After the fall of the Berlin Wall it even looked like a world, stretching as it did around the planet. And now? It is an absurdity.
But even if Trump did want to see himself this way, nobody else would. For in the American crisis that Trump embodies, the whole concept of a US-centred world order has imploded.
In this great disruption, Trump is as much an effect as a cause. The final act may be dramatic, but the play has been on for a while. There have been two successive models of a US-led world order — one ended in triumph, one in disarray.
The first was of course the cold war, with its binary division of the world into competing hegemonies. There was no other possible leader for the western hemisphere — as Britain discovered in the Suez crisis , the US alone could dictate the terms on which other countries, even those with delusions of grandeur, operated their foreign policies and military engagements. This should not be seen, in rosy retrospect, as a golden era. It had its horrors and its follies. But the perceived Soviet threat meant that US leadership was never itself threatened.
The second version was the era of imperial hubris when the US thought of itself not only as the sole superpower but in the typical imperial manner as the universal civilisation. American prestige was so high that no one thought twice about, for example, having Bill Clinton as the final arbiter of the Northern Ireland peace process.
Something that was technically an internal UK problem. It was what the leader of the free world did. We know, of course, that this hubris was followed by the Iraq war and its brutal exposure of the belief that anywhere in the world could be transformed with the help of a quick, clean invasion into a little America. But it should be borne in mind that the Europeans remained almost desperate to restore the status quo. The rapture that greeted the then presidential candidate Barack Obama in Berlin in July , with more than , people gathering to adore him at the Victory Column, suggested that much of the free world was still dreaming of another JFK to whom fealty could be offered.
The reign of the neocons was seen as an unfortunate episode in an enduring marriage.
But Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton could never fully restore American leadership. The ability of the US to project its power has never recovered from the Iraq disaster.
The hesitations and confusions that characterised the US responses to the Arab spring were not merely a function of weak leadership. His response is typically incoherent, a strange mix of anti-militarist isolationism and militarist unilateralism.
social democratic governments, an instrument for the defense of the general New World Order, the fact that it is in trouble is not necessarily good news for the political democracy, and without developed free trade unions and alternative .. frontiers or mutual responsibility for infrastructural assets that were jointly built. The New World Order or NWO is claimed to be an emerging clandestine totalitarian world government inadequate not only to prevent another world war but to foster global justice, as the UN was chartered to be a free association of sovereign nation-states rather than a transition to democratic world government. Thus.
And he will bring to this a mindset that cannot be appeased, even if other leaders are minded to try to do so. And the existing P5 must agree to exercise veto restraint if the integrity of the UN system is to survive.. Trade is a global good - and not just in economic terms; it also enhances bilateral relations and ensures a level of cooperation and interdependence that reduces the risk of conflict.
But we must not ignore the rise in populist parties across the Western world, and elections which have broken the traditional centrist consensus. Many feel uncomfortable with the pace of change, they feel left behind.
There is a perception that free trade, open borders, and multilateralism work for the elite but no-one else. So: free trade agreements of the future must champion progressive principles; ensure adequate worker and environmental protections; and reflect the continuing relevance and needs of the nation state. Other organisations also need to adapt and evolve. We need to reinvigorate the Commonwealth. It needs to think carefully, reflecting on the Brexit vote, about how much more pooling of sovereignty its members and citizens will accept.
Moving now to international law, we must ensure that it keeps pace with change in international affairs. Two areas in particular are in need of clearer international law: a.
The UK wants to see the full application of existing international law - including the UN Charter - to cyberspace; b. The environment. The impacts of climate change, marine pollution and other environmental hazards all require urgent and collective action: and international law has a key role to play. The principles of that we hold dear -democratisation, multilateralism, and human rights - are under threat in the global system: in the west and elsewhere. So we need to increase our efforts to make the case for the norms and values which underpin the international order.
We should never assume consent. First, in the face of growing protectionism, we need to make the case for International Trade, emphasising that our mutual prosperity depends on it - while taking seriously the needs and concerns of those who feel left behind. Secondly, we need to reemphasize our belief in human dignity and the importance of protecting our shared resources.
The global goods as we see them - human rights, tackling climate change, protecting the taonga of our wildlife and natural resources, gender rights, tackling poverty, tackling modern slavery - are not just good things to do in an altruistic, fluffy kind of way: they make sense in terms of the economics, and national self-interest of a country.
And finally, we need to reinvigorate a belief in multilateralism. International terrorism, climate change, nuclear proliferation, cyber attacks all require global multilateral solutions. But those solutions will only be achieved if we can base them on shared values: and if we can demonstrate the benefits of such co-operation to our citizens. To conclude: the international order has delivered peace and prosperity beyond the imaginings of my grandparents. But if it is to endure, it must adapt and evolve.
And it is for countries like the UK and New Zealand - close friends with shared values, and a shared stake in the international system - to work together to make the case: for reform of the architecture, an updating of the law, and a reinvigoration of the values underpinning the world order. To help us improve GOV. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Skip to main content.
China grew more assertive in East Asia. And they must daily strive to advance the well-being of those people. Sooner or later China will have to rejoin the human race. In other words, democracies do not fight because liberal ideology provides no justification for wars between liberal democracies. The former problems of the Philippines may be attributable to the Spanish colonial legacy, not the flaws of democratic political systems. Note See Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future," p. Africans should design their own approach to democracy, make a good-faith effort to govern well and to have programs work in an efficient manner, and strive for the development of a culture of democracy between the rulers and the ruled.
All suggest that the world order is not equipped to deal with the problems of the modern age. But to assess whether that is really the case, we need to know what we mean by the world order. On those most basic indicators, it has been a resounding success.
There are proportionately fewer violent deaths today than there have ever been in history. Levels of education are steadily increasing.
But that is - in large part - the success of the 20th century. What about the 21st? In some respects, the challenges for the World Order in are the same as those in the 20th century: Hostile and belligerent states such as DPRK remain a threat to peace and stability. And the Rohingya crisis shows us how hard it is to respond, internationally, to sudden and systematic ethnic cleansing. But there are also very real differences between the post-war world, and the world today.