Five centuries of Western dominance are now giving way to a new world order. Political, economic, military, cultural, and ideological structures are already being reshuffled. If the coronavirus spreads far enough, it will merely accelerate this transition. In this essay, I aim to briefly outline three of the major intersections shaping our time. Part 2: ‘Glocal’ competition / Part 1. Ideological / Part 3. Social
The world is in transition, first of all demanding ideological reflection within societies. But let us now consider this transition from an international perspective, because a second issue—already pressing—is becoming even more urgent: how important is national self-determination in a world that is increasingly interconnected and facing threats that demand international coordination?
Globalization is not new. For as long as we can remember, people have ventured ever farther from home in search of opportunity. History records a succession of winners and losers: those who benefit from other nations, and those who do not. Winners embrace the free movement of people, goods, and services; losers prefer to shut their borders. In past centuries, the West largely belonged to the winning side, asserting its right to free trade—even when selling, for example, opium to China. Today, we see the Chinese, Indians, Poles, and Mexicans seizing the opportunities of free movement, while the wealthiest parts of the West respond with slogans such as “America First” (Trump), “We Want Our Country Back” (UKIP), and “The Netherlands Is Ours” (Party for Freedom).
Behind this nostalgic nationalism and ironic protectionism lies a double motive: the West’s perceived loss of control threatens people not only economically but culturally. Chinese and Russian investors acquire Western companies and football clubs; Western mosques and Islamic schools are funded with Turkish and Arab money. Add the fear of Europe’s “Islamification,” and, in the Netherlands, the heated debate over Black Pete, and for many it is clear: it is not only Western economies but also Western culture that must be fiercely defended.
At the same time, something unprecedented is happening: never before has the entire world needed to collaborate to safeguard the planet. All nations face the same threats—climate change, nuclear risks, scarcity of water and raw materials, cyberattacks, refugee flows, human trafficking, and more. Each of these issues requires international coordination to be addressed effectively. No hacker, tsunami, or radioactive leak respects national borders, trade balances, or cultural heritage. In all these cases, nationalism alone is doomed to fail.
Now consider the pandemic unfolding amid this “glocal” competition. Here is another global challenge that binds nations together precisely as nationalism surges. Which way will the balance tip: toward international collaboration or national self-sufficiency? At present, we see both: countries confronting the same virus as if the rest of the world—or even the EU—did not exist, while scientists collaborate across continents to develop a vaccine.
This duality highlights an essential fact—one that shaped Europe’s history but is often forgotten in nationalist times: science and technology are never purely local affairs; they determine the fate of all humankind. Countries that isolate their scientific knowledge may protect a patent or two, but they forfeit the global potential of brainpower, expertise, and innovation.
And what of the economy? Will the pandemic push nations apart or bring them closer? History offers a lesson. During World War I, the sudden halt of global trade exposed nations’ vulnerabilities. Food shortages led to crises—including a national revolt in the Netherlands. After the war, many countries sought economic self-sufficiency (autarky). This strategy, however, created winners and losers. Some nations managed far better than others, and after a few decades, three proud nations—trapped by their own autarky policies and convinced of their entitlement—sparked World War II.
Today, we again witness the vulnerabilities of a globalized world: first physical, then economic. Disruptions in global trade are causing shortages, tempting politicians—especially in the West—to advocate economic self-sufficiency. In some cases, this makes sense: securing medical supplies, medicines, or reducing CO₂ emissions. But new self-sufficiency inevitably creates winners and losers. Famines and civil wars may follow when countries close their factories, and even less dramatic effects—for instance, reduced exports—can ripple outward.
This raises another question: when is it appropriate for a nation to defend its self-interest, and when does such defense backfire because cooperation and good relationships with other nations are essential?
The West is losing influence in the world. The United States and Great Britain, in particular, suffer from a “post-imperial stress disorder.” The world no longer aligns so neatly with Western interests, and some politicians interpret this as a license for unfettered national self-protection. The coronavirus may intensify this tendency, but the more inward-looking the West becomes, the more China—and soon India—will fill the leadership vacuum. Not only do these nations benefit from international partnerships, but many global challenges still demand cooperation. Countries can only achieve their goals if they can mobilize allies when decisions are made. China understands this and continues investing in relationships—even during the pandemic—while the West often weakens its old alliances.
The pandemic has made one reality undeniable: all nations share a single fate on one planet. As Westerners, we once held noble ideas about global responsibility. Let us hope we do not long forget why liberty, equality, and fraternity were cherished—not for one privileged nation, but for all of humankind.
