The Maze Dilemma: Towards Understanding a New World Order
Translated by Rozana Sameh
Reviewed by Nada Tamer
Written by Ehab Khalifa
The current change unfolding in the international order, with all its complexities and reshaping, resembles “The Maze Dilemma.” Like a labyrinth, world order is a network of intertwined, overlapping and intersecting paths, yet only one path leads to an exit. Some paths make the way out shorter, though they are complicated; others make the way out longer, but straightforward; and some others are dead ends, we only discover them when we reach their end and are forced to turn back. The challenge intensifies by changing the maze’s patterns once in a while, much like what happens in the famous movie “The Maze Runner.”
Another characteristic of this maze is that it can change entirely, sometimes rapidly, yet it remains a maze. During its transformations, it produces stable patterns even if they are invisible, emerging phenomena even if still in the making, and surprises tinged with a state of absolute uncertainty. As it reshapes itself, the maze continuously alters its pathways, but there is ultimately a way out.
Any new wall may suddenly appear to block the way; any direction may shift the course halfway through; any hindrance may move from one place to another, making exiting this maze exceedingly complex. In this ever-shifting world, how can we navigate this? There are numerous theoretical questions from a framework applicable to the world order during its phase of restructuring. They resemble the maze itself while it is being reconfigured. Answers must be sought, even if only in theory, in order to understand the path, direction and speed of change, ensuring a safe exit from this process.
How can we grasp the pattern, speed and direction of this change to determine a safe way out of it? What new phenomena will emerge unexpectedly, without prior anticipation or prediction? And which existing phenomena, once serving as guides to exit the maze, will have altered their features, intensifying the complexity of the situation and making its interpretation and analysis exceedingly difficult? There may be no definitive answers to these questions, yet they can provide a theoretical framework through which the new challenges facing the world order today may be understood.
Successive shocks:
The main issue seems to be that major transformations in history have often been coercive. If we assume that history is a vicious circle, there is little doubt that a new cycle has begun and the maze has started to reshape, driven by powerful shocks. The first came with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, which produced a new reality, the so-called “new normal,” that has now become the prevailing condition: lockdowns, border closures, movement restrictions, looming recession, and uncontrollable inflation. Since the international economy is built on the principle of “interdependence,” this has led to market stagnation and rising inflation. Simultaneously, signs of a major economic crisis emerged that could affect the structure of world order. Alongside this, another military crisis erupted, one that could shatter what remained of the system’s superficial stability: the Russia–Ukraine war, or rather the Russia–West confrontation. This sparked discussions about a looming stagflationary recession.
Coinciding with the economic, military, and political shocks striking the core of the world order: pandemic, war, and economic crisis; there is also a new technological revolution, led by artificial intelligence systems. Some leaders have described AI as something that whoever controls will lead the world. This “smart revolution” brings with it new definitions of long-standing concepts such as power, deterrence, war, conflict, and hegemony. It may well become a reference point for the world order and influence its reshaping. Just as arrows and spears were once elements of power, and later gunpowder, airplanes, tanks, and the atomic bomb defined strength, the paradigm is shifting again. Even traditional weapons now rely on smart technologies. This has driven Western states to restrict the export of high-technology products to those they culturally perceive as adversaries.
Characteristics of The New Order
The characteristics shaping the current international system closely resemble those that preceded its earlier formation. Nearly a century after the Great Depression of 1929, the world now approaches another comparable economic crisis. After decades of prosperity and progress, Europe once again descends into the darkness of war. Just as the League of Nations failed a century ago to secure international peace and security, today the United Nations and the Security Council are failing to prevent the outbreak of major wars. The situation also mirrors the collapse of traditional powers of that era, France and Britain, under the weight of military and economic exhaustion, replaced then by the Soviet Union and the United States. Now, with the Fourth Industrial Revolution accelerating in speed and strength, the maze of the international system is once again taking shape. In its formation, it will generate phenomena, concepts, patterns, and frameworks that were previously nonexistent or unimaginable.
This phase of reshaping requires reconsidering traditional concepts so that things may be named accurately, understood clearly, and debated meaningfully. It demands the development of appropriate mechanisms to address shifting and novel phenomena, followed by the formulation of new interpretive concepts to explain the realities produced by this transformation. It also calls for the construction of a theoretical framework through which the new reality can be understood and interpreted in ways that serve decision-making processes, beginning with the traditional definitions of the “state,” “war,” “system,” “international,” “regional,” “sub-regional,” “friends,” “enemies,” and “values.”
The state no longer holds full sovereignty, at least over its own citizens, due to advanced communication technologies such as social networks and the emerging metaverse. The “system” itself has become chaotic, marked by absolute uncertainty, making it difficult not only to predict its paths but even to discern the seemingly clear ones. The “international system” is no longer dominated by Western powers as it once was, and the Western values imposed on international law and system to create a single global culture are now under attack and criticism from many non-Western societies. This is particularly evident in accusations of double standards: imposing sanctions on states whose value systems differ from the West and are seen as threats to its interests, intervening in political systems under the pretext of safeguarding democracy and human rights, and promoting certain agendas such as LGBTQ rights and gender transition freedoms.
Even globalization, the very framework upon which the current international system was built, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has itself become subject to redefinition. Western states, once the champions of this global value system, have begun retreating from it. They closed borders, restricted the movement of people and production factors, driven by the spread of COVID‑19, or by desires to limit immigration, as former U.S. President Donald Trump did, or even by a shifting worldview that sees the world as a burden and should protect itself from dangers. This perspective was starkly illustrated in the EU, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, in what has been described as a “neo-colonial rant”, described Europe as a “garden” of prosperity and the rest of the world as mostly a “jungle.”
On the other hand, communication technologies have strengthened the connections among individuals, giving rise to a global virtual homeland through the internet and soon through the metaverse. As a result, new worlds are emerging, each with its own citizens, constitutions, and laws, existing apart from physical reality. Each of these worlds exaggerates its uniqueness and distinctiveness, presenting itself as the most successful and superior model. In doing so, they drift away from the natural laws and basic truths of real life. Different patterns of human and non-human interactions appear—between people and non-people, even between the living and the dead. Values and cultures transcend identities, while nationalisms cross borders.
Open-ended Questions:
Building on what has been discussed, many questions arise. Is the United States still the dominant power in the international system, capable of influencing it politically, militarily, and economically? Even if it is, does it still possess the motivation and desire to do so, or is it merely attempting to act as a hegemon, seeking to preserve its prestige and image as a global power without the real mechanisms of influence?
Furthermore, what exactly do we mean by globalization? How do we define hegemony? What do we mean by the state, sovereignty, and citizenship? How can national interest be determined? What is the shape of the world order through which these interactions occur? Who are its doers, what are its elements, and what value framework will dominate it? How will it acquire legitimacy? If the current system derived its legitimacy after the collapse of the Soviet Union from the triumph of Western capitalist ideology over the socialist bloc, with its material Western reference point, then from where and in which direction will the new global system, if one may call that, draw its principles and values?
The questions do not revolve solely around the shape, nature, and elements of world order. They also extend to the future of regional and sub-regional organizations, as well as traditional alliances that have begun to fragment and erode. Long-standing friendships now sometimes experience disputes, while former enemies appear closer to becoming friends. Is the divergence of interest among those who share values and culture temporary and destined to fade, or is it enduring? What form will these relationships take: friend, enemy, or frenemy?
This applies to traditional, established concepts that are beginning to change. But what of the new concepts that will emerge from this transitional phase, the interpretive frameworks capable of explaining phenomena generated by the Fourth Industrial Revolution? Will the international system continue to grant states their status as primary actors, or will it amplify the role of other players, such as giant technology companies, which now wield influence greater than many states? What form will the interaction between states and these corporations take? What international institutions might arise to regulate and manage this relationship?
Ultimately, what theoretical framework can be developed to understand, interpret, and analyze reality, predict its trajectories, and identify its directions so that states, according to their capacities and resources, may know where they will stand, and in what form, when this new system finally takes shape?
English Language Coordinator: Mariam Essa
