must embrace a creative synthesis incorporating the finest aspects of the world’s major cultures and traditions. Consider, for instance, what is known as Africa’s triple heritage: indigenous values, Islam and Western culture.
An aspect of Africa’s indigenous values is the remarkable ability of Africans to forgive. While Africans have endured more than their fair share of violence, they often embrace moments of reconciliation with an inspiring quickness. This short memory of hate can serve as a powerful antidote to endless division and hatred and it can also become the continent’s contribution to a global ethic of tolerance.
From the West, we can take the wealth of knowledge and innovative spirit that drives educational advancements and capitalistic growth — if they survive until 2029.
Let us be inspired by Islam’s profound emphasis on modesty and humility in character and appearance.
By incorporating lessons from other civilisations and traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Sikhism etc) such an approach can provide a solid basis for a harmonious world order. It would be a great opportunity for a grand synthesis based on the word’s rich diversity.
The second principle is tolerance. If diversity can be measured through the objective lens of heterogeneity, true tolerance can be assessed by the degree of our willingness to accept and even embrace differences. This acceptance is not just a moral obligation. It is essential for a harmonious and sustainable world order.
However, it is worth noting that being a victim of intolerance in the past does not always lead to an understanding of its importance. The very faith that endured persecution by Roman gladiators in the West eventually became the instrument of severe repression through the Inquisition.
In Africa, as well, there has been, for example, a conflictual relationship between the majority Hutu and the minority Tutsi of Rwanda. At times, the Hutu have perpetrated violence against the Tutsi and at other times, it was the Tutsi who were the culprits. The conflict culminated in genocide in 1994.
It is essential to acknowledge that Islam too, has, at various times and to different degrees, exhibited characteristics of heightened political militancy and religious bigotry. It may be that Islam in the pre-Ottoman empire was more tolerant and ecumenical.
Sustainable tolerance needs unwavering attention and effort. Tolerance is not a one-time achievement. It is a vital practice that must be actively nurtured and systematically reinforced through institutional measures.
Diversity, tolerance and a creative synthesis of global pools of shared values and distinctive traditions should form the basis of the future world order.
This may be the most promising pathway towards building a constructively pluralistic world order and resolving the tension between the increasingly diverse global actors and the originally Western international system. The alternative is divisive pluralism.
In short, tolerance and accepting diversity is good for the world and, therefore, good for the future world order. Unfortunately, however, the logic of the current US administration appears different. In the words of the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, “[President Donald Trump] inherited 30 years of foreign policy built around ‘what is good for the world?’ Under President Trump, we are making a foreign policy [built] around ‘what is good for America?’”
In what can be regarded as a word-for-word “response” to Rubio, a wise man once said: “Today, in the United States, there are many Americans who believe that what is good for America is good for the world, that my country is the world. We need to change the logic of global expectations … Instead of arguing, like the Americans, my country is the world, we should move to the proposition that what is good for the world is good for my country.”
That wise man is Joseph Nye’s contemporary and a pan-African political scientist. His name is Ali Mazrui.
Mazrui uttered his response to Rubio in 1986. That was 29 years ago.
Dr Seifudein Adem is a research fellow at JICA Ogata Research Institute for Peace and Development in Tokyo, Japan.