Adil Mesbahi, géopolitician, agnotologist, and peace researcher, offers a prospective analysis for the year 2033. Three articles will be published, providing a geopolitical analysis at three levels, from the global to the local. The first article will examine the world in 2033, followed by an analysis of the Arab world, and finally, a focus on Morocco. Each analysis will provide a macroscopic perspective, highlighting the most significant prospective scenarios.
The world is subject to a geopolitics of crises. The coronavirus crisis can be summarized by the following statement: “Strategic blindness of governments, media encirclement of communicators, and collective surrender of populations.” This geopolitical observation sheds light on the behavior of states and populations in the face of global threats. However, it does not predict future crises. Global crises follow one another, but they are not the same. For example, the 2008 financial crisis resulted in the regression of developed countries in favor of emerging countries, while the pandemic crisis of 2020 has affected all countries in the world.
After World War II, a bipolar organization formed around a Western pole led by the United States and an Eastern pole led by the Soviet Empire. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world became unipolar with the all-encompassing dominance of the United States, until recently, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The world has once again become bipolar, with the return of an authoritarian Russia to the global geopolitical scene, discreetly supported by an equally authoritarian China, which has become the world’s second-largest economic power over the years. Cold wars between ideological blocs are thus making a comeback, with the risk of major protest movements by populations subjected to the excesses of dominant ideologies, exposed by the information society.
Regardless of their nature, it is important to remember that any global crisis can either weaken or amplify geopolitical power dynamics and global tensions. Assistance between countries and solidarity are also options available to governments and populations, and they can be decisive. One certainty is that global crises have long-term negative or positive effects on global geopolitical “health.” States opt for offensive or defensive geopolitics.
The previous global pandemic crisis reshuffled the cards on a global scale, not only for major nations. From now on, states have become aware of the importance of sovereignty and the need for more resilience and less dependence, which are synonymous with protecting population and essential resources for a nation’s continuity. However, only strategic countries have considered what comes after the crisis. We have seen their determination in evaluating sectors and organizations to be preserved, in recovery strategies, and in tactical agility to seize any opportunity. Today, depending on how a country has handled the previous crisis, it can be categorized into one of two groups: the most defensive, who have chosen “retreat and resilience,” and the most offensive, who have opted for “openness and recovery.” This can be seen as the mindset of a nation, which, although not measurable like GDP, informs about its competitiveness in the global arena. The mindset can be classified as offensive or defensive for any nation.
Populations subjected to geopolitics of emotions. Today, populations worldwide, who have recently experienced geopolitics driven by fear and resignation throughout the previous global pandemic crisis, are now taking one of four paths: fear, resignation, anger, or hope. These are paths of geopolitics of emotions, depending on the choices made by their governments. We are not referring here to the 1% of the population that owns nearly half of the world’s wealth or the 10% that owns more than three-quarters of it. These populations are not subject to this geopolitics of emotions, unlike the middle and lower classes, who represent the majority and are more likely to challenge governments, especially in times of crisis.
Other keys for prospective analysis include the predominance of a nation. The larger the nation, the more important it is to maintain or even increase its power, depending on its rivals. While physical warfare was once synonymous with state power, it is now being replaced by new forms of power assertion. These new strategies for increasing state power have become hybrid, combining subtle “soft power” with traditional “hard power.” However, one constant remains in the pursuit of power, which is that it will always come at the expense of rivals. Therefore, understanding the geopolitics of major nations means understanding that their economic, military, and intelligence capabilities must constantly find ways to express themselves, guiding their strategic choices.
Demographics are another important key to understanding the world in 2033. By that time, the world’s population will have increased by about one billion, primarily in Asia and Africa. Aging Western countries will still be attractive to young populations from socio-economically disadvantaged and politically unstable countries. The environment is also a determining factor. The current trend is uncertain and worrisome. In the future, climate change could lead to resource shortages.
The conjunction of these determining factors will result in tensions between populations and their governments, as well as between states, amplifying geopolitical conflicts. These tensions will occur as the world’s population and its needs continue to grow, while natural resources continue to decline.
Will 2033 be a multipolar world? A unipolar world does not guarantee geopolitical stability. On the contrary, history has taught us that a bipolar world, which represents a balance of power between major nations, is more likely to ensure global geopolitical stability. To understand this, one only needs to assess the past three decades of American unipolar dominance. The overall geopolitical regression is undeniable, particularly when examining the legal and illegal wars waged around the world. And what about a multipolar world? Undoubtedly, it would offer opportunities for each state to employ selective multilateralism. Most likely, the future world is already shaping up with several major poles of influence, with the United States and China being the main ones. It is therefore important for intelligent states to approach multilateralism on a topic-by-topic basis, seeking interested partnerships rather than long-term alliances based on ideological proximity, as has mostly been the case in the past.
In terms of strategic thinking, the United States, led by the West, is undeniably in decline compared to the emerging countries led by China. The United States seems to be at the end of its cycle of global dominance. This is reflected in recurring geopolitical ambiguity. The European Union, which usually follows the United States, is characterized by a constant strategic void. On the other hand, China engages in long-term strategic thinking, which gives it a decisive advantage over its competitors. As for Russia, an ideological ally and economic partner of China within the BRICS, it is blind to strategic considerations, which contrasts with its geopolitical weight, particularly as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Economically, as a sign of good health and attractiveness of the economic pole led by China, there is a dynamic trend of emerging countries seeking to join the BRICS.
China actively tries to outperform the United States on various fronts. For example, in financial matters, it has reduced its dependence on the dollar to be less vulnerable to American sanctions. China also challenges the global hegemony of Swift (international banking operations) with its own Chinese equivalent, Cips. Its latest initiative is the New Development Bank to support the emergence of developing countries
