Marc Saxer is a political analyst, strategist and writer. He has worked in Asia for more than a decade and currently serves as Regional Coordinator at the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Asia-Pacific (FES) Geopolitics and International Order Program with a focus on geopolitics and world order.
I had an opportunity to put a few questions to him about his new book, Geopolitical Conflict in the Wolf World. My questions and his answers follow.
***
Ahmad Faruqui (AF): You state that we are living in an increasingly predatory world where the image of the world drawn out by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes still applies: “The law of the jungle rules and man is a wolf to man.” Do you think what he wrote in the 17th century is still relevant in today’s world?
Marc Saxer (MS): Hobbes describes the world of the English Civil War, when order collapsed and violence spread under conditions of anarchy. Today, we are witnessing the breakdown of the international order and the highest number of violent conflicts since World War II. The question of how to bring order to a world marked by violent disorder is therefore more relevant than ever.
AF: You state that after a very long time, non-Western powers which dominated the globe centuries ago, will have a decisive say in how the next world order will take shape. What is the evidence to support that assertion?
MS: In an asymmetrical multipolar world, it is unlikely that a single victor will emerge who can impose order on all others. For the first time in history, a truly global order will therefore need to be negotiated among powers from both Western and non-Western civilisations. Drawing on the historical experiences and philosophies that inform alternative concepts of order in non-Western civilisations, I explore how a non-hegemonic, multipolar rules-based order could help stabilise the Wolf World.
“American civilisation is not declining; rather, American power is declining relative to that of other powers – yet, it would be a dangerous mistake to count the United States out”
AF: Which powers are likely to shape the new world order?
MS: In the emerging asymmetrical multipolar order, there are three categories of powers with differing degrees of rule-making capacity. In a class of their own, though not fully dominant, are the United States and China. At the regional level, powers such as Brazil and Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Pakistan and Indonesia are decisive actors within their respective theatres, but lack the capacity to project power globally. In between stand three continental-scale question marks: Russia, India and the European Union. Each has the potential to evolve into a pole of its own, but each also faces significant internal contradictions and weaknesses.
AF: How will the US reconcile itself to a diminution in its role as the world’s only superpower?
MS: The United States is militarily, financially and politically overstretched. Future administrations are therefore likely to continue shifting parts of the burden of hegemony onto allies while seeking to extract resources from partners and adversaries alike. The United States will remain the strongest power for some time, but it will increasingly have to operate within a multipolar system.
AF: Why is the world order changing? Is it because Pax Americana is on the way out?
MS: The global distribution of power is shifting, while US hegemony is being challenged simultaneously in three major geopolitical theatres: by Russia in Europe, by Iran in the Middle East, and by China in Asia. The trade-offs between these theatres have forced the United States to abandon its doctrine of being able to fight and win two major wars simultaneously. This is what marked the end of the unipolar moment.
AF: What are the driving forces behind the decline of American civilisation?
MS: American civilisation is not declining; rather, American power is declining relative to that of other powers. Yet, it would be a dangerous mistake to count the United States out.
AF: Will the diminution of America’s influence get worse, or taper off?
MS: That depends on the ability of major powers to adapt to rapidly shifting global opportunity structures and address their internal challenges. What is remarkable about the current era is that all major powers face significant internal problems. It would therefore be a mistake to draw linear conclusions about the future.
AF: Has the world gone through such a transition before, or is this one of a kind?
MS: The rise and fall of powers is as old as the dynamic described by Thucydides.
AF: You state that in the multipolar “Wolf World,” Europe has a unique opportunity to maintain peace and stability as conflict erupts around the globe. How likely is it that Europe will seize the opportunity, given that there are many divisions, current and historic, between European countries?
MS: Europe, as a fragile political entity held together by treaties, has a fundamental interest in safeguarding a rules-based international order. In this regard, it shares common ground with most states, which recognise that some rules of the game are necessary to protect themselves against abuse by great powers.
AF: What role will Asia play in the new world order, and why?
MS: Asia is emerging as the geoeconomic center of gravity and a major geopolitical power center. Major Asian powers, most importantly China, will play an important role as rule-makers in the multipolar world. At the same time, considerable statesmanship will be required to manage the region’s many tensions and prevent major confrontations from breaking out across Asia’s various theatres.
AF: What role will Pakistan play in the new world order, and why?
MS: Pakistan sits at the fault lines of virtually every major conflict in its region. If it can resist the temptation to seek rent in exchange for its security and intelligence capabilities, it has the potential to play an important role as a stabiliser and mediator. Its recent, widely acknowledged role in facilitating dialogue between Iran and the United States is a case in point.
***
Postscript
I learned a lot by interviewing Saxer. I was really intrigued by his quotation from Thomas Hobbes: “The law of the jungle rules and man is a wolf to man.” I dug into the origins of that phrase and discovered he had used it in the dedicatory epistle of his 1642 treatise De Cive (The Citizen) to describe the brutish, violent, and highly competitive nature of humans in the state of nature.
Further research revealed that while Hobbes immortalised the expression, it was borrowed from the ancient Roman playwright Plautus, who wrote the line “Lupus est homo homini” in his comedy Asinaria (The Comedy of Asses). In other words, the concept has been observed and validated by historians, going back thousands of years.
The other point that intrigued me was Saxer’s reference to Thucydides. He lived in ancient Greece in the fifth century B.C. and was an Athenian general and historian. His classic work, History of the Peloponnesian War, chronicled the devastating 27-year conflict between Athens and Sparta. He is widely regarded as the “father of scientific history” for his rigorous use of eyewitness testimony, critical analysis, and exclusion of divine intervention. He viewed history as a timeless cycle driven by human psychology (fear, interest, and pride) rather than chance. It brought the classic French proverb, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” to my mind. Or, in English, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”