The coronavirus crisis and world order

From Charles Kupchan and John Ikenberry comes a thoughtful examination of why the pandemic doesn’t seem to be having the centripetal effect that past hinge moments had. They compare the current crisis to the end of the world wars and the end of the Cold War:

Trump’s stubborn unilateralism is certainly an important part of the story. But had the raw materials been available — an existing coalition and the prospect of a clear end to the crisis — even Trump may have opted for a more collective response, especially since his reelection rides on his handling of the pandemic. They were not; this moment does not lend itself to global realignment the way earlier crises did. Indeed, the world seems to be headed toward growing division and national self-reliance.

As they point out, the coronavirus crisis lacks clear alliances, definitive victors, and a defining end point (at least thus far). A more apt comparison might be the 1973 oil shock, which forced changes in daily life, had all sorts of geopolitical implications, but also failed to produce significant new forms of international cooperation. And like the pandemic, that moment seemed to fissure rather than fuse the preexisting multilateral architecture (NATO, in particular, experienced internal tension).