It is no secret that the current state of international affairs is far from stable. A land war has persisted in Ukraine for four years, and for the past three years, the Middle East has been experiencing escalating instability that seems to worsen by day. Amidst these tensions, analysts have compared the current global situation to past periods — some to the Cold War, when two superpowers (in the modern case, the United States and China) clash with each other, and others, more ominously, to the period preceding World War II.
One scholar, however, has argued that the best analogy is the period immediately preceding World War I. On Monday, Odd Arne Westad, Elihu Professor of History at Yale University, made this argument at a Jefferson Scholars Foundation talk as part of the promotional campaign for his new book, The Coming Storm: Power, Conflict and Warnings from History. Westad, a scholar of the Cold War, modern East Asia, and international relations, who is also one of the editors of The Cambridge History of the Cold War. Westad was introduced by Andrew Preston, Jefferson Scholars Foundation Distinguished Professor of Diplomacy and Statecraft at the University.
Westad’s central claim in his book is that there are many parallels between the current state of international relations and the state of international relations at the turn of the nineteenth century. In his view, this resemblance is caused by the world’s repetitive increasing multipolarity, with competition taking place simultaneously between multiple great powers instead of two dominant superpowers.
Westad drew a few direct analogies. For instance, he compared China to Germany: both embarked on a rapid program of development shortly after major changes in the structure of their governments (for Germany, this took place after reunification in 1871; for China, this took place after the end of the Mao era in the late 1970s, when the impoverished nation engaged in rapid market reforms). Both nations have generally opted to maximize their influence within a specific sphere rather than the world as a whole — Germany with Europe, China with East Asia.
Russia, in turn, is analogous to Austria-Hungary. Both, in Westad’s view, are slowly declining states that have resorted to war against a smaller nation that ultimately harmed their international standing. For Austria-Hungary, this was the war with Serbia; for Russia, it is the war in Ukraine. Similarly, both declining states maintained an alliance with a stronger state that is on the rise, Germany historically and China today, which they attempt to draw as allies into a broader conflict.
The United States, Westad argued, is analogous to the United Kingdom in the early twentieth century. Both nations were in possession of immense cultural, military, and economic power while showing signs of slippage from their past positions of undisputed authority. Parallels can be seen, too, in economic policies. The United Kingdom, despite having previously advocated free trade, shifted toward protectionism. The United States, too, seems to have turned against some of its previous support for globalization in recent years, including President Trump’s tariff policies.
If these two time periods are comparable, what might be the spark that ignites another global conflict? In Westad’s view, it will be a result (assuming such a conflict takes place in the first place) of convergence of various conflicts taking place across the globe. The war in Iran represents one such avenue to a wider global conflict. China is dependent on fuel supplies from Iran, and now that the United States has blocked the Strait of Hormuz, China has a vested interest in the conflict in Iran. To take pressure off of Iran, China could potentially begin a blockade of its own on Taiwan, and even begin preparations for a ground invasion. In this framework, Westad explained, Taiwan is (continuing with the comparison to World War One) in a similar position as Belgium, Bosnia, and Alsace-Lorraine preceding World War I.
Despite the parallels, Westad emphasized that it should not be made a conclusion that a global conflict is inevitable any time soon. There are many differences. Technologies are significantly transformed, creating new ways of waging war, and nations may be able to resolve their disputes before the situation becomes dire. If we hope to avoid plunging the world into another conflict — especially in a more dangerous, nuclear age — we should certainly take heed of some of Westad’s reservations before it is too late.
Leave a Reply