In the realm of global affairs, the United States finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with the question of whether to embrace or abandon its long-standing commitment to the liberal world order. This order, a cornerstone of American foreign policy since World War II, is under siege, not from external forces, but from the very heart of the nation itself. The current political climate in the U.S. is characterized by a growing sentiment that the country's global role is a burden, and that the liberal world order, with its emphasis on U.S.-led alliances, multilateral institutions, and open trade, is outdated and counterproductive. However, this line of thinking is a dangerous, self-fulfilling prophecy, and the consequences of such an abandonment could be dire.
Personally, I think that the notion that the U.S.-led liberal world order is dead and buried is a dangerous assumption. While it is true that the order has been waning for some time, and that the Trump administration has dealt significant damage to it, it would be premature to conclude that there is no hope for its revival. In my opinion, the U.S.-led world order is not only worth saving but also essential for global stability and prosperity. The order has underpinned the most stable, secure, and prosperous 80-year period in world history, and it is crucial to recognize the benefits it has brought to the U.S. and the world.
One thing that immediately stands out is the fact that the U.S.-led order has prevented great-power wars, kept sea-lanes open, and curbed nuclear proliferation. The long peace that followed World War II, which was due in part to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons and the presence of American military forces, alliances, and defense agreements, has been a stabilizing force in the world. Additionally, the liberal international order has fostered the largest expansion of global prosperity in history, lifting over a billion people out of poverty and promoting individual freedom and democracy.
However, the U.S.-led order is not without its flaws. The notion of a rules-based order was always partially false, as the world's strongest powers have consistently exempted themselves when convenient, and trade rules have been enforced asymmetrically. Nevertheless, the order has provided public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes. It is essential to acknowledge these shortcomings and work towards reforming the order rather than abandoning it.
From my perspective, the next U.S. president should set out to update, improve, and sell the idea of an enlightened and U.S.-led world where leadership, rules, values, institutions, and norms still matter. This requires proposing a new bargain with allies, addressing legitimate concerns about the old alliance system, and updating the alliance system to reflect the most likely global challenges of the second quarter of the twenty-first century. Additionally, the president should demonstrate respect for the rules, norms, and institutions that Trump is destroying, and address the global economic imbalances and inequities that contributed to the fading support for the old order.
In conclusion, the U.S.-led liberal world order is not dead yet, and it is essential to recognize its value and work towards reforming it rather than abandoning it. The consequences of such an abandonment could be dire, and the U.S. has a responsibility to maintain its commitment to the order for the sake of global stability and prosperity. Personally, I believe that the U.S. can and should play a leading role in reforming the order, and that the benefits of such an engagement far outweigh the costs.
