Finland’s president Alexander Stubb has some ideas to save the international order – and ourselves

Whatever we call the current historical juncture – polycrisis, rupture or just the possible end of civilisation as we know it – there is growing agreement that the stakes couldn’t be much higher for humanity. Even in atypically fortunate Australia, just recognising and agreeing on the nature and extent of the problems we face would be an achievement.

Coming up with credible-looking responses is a challenge of a different order. But some people are at least trying. Unsurprisingly, given the Trump administration’s role in creating or failing to respond to many of our collective dilemmas – be they military, economic or environmental – we need to look elsewhere for possible solutions.

One reason Canadian prime minister Mark Carney’s recent speech at Davos attracted so much attention was that he drew attention to the nature of the problems we face, even if he was careful not to name its principal source.

Review: Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order – Alexander Stubb (Biteback Publishing)

The leader of another middle power, Finland’s president Alexander Stubb, is also careful not to attribute blame. But he goes much further than Carney in analysing the shortcomings of the current international order.

Stubb also has some useful ideas about what might be done. It is difficult to imagine they will be taken up as long as Donald Trump is in the White House, but Stubb’s book Triangle of Power is a reminder that we are a quite intelligent species, even if we continue to do unbelievably stupid things.

The triangle of power

At the centre of Stubb’s analysis of the increasingly fragile international order is the “triangle of power”. This is not an entirely new formulation, though Stubb rethinks some familiar ideas.

He describes the world as having three key clusters of countries, defined primarily but not exclusively by geography. The global west consists of the United States, Europe and other traditional allies, such as Japan, Canada and Australia. The global east is dominated by China, with Russian support, and includes the likes of North Korea, Belarus and Iran.

The global south is an established trope, but Stubb suggests it includes most of the countries of Africa, Asia and the Middle East – more than half the world’s countries and population, in fact.

While most recent attention has, understandably, focused on the competition between the global west and east, Stubb argues that the South holds “the power to decide in which direction the pendulum will swing”. The outcome will be determined by the relative influence of the key dynamics: competition, conflict and cooperation. While there is clearly a superfluity of competition and conflict in the current world, meaningful cooperation is in short supply. This is, Stubb contends, partly the West’s fault. It is a consequence of a “double mistake”: making security more important than freedom, and giving “inadequate agency and power” to other nations. The starting point for the creation of a more inclusive international order is what Stubb calls “values-based realism”. This means retaining a commitment to the sort of liberal values that have made Finland a model of good governance and happiness, “while working humbly and respectfully with those who do not share them”. The way to escape the traditional, zero-sum realist view of the world – which has got humanity to where it is today – is for the West to take the lead and “refashion multilateralism so that it genuinely works for everyone”. This will involve adhering to what Stubb calls a “dignified foreign policy” grounded in mutual respect, where “we lead by example not exhortation”. Even if it sounds a bit unlikely, it is worth taking seriously if the alternative is bombing women and children back to the Stone Age in Iran, Gaza or Lebanon. Revivifying multilateralism The key to Stubb’s vision for a reinvigorated international order is to roll back the move toward multipolarity and reinstate multilateralism. Multilateralism is shorthand for the much-invoked “rules-based international order”; multipolarity is the world of competing spheres of interest, what Stubb calls “an oligopoly of power”, where the strong do what they will and the weak do what they must. The first step in this process is to recognise that “interdependence now is a critical part of the solution, not the problem”. While this may sound reminiscent of some over-enthusiastic predictions about globalisation’s possible effects, Stubb has a point: We are not simply in a transition; we are in a fight for a future world order. And the path to a healthy outcome necessarily runs through international institutions, from the UN to settings far beyond it, where we must rethink membership and power for global cooperation to survive. The world is being reshaped by the “structural” forces of demography, climate and technology, Stubb claims, and it needs to develop or revive multilateral institutions that can deal with the greatest collective problems we have ever faced.

To his credit, Stubb has some useful suggestions, derived from his “practical realism”, about what might be done to key institutions, such as the much-criticised United Nations.

Reform of the anachronistic, deeply unrepresentative Security Council is the right place to start, though this will plainly not be easy. But just the attempt at reforms to enhance cooperation may be valuable in the current environment. As Stubb notes, coordinated action can “influence competition and conflict”.

Influence is something that middle powers like Australia have always claimed to have, though there is precious little evidence of it at the moment. Part of the problem in Australia’s case is that there is no one in the main political parties with the imagination or stature of Finland’s president, despite his country’s apparent geopolitical insignificance.

Getting to Finland

In the unlikely event that any of our policymakers or the defence community read Triangle of Power, there are a number of issues they might want to think about, as they are relevant for all middle powers trying to navigate a course between their greater counterparts.

One of those greater powers is a clear and present danger to the rest of the world. And it’s not China.

Part of the problem, Stubb argues, is that “the US is not a modern society by European or Asian standards”. This helps to explain the growing influence of a radical form of evangelical Christianity within the Trump administration. But it also accounts for the absence of adequate healthcare, education and housing that plagues the US, in particular, and neoliberal economies like Australia’s more generally.

Governing a relatively happy, inclusive and informed society gives its leader more latitude to think beyond national borders. Such a perspective, Stubb argues, is vital if “we” – in this case, the human race – are ever to make progress in dealing with the absence of economic, geopolitical and especially environmental security.

Reinforcing a commitment to a form of multilateralism that is inclusive and effective is essential. Similarly positioned middle powers, such as Australia, should be giving full-throated support to Stubb in his effort to make the world a more egalitarian and forgiving place:

Without strong multilateral systems, all interstate deals become transactional. A multipolar world runs on self-interest. A multilateral world makes the common interest a self-interest.

This is where “dignified foreign policy” comes in. Perhaps it is naïve to expect states, especially the most powerful, to “listen to each other with an open mind and greater appreciation of differences between societies, cultures, regions, and states”. But while many in the west may not like the political systems, religions and social values in parts of the south, America’s authoritarian turn and the blatant corruption associated with the Trump administration mean this is no longer just “their” problem. It’s ours, too.

It is hard to imagine anyone in our government or opposition offering commentary, much less action, in support of Stubb’s thoughtful and potentially feasible agenda. And yet we plainly have more in common with Finland than we do with the US, even when it’s not run by a cabal of plutocrats and megalomaniacs.

When our supposed principal ally is clearly part of the problem rather than the solution, championing the common interest rather than the self-interest of another country sounds like an eminently sensible and “realistic” option. We don’t have time to wait for Trump to leave office. And there is no guarantee his replacement will be any better.

Quite how we get sensible people to oversee the world and its constituent parts is the perennial challenge facing the human race. I know we are always supposed to end these sorts of discussions on a positive note, but looking at the current crop of global leaders, I don’t fancy our chances.

At least reading Stubb’s book may cheer you up for a while, even if it doesn’t change the world.