Don’t rush to mourn the end of a liberal international order that too often put order before liberalismThe historian Steven Shapin opened his account of The Scientific Revolution with the line: “There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution, and this is a book about it.” It is tempting to say much the same about the “liberal international order” (LIO), that “there is no such thing as the liberal international order and there are hundreds of books about it”. And this column, too.There was a Scientific Revolution. And there has been since the Second World War a global framework that has helped order international relations. But whether that framework can be described as “liberal” or embodies what champions of the LIO claim it does – “an open world connected by the free flow of people, goods, ideas and capital” that was, in the words of Antony Blinken, the outgoing US secretary of state, “America’s greatest contribution to peace and progress” – is questionable. Continue reading...
The article argues that the commonly lauded "liberal international order" (LIO) is a flawed concept. While it does acknowledge the existence of a post-WWII framework governing international relations, author Kenan Malik challenges the idea that this framework is truly "liberal" or effective in promoting peace.
The article critiques the LIO for failing to fulfill its stated goals of global peace and progress, suggesting it has instead fueled the rise of populism by exacerbating inequality and neglecting the needs of many. It also highlights the inconsistencies and changes within the LIO over time, questioning the validity of simplistic narratives surrounding its successes or failures.
Ultimately, the main argument is that the term "liberal international order" is an oversimplification, masking the complexities and contradictions of the post-war world. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of this period, recognizing both its achievements and its shortcomings.
The article argues that the commonly lauded "liberal international order" (LIO) is a flawed concept. While it does acknowledge the existence of a post-WWII framework governing international relations, author Kenan Malik challenges the idea that this framework is truly "liberal" or effective in promoting peace. The article critiques the LIO for failing to fulfill its stated goals of global peace and progress, suggesting it has instead fueled the rise of populism by exacerbating inequality and neglecting the needs of many. It also highlights the inconsistencies and changes within the LIO over time, questioning the validity of simplistic narratives surrounding its successes or failures. Ultimately, the main argument is that the term "liberal international order" is an oversimplification, masking the complexities and contradictions of the post-war world. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of this period, recognizing both its achievements and its shortcomings.
