LIBERAL WORLD ORDER: SYDNEY WILLIAMS
http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com
War has always been man’s nemesis, combatting his desire for global peace. Unfortunately, war has won, perhaps because the latter is an unrealistic ideal, not possible given man’s imperfections. Nevertheless, just because world peace has never been achieved does not mean the search for it should cease, though any search should be leavened with realism. We live in a world as it is, not as we would wish it to be.
Does global peace depend on a governing world order, or does it depend on maintaining a balance of power among sovereign nations having membership in organizations like the UN, the IMF and the WHO? If so, how much authority should each state cede to global authorities? A more basic question: Is lasting peace even possible given the fallibility of humans and with states having myriad views on governance? Limited wars may be unavoidable. What should be paramount is reducing the risk of annihilation by nuclear weapons. Should not nations and societies, instead of attempting a world order, first build cultures of respect, tolerance, civility and decency?
In his 2014 book World Order, Henry Kissinger wrote: “No truly ‘global’ world order has ever existed. What passes for order in our time was devised in Western Europe nearly four centuries ago, at a peace conference in the German region of Westphalia.” The Peace of Westphalia concluded the Thirty Years War, and it established modern Europe with sovereign states. Yet their efforts did not prevent Napoleon from trying to unite Europe in the first two decades of the 19th Century, nor did it stop Hitler from trying to do the same 120 years later. It did not prevent lights from “going out all over Europe” in August 1914.
Ironically, it was less global institutions and more the threat of mutually assured destruction between the Soviet Union and the United States that prevented a holocaust between 1949 and 1991. Since the end of the Cold War, however, concern about a nuclear winter has lessened, while the threat has not. India and Pakistan, long-time foes (both nuclear powers), stand toe to toe. North Korea has the material to produce weapons and appeasement of Iran will only accelerate her becoming a nuclear power. With over 17,000 nuclear weapons, some in the hands of countries with little stake in the status quo, should we not be concerned?
The concept of a “liberal world order” has allure, but are the words, by definition, an oxymoron? There is no question that forums for leaders to meet and debate are important. But a “liberal world order” suggests a supranational organization that would dominate sovereign states, which would require an unlikely consensus of political, economic and cultural beliefs. Absent a dictatorship, that would seem impossible in the real world, where capitalism vies with socialism, where rule of law exists in some countries but not in others, and where a belief in individual freedom is true for some but not for all. There are honorable people who seek a liberal world order, some with unrealistic altruistic expectations; but there are others who see such institutions as means to gain personal power.
A preview of how a “liberal world order” might morph into autocratic governance can be seen in the expansion of the administrative state in the U.S. Agencies like the FTC, EPA, DOE and CDC, established by Congress for specific purposes have expanded beyond their mandates through legal loopholes. They have imposed laws, passed judgements and implemented policies never originally intended. It is natural for unaccountable bureaucrats to want to increase their influence and power, just as it is natural for accountable legislators to choose to avoid tough decisions by “passing the buck” onto an agency. Fortunately, for freedom loving Americans, the Supreme Court has recently and successfully challenged many of those expansions. But would that be possible with a supranational governing body?
In my opinion, a “liberal world order” is not axiomatic. Despite the desires of the Davos set, it is not inevitable. It assumes all states would willingly give up sovereignty. It assumes those in charge would always operate in the interest of their subjects. It assumes a goodness on the part of politicians and bureaucrats that experience tells us is unwarranted. It assumes an obedience of citizens to rules that may be alien to those to whom freedom is sacrosanct. In a sea of self-important global grandees, the simplicity in Agatha Christie’s quote, in the rubric above, reflects greater wisdom. It recognizes the importance of individuality and the need for kindliness, which are values learned through a good education, religion, a caring community, and strong families. Like the quest for the Holy Grail or Stuart Little’s search for Margalo, a liberal world order is illusive. It may never be found. In fact, and in my opinion, the world is better off if it never is. But that does not mean a pursuit should be suspended, for the crusade and the questions raised have value.
Comments are closed.
