I’ve seen a lot of folks on the left glom onto an idea that wasn’t in Carney’s speech, that the entire post war system was a sham. It was far from perfect, but certainly not a sham. At its best, it saw respect for the rule of law to a degree that dictators could move their assets to the “West”, where they could defend them from seizure by the courts in those countries. Not because people in those countries especially like dictators, but because as gratifying as it would be to return their ill-gotten loot to the countries they looted, but because the rule of law was more important.

Of course there are many interpretation of the same series of events. We are biased against seeing what is counter to our narratives. Like the shooting of Alex Pretti demonstrates in real time, some people will always refuse to believe their lying eyes. They will discount 100% of the information they do not like and see the information they like as the totality of the truth. Just like I see many take the view Carney was saying the old international order was a sham. Was the post World War II based order flawed and subject to abuse? Yes, of course it was, just as people have abused every institution. And it’s hard to ignore the benefits of trade the post WWII order has brought to countries as large as the United States and as small as Singapore.

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

When I listened to, and read, Mark Carney’s speech, I did not take away the admission by an insider that the system was a sham, but rather the imperfect but beneficial system was coming to an end. I would agree with Nesrine Malik, for example, that there were evident cracks in the system going for quite a while, and that a sitting US President justifying the use of forms of torture considered to have been war crimes in 1945, was one of those cracks. In Carney’s remarks there’s an acknowledgement of a system that functioned imperfectly, but not a wholesale condemndation. While the rules sometimes did not appear to apply to some countries, they did generally apply. And that facilitated trade, relations, and a growth in global wealth. The fact that imperfect system is dead is not a good thing, which I think is also implied by Carney. But maybe we need to think about how we got to this moment.

In 1945, most people in their 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s that were in power, had seen or fought in two horrible wars. In the first war, a generation of young men in Europe had been gutted. They were left dead in the mud in France and on the Italian border. There was a hope, in 1918, that such a horrible war would never happen again. If you were in your late 40’s or early 50’s, you might have served in the Great War or known someone who died, or a family who lost someone in those wars. It was hard to imagine anything worse. But in 1945 you find yourself left standing in an even more ruined, horrified, and murdered world. Something had to change.

That was why we initially put the signs in the window. Did it work? Most times it did, even if we had to stumble and find the way while not every country was a willing participant. It did not work well for every country in the world, but we developed an international system of commerce that has lifted billions of people out of poverty. India and China alone have seen the most brutal, horrible poverty fall off to a large degree. While much of Africa has not fared as well, many countries have see significant and sustained improvements for their populations. All made possible by secure sea lanes, mechanisms for settling international disputes in courts, and the ability to enforce their rights even in their offender’s courts. The French, English, Portuguese, and Spanish were forced to divest from their colonies, in part because of the United States¹ as well as the Soviet Union.

What has broken down? The worst of the rot has been in China and America. I think if it is not clear at this point that China has no interest in the rule of law or international rule of law, you are horribly deluded. While their wealth was enabled by that system, now that they have wealth, they do not feel bound to that system. The experiment that a developed China would liberalize and join other nations in that order has been a devastating failure. Their trade policies and grossly self-serving foreign policy have made the US and all of Europe more than a little wary.

America’s break down is different, and the result of internal rot. And it is not without a counter-part in Europe. Much like the UK, America is very different depending where you reside. The “blue” parts enjoy longer life expectancy, better services, and more income. And to the degree these benefits are present in the wealthy parts of America, they are absent in much of he rest. The “reds” (rightfully or wrongly) see it as the by product of a system run by international elites and at the expense of their America. Not only has this caused many Americans to abandon their belief in trade and an international, rules-based order, they now question basic American rights and law. A vocal plurality of Americans want half the country arrested and shot or imprisoned by military courts This should be much more frightening and deserving of more attention. And I can’t see why more do not see a bright, clear line connecting it to both a new American Imperialism and a loss of confidence in the domestic system.

The last 25 years have seen once-in-a-lifetime economic crisis after crisis highlighting that few appear to benefit from the current order, while many pay. The 2008 financial crisis was especially damaging with no one facing any accountability². Which Americans believe that rule of law, international alliances, and trans-national legal frameworks are the way forward? Mostly it’s older Americans, particularly in blue states and cities. They are the remaining beneficiaries of that world order, with many red state Americans and people under 40 seeing themselves as the losers³. That is not a winning coalition if you want to see American continue to be an enthusiastic supporter of a wider world order, even if it actually benefits America. Until that changes, America will not participate in that world order. Or at least not in a constructive manner. Much like climate change, US dependence becomes something middle powers need to mitigate.

Will this be a more just world? I have no idea. I’m certain economic development, if not retreating, will become slower and harder to come by. For Canada and Mexico, trade with America should be incredibly cheap. Nothing has to be shipped across a great ocean. Forging alliances with more distant countries requires more energy and work to exchange goods and secure trade routes. Middle powers are forced to choose the less efficient option because it provides a level of insurance when the hegemonic interests of China or America ask for too high a price. This diversity is not prosperity regardless of what the United States or China does, but it prevents complete collapse should the demands become too large. The same will be true for Europe, South America, and parts of Asia. Rather than trading with the lowest cost, most efficient partner, they will need to spend more on defense and infrastructure to fund that insurance.

But there is no alternative. China has little use for the old order, now that it is wealthy, and America is abandoning that order because of necrosis in its social tissues. While I doubt the remnants of NATO will have to fight America any time soon, I see no path to a better tomorrow. The people who knew the horror that begged them to build something better are gone. In fact, those who want to destroy the system adopt the symbols of the worst of the evil to chip away at the last deference to that old order. Whether it’s Stalinist or Nazi memes, the goal is to signify they no longer buy into the dying or dead international order. They are figuratively pissing on the graves of all those who tried to build a better world out of the horror of an older world. The great irony is the way forward may be more international order. That stronger institutions and more alliances are the way forward for middle powers. Until the United States and China suffer some calamity or deterioration that forces them to take a more equitable and less coercive position, I see no other way.

1. The United States has a complicated relationship with colonialism. It doesn’t view Puerto Rico or (at one time) the Philippines as colonies, or US adventures in South America as colonialism, many Americans did not care for European style colonialism. ↩︎
2. In fact, the opposite of equity. The C-suite people sued to get their bonuses, payable because money was injected into their banks. Main street was billed for the losses, while Wall Street got to keep the gains. ↩︎
3. As do a number of Europeans who are not able to find a well paying job or afford a home. It might express itself slightly differently, but it’s the same “we’ve been had and exploited” mentality. ↩︎