Chinese President Xi Jinping joins a group photo shoot at the signing ceremony of agreement on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in Beijing on June 29 (XINHUA)

By all accounts, 2015 was a difficult year.

Geopolitically, the Ukrainian crisis continued; the Syrian civil war became both protracted and more complicated; maritime disputes in the South China Sea were renewed; and the nuclear stalemate on the Korean Peninsula persisted.

In the economic field, the Eurozone is facing the uncertainties of disintegration, while the Russian currency and the Chinese stock markets have had their own share of wild swings. In addition, the rapid rise of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and the European refugee emergency has confronted the world with problems that are seemingly impossible to solve.

In reality, most of these crises are correlated. The rise of ISIS is partly a result of the Syrian civil conflict--they mutually affect the evolution of one another. They have jointly triggered the refugee wave that places enormous stress on neighboring countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey--which are hosting millions of Syrian refugees already--with hundreds of thousands more fleeing to European countries. ISIS-trained combatants then attempted to mask themselves as innocent refugees, leaving Syria and then slipping into the crowds, only to then conduct a series of brutal, coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris this November.

These crises have complicated root causes, different forms of manifestation and vast geographic coverage as well as multiple impacts.

The international community had hoped to depict a framework for peaceful development since 2015 also marked the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II (WWII). By reflecting on past conflicts and their terrible consequences, a series of planned commemoration activities were supposed to help everyone remember the lessons learned from the past and commit to a more prosperous and nonviolent future.

Unfortunately that agenda was overshadowed by difficult domestic and foreign issues, including armed conflicts and rashes of terrorism, which shone a light on the deep divisions amongst global players. The year 2015 sadly highlighted the absence of cohesive global governments with shared values working toward common goals.

Syrian refugees try to force their way into Turkey at a border crossing on June 14 (XINHUA)

Key problems 

The following problems are holding sway over the future world order.

First, Europe, though being the traditional center of the Western hemisphere and Western thought, is losing its influence. The European Union (EU), the world's most developed economic bloc, is now facing multiple challenges including the stability of the euro, flagging economic growth, the influx of a large migrant population, and wealth disparity. Although the EU tried its best to reverse the trend and took opportunities to remedy its institutional problems, it is very probable that the bloc will become increasingly divided, exclusive and conservative.

Second, the United States is far from reaching the pinnacle of global leadership. U.S. President Barack Obama's administration adopted a "wait-and-see" attitude toward the troubles of its traditional allies in Europe, while investing heavily in regional affairs in the Asia Pacific and the Indian Ocean regions as part of its "pivot to Asia" strategy. Economically, the U.S. Federal Reserve had repeatedly sent signals for hikes in interest rate during the past two years, which never materialized, but instead led to enormous capital inflows into the United States from emerging markets. This further sped up the U.S. economic recovery at the expense of less-developed markets.

The U.S.' recent foreign policy is to a certain degree undermining its self-proclaimed global leadership, as decisions are based on economic interests rather than on staking out the "moral high ground." That being said, the faster-than-expected U.S. economic recovery has once again put the world's only super power on top in terms of scientific, energy and military innovation.

Third, ISIS, in addition to pursuing the creation of an "Islamic caliphate," is performing brutal attacks of revenge on their "enemies." As such, ISIS represents a common global enemy for the international community. To date, however, due to different interests and strategic objectives, world leaders have not yet been able to form a coordinated force to effectively combat ISIS.

Moreover, the traditional rationale for dealing with extremist forces is collapsing. Some are realizing that "the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend." The West's traditional way of handling Middle Eastern affairs could inadvertently hurt themselves instead. The international community needs to figure out a better way to tackle extremism without alienating the population at large.

Finally, the vulnerability of open borders is explicit, leaving many doubting the validity of economic globalization and regional integration, which may leave one wondering: Is there a universal binding agreement that ensures freedom and cohesion? Will the wave of anti-globalization and anti-assimilation be further intensified?

For years the developed countries in North America and Europe have cited human rights as a cornerstone of their foreign policies. Yet the recent strings of terrorist attacks against Western targets and a migrant crisis on the EU's doorstep may call into question whether these countries have the political will-power to enforce the values that they have been advocating for a long time. If the door between different regions and ethnic groups were to be shut, more people may turn to a radical and extremist path. That would only put the world in more danger.

U.S. President Barack Obama (right) meets with Cuban leader Raul Castro during the Seventh Summit of the Americas in Panama City on April 11 (XINHUA)

Reflections needed 

Are the world's leading politicians lacking strategic judgment in dealing with these global challenges? The answer may be yes.

Competition among traditional powers for spheres of influence and the emergence of non-traditional security threats like ISIS and like-minded groups are possibly the major sticking points in international politics today. Unfortunately, the strategies of major powers are also being manipulated by the search for profit, and the impetus for action on behalf of the international community often gets squandered by competing self-interests.

Another question that the international community should rethink is whether the current international system can effectively deal with the increasingly complicated political and economic realities. The post-WWII world order, featuring an open market, free trade, human rights protection, cooperation and collective security as well as the rule of law, has pushed forward the progress of human society. But it also still reflects a low level of efficiency in regards to decision making and a global imbalance of political and economic power between nation states and amongst their populations.

The fundamental problem is possibly that the current world order neglects the diversity and richness of the globe. Thus, the current system cannot meet the needs of balanced and fair development worldwide.

A new model? 

The international community has yet to map out a more efficient system. For example, one unidentified Beijing-based UN official said during an event to mark the 70th anniversary of the UN: Even if people wanted to get rid of the current UN structure, they would have to replace it with a new international body. The need for global governance is not diminished.

The international community must be fully aware that although emerging powers have encountered setbacks, their collective rise is an irreversible trend. The traditional boundaries between East and West, North and South have been blurred. Eurocentrism and then America's hegemony have been challenged. They no longer have absolute dominance over global markets, currency, or events. Developed countries must therefore create space and respect the emerging powers in the current global governance structure and within global agenda-setting.

The U.S. deficiency in being able to steer the global community toward consensus on some of the top challenges is distinctive of international relations in 2015. After WWII, influenced by liberal internationalism, the United States promoted its own political system worldwide despite being criticized of interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries and even launching wars. However, restrained by its strategic interests and domestic political priorities, the United States is neither willing to engage in further full-scale combat missions nor capable of remaking the modern world.

Should the world then promote a new order that replaces the United States as the sole hegemonic power? The answer is actually no. The complications of international affairs have proved that no country can assume the responsibility of leading the world alone, and the international order still needs the United States, home to the world's largest economy, to play a major role. An international system aimed at containing the United States' influence would be worse than a U.S.-dominated world order, despite all of its mistakes.

What's next? 

The United States' current political debates are once again swinging between isolationism and liberal internationalism. Its domestic and foreign policies in recent years reveal as much. The aggressive foreign policies during George W. Bush's administration, guided by neo-conservative ideologies, resulted in the catastrophic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, the Obama administration's efforts to rebalance American foreign policy left the outside world with an impression that the United States is now militarily weary and politically weak. The United States is unlikely to return to a proactive foreign policy in the next few years.

By all observations, it appears the United States is still searching for the correct strategy. So what will the United States' policies look like in the next decade? It seems impossible for the superpower to return to isolationism, though there are extremely loud calls from some conservatives in the Republican Party to do so.

What should be noted in any case is that the United States' China policy has become a focus of its foreign policy debate. Some American think tanks and scholars advocate using a policy of "containment" instead of engaging with and responding to the rise of China. What will the policies of the next administration have is now the looming question.

Perhaps there is no need to be pessimistic. The world in 2015 wasn't entirely lackluster. There were concrete actions to patch leaks in the existing international system and real efforts are being taken to strengthen global governance. As the EU continues to take measures to improve its integration, developing countries have launched many new investment and financial initiatives. The pragmatic goals proposed during the G20 summit in Turkey for boosting the global economic recovery--as well as the successful achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals and the recent global climate change conference in Paris--have all brought the world some beams of hope.

In the meantime, with China-Russia cooperation, constructive China-U.S. dialogue, and U.S.-Russia talks emerging as major channels for world diplomacy, big powers have maintained restraint since a compromise derived from common interests is still the best choice for all parties.

Regional cooperation in East Asia has also gained new momentum in recent months, marked by the signing of the China-Republic of Korea (ROK) free trade agreement, the restart of the China-Japan-ROK Leaders' Meeting, and the construction of the ASEAN Community. Some hot-button issues have been sorted out, including the reaching of the Iran nuclear deal and the restoration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba.

The international community's attitude toward China, the most prominent developing country and the world's second largest economy, has also changed sharply. More and more countries have begun to embrace partnerships with the Chinese, showing their support either of the Belt and Road Initiative or by joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Only the United States and Japan have not disguised their resistance to this global trend.

China is also starting to see its role in global governance grow. Over the past year, the Chinese Government stepped up their pledges to combat climate change, knowing that their support would be critical to reaching any meaningful, binding deal in Paris.

Just as significantly, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreed on November 30 to add the Chinese currency, the yuan, to its Special Drawing Rights basket. The yuan joins the U.S. dollar, Japanese yen, British pound sterling and euro as a global currency and international reserve asset. In response, the People's Bank of China, the central bank, said that the IMF announcement means that "the international community expects China to play a bigger role in the economic and financial system."

Still, China needs to realize that the international responsibility it must now assume may come even faster than anticipated. China's leaders should be adept in learning and accumulating experiences as well as creating opportunities. While seeking a larger role in the international arena, the Chinese Government should also provide the world with a set of public goods for the improvement of both international development and global governance.

Finally, world leaders must create an overall mechanism for responding to crises in an effective and efficient way that seeks both common ground as well as common good. The system should be one that avoids addressing crises in a fragmented way, moving instead toward a coordinated, comprehensive strategy to deal with global problems. To that end, major countries should first reach consensus on where their common interests lie, and where there is room to work together both immediately and in the long run.

The author is an op-ed contributor to Beijing Review  and a researcher at the Pangoal Institution 

Copyedited by Mara Lee Durrell

Comments to liuyunyun@bjreview.com