In Southeast Asia, the balance of influence tilts between China and the United States. Does the region’s broad spectrum of foreign policies signal flexibility and pragmatism, allowing these countries to capitalize on the Sino-American rivalry? Or does it instead reveal the underlying economic, social, and political contradictions of a space struggling to organize itself collectively? Despite its aspirations to become the leading regional architecture, in practice ASEAN exerts little influence over the defense and security decisions of its members, who are caught between largely conflicting agendas.

In multiple ways, the Gulf and Southeast Asia epitomize the emergence of a deregulated world order, where a multitude of actors vie to leverage their room for strategic maneuver—a latitude that remains precarious as major behemoths tirelessly amass the instruments of their dominance.

Today, Lebanon symbolizes all the ambiguity resulting from almost two years of war in Gaza. Once again, the question relates to political and institutional recomposition, the reconstitution of a Lebanese army in charge of guarding its borders. But it is common knowledge that beyond its internal complexity, Lebanon’s future depends on the general fate of the region: Will Israel accept a political solution to Gaza, downgrading the aggressiveness of Hezbollah? Can Syria and Jordan retain a degree of stability? Can relations with Iran be normalized to an extent through a nuclear agreement?

Whether we focus on the complex issues of the Middle East or choose to observe the international system as a whole, the era has all the hallmarks of a time of change, with no certainty on what lies ahead.

Beyond the logics of diplomatic repositioning, supply chains are another key factor for comprehending the new world, in particular those related to materials essential to the industrial and energy transition. The agreements and alliances that emerge in this arena will be critical. Today, states are faced with a vital strategic choice between privileging economic or political logics.

Because, in short, the economy remains the primary condition of power. In this regard, the West has underestimated the resilience of the Russian economy, which remains healthier than anticipated, although troop mobilization and the isolation resulting from the war presage difficult times ahead for Moscow. As for Egypt, though a key player in the new conflict in the Middle East, the desperate state of its economy reveals a more general, and worrying, political and social deterioration.

Beyond the current situation in Ukraine, the issue of migration reflects the differences and divergences of European positions. Closing borders, removing irregular migrants, exporting the management of entry into European territory: is there consensus on these solutions, and most importantly, will they help to solve the problem?

Thirty years on from Oslo, how do we explain the deadlock in the peace process? Israeli and Palestinian interpretations of the last three decades remain totally opposed: on the one side, they cite Palestinians’ inability to challenge terrorism and govern themselves; on the other side, it is Israel’s refusal to move beyond the Oslo concessions to achieve a negotiation on “final status.” In the light of these irreconcilable interpretations, the current slide toward Israeli extremism and a new Palestinian revolt offers little hope of progress.

Western discourse predicted the advent of Chinese dominance in the very short term, but events have taken a rather different turn. The drivers that enabled the unprecedented growth of recent decades seem to have run out of steam. Moreover, the outcome of Beijing’s economic strategies is still uncertain, in a context shaped primarily by U.S. policies. China’s influence in the future will be considerable, but the direction its rebound will take remains unclear.

For Europeans, the events in Ukraine and the thorny issue of the Sino-American rivalry cannot paper over the other security problems we face: On what common vision of our history and future will we build the Europe of tomorrow? Has drug trafficking already changed the nature of our societies? Can we afford to turn away from instances of destabilization in Africa, from the Horn to the Sahel?

The western Balkans symbolize the difficulty of conceptualizing the relationships between these shifting political spaces. Are all of the Balkan states destined to join the European Union (EU)? On what timescale and under what conditions? Can accession negotiations ignore the internal instability in some of these states? What of the problems of regional coexistence?

Moreover, while power relationships are being redrawn in Europe, the Balkans remain a contested space for multiple actors: for the EU; for the indirect maneuvers of Russia; and for China, looking to increase its gateways into Europe.

This edition of Politique étrangère seeks to describe the multiple current strategic issues in the Balkans, for countries in the region uncertain of their future, but also for the EU, which needs to redefine the philosophy, pace, and procedures of enlargement, thus far poorly thought-out from a political perspective.

These questions seem all the more pressing with the double shock of the Covid-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine directly threatening the economic stability of the EU and the eurozone. Witness the accumulation of national debt, the repercussions of sanctions against Russia, and the requirements of the energy transition: beyond the direct consequences of the war, the immediate future of the EU is in question, and thus its place in the overall restructuring of the continent.

How will relationships between major powers—the United States, China, Russia, Europe—emerge from the war? Should China fear the end of the conflict, or does it stand to benefit from a new balance of power? Can globalization and open trade survive? SWIFT may have shut Russia out, but the risk of food insecurity seems likely to oblige the world to remain relatively open. Do the silent threat of nuclear weapons and the sweeping use of information technology—in particular by the civilian population—announce a new set of rules for future conflicts? What is Europe’s role in all this? Will it emerge from its torpor, in a world that opposes brute force to the bloc’s commercial pacifism?

The war in Ukraine is upending numerous principles established in the last thirty years. Yet, paradoxically, much of the world views the conflict as taking place on the margins, far from their concerns. This is a world preoccupied with other challenges: the presidential election in Brazil; the upcoming Congress of the Chinese Communist Party; Lebanon’s impending collapse; the fight of African people to recover a cultural heritage denied them by colonization. This issue of Politique Étrangère examines all these questions.

The promises of the Paris Agreement are far from being fulfilled. The journey to carbon neutrality is complex and requires coordinated action from all involved, across both private and public sectors. The financing promised to poor countries has not come through—in particular for those in Africa, even though the continent is crucial for the entire energy landscape and for global development. Moreover, progress cannot be made on important climate negotiations while ignoring deteriorating relationships between global powers such as the USA and China. There is a climate emergency, but it can only be addressed within broader global geopolitical dynamics.

After Afghanistan, our Counteranalysis section asks: Must NATO’s political basis, purpose, and effectiveness be rethought? Will Russia’s current movements bring it back to its primary purpose: the defense of Europeans in Europe? And what should be done about the Americans’ barely-concealed desire to integrate NATO into a general mobilization against China? The situation might be simpler should the Europeans decide to reckon a little more closely with the risks and threats that surround them: but, ever-creative in generating security institutions that are badly deployed or never used, they remain focused on what divides them. Afghanistan, China, Russia, the Sahel: Will current events provide conclusive arguments?

Military aggression in the China Seas, seduction by way of vaccines, economic control, investments wielded as tools of influence, attempts at political takeover, the marginalization of outside (i.e., Western) players in favor of organizations based within the region . . . anything goes in China’s bid to reinforce the centrality of its power in the face of states that are torn between their interests in neighboring countries and their desire for independence. The balance of power in Southeast Asia could well be symbolic of the world to come.

COVID-19 has not upset the geopolitical rationales at work across the world: the geography of vaccine distribution clearly shows it. This distribution, which broadly corresponds with the assertiveness of global powers in their respective zones of influence, reveals a geopolitics of immunity. On the other hand, the general consensus of those who have relied upon globalization up to now has been called into question, in particular with regard to the sustainability of public debt. How will they close the floodgates that were opened during the public funding crisis? Will the debts that were created therein be paid back, and if so, how?

In the poorest countries, in “emerging” countries, and even in the richest countries, poverty and inequality are worsening, and this situation is unlikely to be fixed by a resumption in growth or by international aid alone. Both economic and political strategies must be put in place, such as economic stimulus, aid, redistribution policies, and state-building, as states alone are capable of controlling the destiny of their populations.

In a world severely unsettled by health challenges and the resulting power struggles, what is the role of the United Nations (UN), seventy-five years after it was established in a radically different world? Beyond reform, which currently seems unattainable, the global organization still embodies a universality that is unavoidable in the face of today’s problems: climate change, new health problems, and so on. It remains the only place to assert benchmark values even if these values are rarely respected. And through its specialist organizations (the UN “system”) it confronts very concrete problems, including development, food, and international regulations.

Asserting and challenging the law; peacekeeping under difficult circumstances; declaring human rights that are too often violated; establishing multiple safeguarding initiatives: in all of these activities the UN is the mirror of the world, reflecting back its weaknesses and its hopes.