Commentary: Might makes right. Welcome to the new world disorder

Donald Trump’s resounding election to a second term as U.S. president sealed the deal on a new world disorder.

The liberal, rules-based order that had shaped the rules of the game since World War II was already on its heels. It had proved wholly unable to prevent, punish or halt Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, a violent war in Sudan threatening tens of millions with famine, the rise of authoritarian China and its threat to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, or Israel’s large-scale violence against civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, to name just a few. The rules of that system had always been applied inconsistently, but now they seem to no longer apply at all to some. Many around the world had already lost faith that they benefited from it. It was ripe for a reckoning.

What replaces it though will be far worse. The flawed and inconsistent liberal world order isn’t being ousted by one that is more equitable or more stable or that answers to the needs of more countries and people. The new order, such as it is, will benefit the few who can wield their power most ruthlessly and effectively, and their like-minded allies and sycophants. In this new reality, might makes right and the strong prevail over the weak and the rest.

Those who drive and direct this new order will be the illiberal strongmen whose power and numbers have been on the rise: Trump and the many authoritarians he so admires. This includes not only Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, but also Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. None of these are individuals I’d entrust to govern here at home, but that is effectively what America has now put in charge. Trump doesn’t hide his affection for the strongman approach.

What each of these men has in common is that they are out foremost for their own interests, power and political preservation at any cost. Some have popular support at home, but it’s based on stoking fear and fealty and controlling information, not on governance outcomes. Another trait they share is a disinterest in addressing the shared global threats that only collective action can take on, such as climate change and pandemics. The new reality is a zero-sum game, in which the winners are individuals, not even countries or peoples. Most of us will be the losers.

The defenders of the dying rules-based international order share some of the blame for this unfortunate shift. The opening for a new world order emerged because the old one failed to deliver. President Joe Biden made much of protecting and preserving the existing system, but he, too, perpetuated only an a la carte approach. If you call out and punish your enemies’ violations of international rules but not those of your friends, you’re reinforcing favors to favorites, not rules. Much of the “ global majority,” meaning the bulk of humanity (85%) that isn’t ethnically white and Western, saw this Washington-led order as hypocritical and designed to keep the West in control. Strongmen like Putin exploited that perception.

There was a chance that a Kamala Harris administration would have hewed closer to the rule of international law and institutions, strengthening a weakening system and preventing its wholesale demise. But it would be folly to bet on major change from a candidate who failed to separate herself from the policy approach of her boss, and major change was the only thing that could have saved it.

Instead of a course correction that could enhance the international order so that it serves more people better, we’ll be getting one that serves the strongmen alone.

So what does this new world disorder look like in practice? It largely reflects Trump’s worldview. Rules apply only insofar as they can be enforced, and they will be enforced by the strongest only when the strongest so choose. The strongest will choose to only when it suits them, usually with an eye to their short-term interests and security rather than long-term stability and prosperity. Weak states and minority communities will have no defenses but those that they can negotiate from the powerful. Law will have no sway over bullies.

Some Americans might find this reality amenable, thinking, hey, we’re the top dog, so that’s a world we can live with. America first, after all. But, like it or not, we live in a globalized world now. Our prosperity and security are intertwined with that of our allies, partners and even adversaries in our trade, travel and technology. The system we’re ousting is one that served us quite well in that context, even if it disappointed others.

The liberal international order, for all its shortcomings, was designed and intended to promote global prosperity. It advocated global cooperation to create a bigger pie we all benefit from. In a might-makes-right world, that possibility isn’t even on the table.

____

Elizabeth Shackelford is senior policy director at Dartmouth College’s Dickey Center for International Understanding and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of“The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”

___