As the world inches back to a pre-WW2 order, the ‘middle powers’ face a grave new challenge
As the world inches back to a pre-WW2 order, the ‘middle powers’ face a grave new challenge
In January 2002, I was invited to deliver a keynote address at Columbia University’s Journalism School. The city still carried the weight of the September 11 attacks, and its lingering unease was visible in the expressions of New Yorkers I encountered. During my speech, I reflected on America’s role in shaping the post-war era. “I was born 15 years after the Second World War,” I remarked, “in a world America constructed. The peace and prosperity of Western Europe, which I grew up in, was largely the result of U.S. efforts.” I highlighted how American military strength had curbed Soviet expansion, and how the Marshall Plan had transformed economies and rekindled democratic institutions across Europe.
Among the audience were students, many of whom had not yet witnessed the geopolitical shifts that would soon redefine global dynamics. A young man near the front of the room appeared to be around 20, his face streaked with tears as he fought to hold back a sob. After the event, he approached me with a heartfelt confession. “I’m sorry I lost it in there,” he said. “Your words remind us that we’re feeling exposed and uncertain. America needs to hear this from its international allies.” At the time, I considered how fortunate our generation had been to live in an era where the international order was governed by structured frameworks, rather than the unchecked dominance of great powers.
Years later, a classmate’s question resurfaced in my mind. He had arrived in New York days prior to the 9/11 attacks from Pakistan to pursue his studies. “Don’t you find it intriguing,” he asked, “that the United States, born from a rebellion against arbitrary British rule, now embodies arbitrary power on the global stage?” His words reframed the narrative: the U.S., he argued, had become the arbiter of dominance, its influence perceived as benevolent within its borders but harsh and unaccountable beyond. This duality, he suggested, mirrored the Roman Empire’s legacy, where the citadel’s inhabitants enjoyed security, while those on its fringes faced relentless control.
A rules-based system in question
The Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney echoed this sentiment at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “We knew the story of the rules-based international order was incomplete,” he stated. “The powerful often bypassed its constraints when it suited them. Trade agreements were enforced unevenly, and international law varied in its application depending on the accused or the victim.” This critique aligns with the student’s perspective, revealing the gaps in a system meant to uphold fairness.
Donald Trump’s recent appearance at Davos underscored this tension. He sought to assert control over Greenland, framing Denmark’s stance as mere tokenism. “Denmark has only added one more dog sled,” he declared, suggesting the European Union’s support was disingenuous. His remarks highlighted a growing disdain for certain allies, a sentiment shared by figures like Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who referred to European nations as “PATHETIC” in a Signal group chat last year. Even the Editor of The Atlantic had joined the conversation, further illustrating the blurring lines between criticism and camaraderie.