Davos: A depressing lack of global or regional will to solve serious flashpoints in international relations will make 2014 a more troubled year than last year, even if international diplomacy might be more realistic in what can be achieved.

The Geneva II talks on Syria are not likely to bear fruit without reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and in the Far East the new government of Xi Jingping is unlikely to seek a resolution of its territorial dispute with Japan.

A World Economic Forum panel discussion on the major factors affecting global security in 2014 took a realistic view of what went wrong in 2013, and how 2014 does not offer much change. 

John Chipman of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London described three major trends. First, he described diplomacy in 2013 as being tactical and simply reacting to events with no strategic direction, particularly in Syria and other reactions to the Arab Spring. He said that tactics without strategy will lead to defeat which is the likely outcome of Geneva II.

Secondly, he saw 2013 as the year of the end of the romantic dream that democracy will break out all over the world, and 2014 as a year in which authoritarian governments will recover their nerve.

Thirdly, 2013 defined the limits of the new egalitarian world order as new regional powers made clear that they did not know what to do with their opportunities, looking at countries like Qatar, Turkey and Brazil. Nonetheless, in 2014 a real danger is that a crisis could be created by such regional powers, like North Korea, or other states on the Pacific Rim as they clash with China.

No US strategy

Ian Bremmer of New York University agreed with Chipman on the lack of strategy, with particular reference to the Obama administration, and he gave the example of Secretary John Kerry’s rejection of Hilary Clinton’s previous strategy to “pivot” to the East.

“Kerry has banned the word pivot”, said Bremmer. “Kerry only talks of a rebalance, in which he will keep trying to work in both arenas as events dictate. And he is operating with a lot less trust from Obama than Clinton enjoyed.”

“The US does not want to think strategically,” he said. “American foreign policy is in decline since it has lost a lot of support after Snowden, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rise of a German-led Europe replacing the UK-led Europe.”

But Bremmer was also dismissive of China’s ability to replace the US, as the Chinese lack the military ability to project power and work with their allies, and the diplomatic strength to articulate their alliances.

The Gulf in particular is far more important to China than the US, but China is not able to offer the security guarantees that the US can.

So despite the rise of shale oil in the US reducing the American need to be involved in the Gulf, Bremmer argued there will be Chinese and other support for the US to maintain a military and security role in the region.

The popularity of the foreign policy of the new government of President Xi Jingping and the rise of China was a theme developed by Wu Xinbo of Fudan University in China. Wu saw popular opinion as fuelling the dangers of a clash with Japan over the disputed islands, and he was less sure of Xi’s ability to reassure China’s suspicious neighbours.