The recently concluded Munich Security Conference left us with a dire warning: the post-1945 world order is dead. In its place, we now have a period of “great power politics” where the bigger powers get their way by force.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz solemnly pronounced the dawn of a new age of disorder: “The world order as it has stood for decades no longer exists.” In this new era, freedom is “no longer a given.”
French President Emmanuel Macron had an even more pointed assessment. He says Europe’s old security structures tied to the previous world order are no longer operative. The continent must now prepare for war.
These are not idle pronouncements. Over the past few years, European nations have substantially increased their military spending and overhauled their mobilization policies.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says we are in a “new geopolitics era:” The “old world is gone.”
What was the “old order” that is now being mourned?
This “old order” was built on the optimism of the post-World War II period that peace was an achievable condition if the sovereign equality of nations was respected. Global peace, it was believed, can be ensured by building strong multilateral institutions and a common set of rules governing the interaction of states.
The centerpiece of this global effort to ensure peace prevails is the United Nations (UN) – today a hollow semblance of its former self. The UN was a forum for nations to settle issues among themselves and act in concert if the peace was threatened.
The first test for the UN happened in the early ‘50s when North Korea, supported by China and the Soviet Union, invaded the southern half of the peninsula. Several nations, the Philippines included, dispatched military contingents fighting as one force under the UN banner. The invasion was rolled back after so much fighting.
In a way, the UN’s entry into the Korean War was the outcome of a diplomatic fluke. China was not yet a permanent member of the Security Council. The Soviet ambassador to the UN missed the Council vote. Any permanent member could veto UN action.
Since then, numerous wars have broken out while the Security Council was paralyzed by the powerful veto any permanent member country could cast. The Vietnam War happened. Countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded. The UN Security was absent in all these.
In a few cases, the UN was able to deploy peacekeeping forces in areas threatened by war. These peacekeeping forces, however, were often overpowered by the warring forces.
The UN’s ability to build consensus and enforce a global regime of rules was reinforced by such bodies as the International Criminal Court, the UN Convention on Trade and Development and others. The capacity of UN-linked multilateral agencies was reinforced by other institutions formed on the basis of treaty agreements. These included: the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, the World Bank and the IMF and various other specialized agencies supported by voluntary contributions from member countries.
Over the past few years, the UN has been unable to support its many activities because of declining funding support from members. The US, for instance, withdrew funding from the World Health Organization, forcing the agency to cutback on many of its lifesaving programs in developing countries. China relishes the UN as a forum for making its views heard but has refused to increase its contribution to help the institution perform its missions better.
The sprawling multilateral institution, on which much hope for global peace was once invested, has now become a relic. Few national leaders now speak about establishing a “rules-based international order.” This has become rhetoric from the recent past.
When Russia so blatantly defied the rules on sovereignty and invaded Ukraine, the UN was powerless to do anything about it. When Israel basically demolished Gaza to avenge the terrorist attack on civilians, the UN could not condemn it.
When Trump began imposing tariffs on all the world’s trading nations, no one defended the free trade regime that took decades to build. A wave of populist “anti-globalist” sentiment supported the unilateral action – even as this will throw back the developing nations by decades. The Trump administration blames cheaper imports from the rest of the world for the hollowing out of America’s industrial base – which is precisely the redeeming logic of free trade.
When Trump decided to mount a raid on Venezuela to drag out a tyrant everybody hates, the UN did nothing to condemn this clear violation of a nation’s sovereignty. Today, Trump threatens to initiate yet another undeclared war on Iran and there is no international institution capable of stopping the possible assault.
With the passing of the old order and its regime of rules, there will be fewer protections for the smaller and weaker countries. The big powers will have their way without the niceties of global justice or the traditional respect accorded sovereignty.
We are entering a period where international institutions, finding themselves weaker compared to the big powers, will choose to retreat from the principle of sovereign equality between states. In turn, the big powers will become even more assertive, flaunting their military superiority to get what they want.
What is being replaced are the controlling role of principles such as justice, equality and sovereignty.