After a run of nearly 1,000 years, quipped the French philosopher and writer Voltaire, the fading Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Some two-and-a-half centuries later, the problem, to paraphrase Voltaire, is that the fading liberal world order is neither liberal, nor worldwide, nor orderly.
The US, working closely with the UK and others, established the liberal world order in the wake of World War II. The goal was to ensure that the conditions that had led to two world wars in 30 years would never again arise.
To that end, the democratic countries set out to create an international system that was liberal in the sense that it was to be based on the rule of law and respect for countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. Human rights were to be protected.
Illustration: Yusha
All this was to be applied to the entire planet; at the same time, participation was open to all and voluntary. Institutions were built to promote peace (the UN), economic development (the World Bank) and trade and investment (the IMF and what years later became the WTO).
All this and more was backed by the economic and military might of the US, a network of alliances across Europe and Asia, and nuclear weapons, which served to deter aggression. Thus, the liberal world order was based not just on ideals embraced by democracies, but also on hard power.
None of this was lost on the decidedly illiberal Soviet Union, which had a fundamentally different notion of what constituted order in Europe and around the world.
The liberal world order appeared to be more robust than ever with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet today, a quarter-century later, its future is in doubt. Indeed, its three components — liberalism, universality and the preservation of order itself — are being challenged as never before in its 70-year history.
Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the UK in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence.
Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country’s media, courts and law-enforcement institutions.
Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies.
It is increasingly difficult to speak of the world as if it were whole. We are seeing the emergence of regional orders — or, most pronounced in the Middle East, disorders — each with its own characteristics.
Attempts to build global frameworks are failing. Protectionism is on the rise, the latest round of global trade talks never came to fruition and there are few rules governing the use of cyberspace.
At the same time, great power rivalry is returning. Russia violated the most basic norm of international relations when it used armed force to change borders in Europe and it violated US sovereignty through its efforts to influence the 2016 election.
North Korea has flouted the strong international consensus against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The world has stood by as humanitarian nightmares play out in Syria and Yemen, doing little at the UN or elsewhere in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. Venezuela is a failing state. One in every 100 people in the world today is either a refugee or internally displaced.
There are several reasons why all this is happening and why it is happening now. The rise of populism is in part a response to stagnating incomes and job loss, owing mostly to new technologies, but widely attributed to imports and immigrants.
Nationalism is a tool increasingly used by leaders to bolster their authority, especially amid difficult economic and political conditions, and global institutions have failed to adapt to new power balances and technologies.
However, the weakening of the liberal world order is due, more than anything else, to the changed attitude of the US.
Under US President Donald Trump, the US decided against joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
It has threatened to leave the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal.
It has unilaterally introduced steel and aluminum tariffs, relying on a justification (national security) that others could use, in the process placing the world at risk of a trade war.
It has raised questions about its commitment to NATO and other alliance relationships, and it rarely speaks about democracy or human rights.
“America First” and the liberal world order seem incompatible.
My point is not to single out the US for criticism. Today’s other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing, not doing or both. However, the US is not just another country. It was the principal architect of the liberal world order and its principal backer. It was also a principal beneficiary.
Thus, the US’ decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades marks a turning point. The liberal world order cannot survive on its own, because other powers lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
China has successfully held its Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, with 53 of 55 countries from the African Union (AU) participating. The two countries that did not participate were Eswatini and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which have no diplomatic relations with China. Twenty-four leaders were reported to have participated. Despite African countries complaining about summit fatigue, with recent summits held with Russia, Italy, South Korea, the US and Indonesia, as well as Japan next month, they still turned up in large numbers in Beijing. China’s ability to attract most of the African leaders to a summit demonstrates that it is still being
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
The Russian city of Vladivostok lies approximately 45km from the Sino-Russian border on the Sea of Japan. The area was not always Russian territory: It was once the site of a Chinese settlement. The settlement would later be known as Yongmingcheng (永明城), the “city of eternal light,” during the Yuan Dynasty. That light was extinguished in 1858 when a large area of land was ceded by the Qing Dynasty to the Russian Empire with the signing of the Treaty of Aigun. The People’s Republic of China founded by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never ruled Taiwan. Taiwan was governed by the
The Japanese-language Nikkei Shimbun on Friday published a full-page story calling for Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) leadership hopefuls to be aware of and to prepare for a potential crisis in the Taiwan Strait. The candidates of the LDP leadership race must have a “vision” in case of a Chinese invasion in Taiwan, the article said, adding that whether the prospective president of the LDP and the future prime minister of Japan have the ability to lead the public and private sectors under this circumstance would be examined in the coming election. The “2027 Theory” of a Taiwan contingency is becoming increasingly
RSS