'Stability depends on US balance of power policy'

Donald Trump's policies will be crucial for the future of the rule-based liberal world order, according to Jacob Westberg. He sees risks such as isolationism, premature attempts to end the war in Ukraine, and in the worst case, an illiberal agenda.

Jacob Westberg, Associate Professor at the Department of War Studies at the Swedish Defence University, is not surprised by the outcome of the American presidential election, but he would have preferred a different result.

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris represent an ongoing struggle around the rule-based liberal world order, he says. While Harris represents a line that wants to work with multilateral relations and the defense of liberal values, Trump stands for something different.

"With Trump, there is a lot of uncertainty in these issues", says Jacob Westberg.

He has recently completed a book with research colleague Associate Professor Håkan Edström; "Military Strategy in an Era of Unipolar Demise: Exploring Strategic Diversity among Nations."

In the book, they examine how several states have adapted their defense strategies during the first decades of the 21st century and how the rule-based world order is affected by the US's strategic choices.

Liberal values challenged

The rule-based world order, or LIO — liberal international order — refers to a package of norms, ideas, and decision-making methods where the core is the right of states to self-determination and the UN Charter's mandate to resolve conflicts peacefully.

Countries that want to preserve this order are defined by Jacob Westberg and Håkan Edström as status quo states. Revisionist states, on the other hand, question the rules.

"They are based on ideas about human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, but also have an economic side that deals with free trade. These ideas are now openly challenged by China and Russia. They claim their own spheres of interest in their vicinity and believe they have the right to decide over smaller states", says Jacob Westberg.

Bipolar power structure during the Cold War

During the Cold War, a bipolar power structure was created with the USA and the Soviet Union as superpowers. When the Cold War ended with the implosion of the Soviet Union, the USA remained alone and was seen during the nineties and the beginning of the 2000s as the great defender of the rule-based world order. However, a number of events caused its dominant position to be challenged, according to Jacob Westberg.

"At the beginning of the 2000s, the USA, through its efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, tied itself up in a series of costly wars that never ended and wore on its own resources. This created an opportunity to challenge the USA."

States that were supporters of the rule-based world order continued to reduce their military capabilities, believing we lived in a new, peaceful era. China and Russia, instead, began to arm themselves. When Russia attacked Georgia in 2008, European countries, including Sweden, chose not to react, Jacob Westberg points out.

"But even the USA chose to pursue what they called a 'reset policy,' where the idea was to resume a relationship with Russia again. Russia did not respond well to this, and we saw a new exploitation of Russian power tools."

It was an early sign that the USA had begun to withdraw from the world stage, which contributed to Russia annexing Crimea and then carrying out the large-scale invasion of Ukraine, according to Jacob Westberg.

"How frequently we see wars in different regions depends not only on the US's dominance but also on their presence and helping to deter potential expansionist states. Stability depends on the USA being prepared to act with regional balance of power policy."

Statements undermine NATO's foundation

With Donald Trump at the helm, there is a risk of an even more isolationist USA. This creates increased pressure on European states to take greater responsibility within NATO and for their own security.

"Especially when it comes to conventional capabilities. When it comes to nuclear weapons, it is hard to see how Europe in the short term could create sufficient capacity," says Jacob Westberg.

Trump has previously said that member states that do not spend two percent of GDP on defense expenditures can let Russia do what it wants with them. Even though the risk is low that just the countries with the lowest defense spending are attacked, such statements undermine the credibility of the North Atlantic Treaty that underpins NATO, according to Jacob Westberg.

The fears that Trump would take the USA out of NATO are hopefully not an immediate threat, he believes.

"Moreover, changes have been made in legislation that require the president to have a large majority in Congress with him. That said, if they decide to remove resources from Europe, it still has a destabilizing effect."

Then there is an even worse scenario, believes Jacob Westberg:

"If we get an American presidential administration that pursues an illiberal agenda, undermines free trade, withdraws from climate agreements, and openly challenges ideas and values associated with the principles of the rule of law. Then those dimensions of the liberal order are also severely shaken."

Jacob Westberg thinks that developments in the world now resemble those that occurred during the interwar period when the Western powers gradually accepted expansionist actions from Germany and the Soviet Union in the hope of avoiding a new world war. It did not work then and will not work now, he believes.

"There is a great risk that the USA is too hasty to end the war in Ukraine because it will long-term deter Putin from again using power tools to win political purposes and territory. The concessions Trump could force are primarily from Ukraine's side."

From a Russian perspective, it is not so bad to have an American president who risks breaking up Western cohesion through tariffs and trade wars, not least if he also withdraws the USA's presence in Europe, believes Jacob Westberg.

Acting on Chinese expansion

As far as China is concerned, from an American perspective, there is a need to counter the ongoing Chinese expansion in the Pacific.

"Trump's Secretary of State candidate Marco Rubio is known for taking a hard line against both China and Iran. He is also known for his support for Israel. So there is quite a strong reason to believe that the policy towards China will be further tightened, and that support for Israel will continue," says Jacob Westberg.

China has shown long-term action, independent of who is the American president, he points out. The highest priority is to guarantee the regime's survival. This depends on being able to deliver continued prosperity to the population, which in turn depends on international trade. This may cause China in various ways to try to avoid a breakdown of trade flows towards the USA. The conflict between states that stand behind the liberal, rule-based world order and authoritarian states with revisionist goals is something we in Sweden are likely to hear more about in the future, believes Jacob Westberg.

"We have now entered a time that is about defending the liberal world order, even when it comes to defense policy."