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 bore the marks of its recent trauma, and you could see it in the expressions of New Yorkers who shared their stories. During my talk, I reflected on the United States’ role in shaping the post-war world. “I was born 15 years after the Second World War,” I began, “in a world America constructed. The peace, security, and rising prosperity of Western Europe during my youth were largely a product of American influence.” I noted how U.S. military strength had halted Soviet expansion in the West and enabled the rebuilding of European economies through initiatives like the Marshall Plan, which revived democratic institutions and fostered stability.
Among the audience, a young man near the front caught my attention. He appeared around 20, his face streaked with tears as he struggled to contain a sob. Later, at a drinks reception, he approached me. “I’m sorry I lost it in there,” he said, “Your words: right now we are feeling raw and vulnerable. America needs to hear this stuff from its foreign friends.” This moment crystallized my awareness of a broader tension. My generation, and his, had been fortunate to live in an era where the international system operated under established rules, a contrast to the arbitrary dominance of Great Powers.
A different lens on the rules-based order
It was a student from Pakistan who posed a question that lingered long after the speech. “Don’t you find it interesting,” he said, “that the US, which was born from a revolt against arbitrary [British] power, now embodies the very thing it once opposed?” His words framed the debate anew, emphasizing the disparity between those within the “West” and those on its periphery. “If you are lucky enough to live within the walls of the imperial citadel,” he continued, “you experience American power as something benign. It protects you, bestows freedom, and is accountable through democratic institutions. But if, like me, you live on the barbarian fringes of Empire, you see it as an unyielding force, capable of acting without constraint or oversight.”
Mark Carney, Canada’s Prime Minister, echoed this sentiment at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week. “We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false,” he stated. “That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced unevenly. And that international law applied with varying rigor, depending on who was accused or who was harmed.” This critique resonated with the student’s observation, highlighting the uneven distribution of benefits in the global system.
Trump’s defiance of the established order
Trump’s presence at Davos last week underscored the challenges to this framework. He sought to assert control over Greenland, claiming Denmark’s defense of the territory amounted to “adding one more dog sled.” This remark revealed a dismissive attitude toward European allies, a sentiment reinforced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who referred to certain European partners as “PATHETIC” in a Signal conversation with Vice-President JD Vance last year. Hegseth had not yet realized that the Editor of *The Atlantic* magazine had been included in the group.
As the world drifts toward a new era reminiscent of pre-WW2 dynamics, the middle powers—nations like the U.S. and its allies—now grapple with a shifting balance of power. The student’s question, once a personal reflection, has become a broader commentary on how the U.S. has transformed from a champion of order to a symbol of its own unbridled authority, leaving many to wonder if the era of shared values and accountability is truly over.
