Reform, don’t abandon, the global order

In the age of Brexit and “America First,” there are growing concerns that the post-Second World War global order is weakening or even collapsing. This year, the UN — the cornerstone institution of the post-war order — will mark its 75th anniversary, and its Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently warned that “a wind of madness is sweeping the globe.”

The post-war global order emerged from the ashes of the Second World War, which killed between 60 and 80 million people. Initial efforts were largely driven by US leaders, who sought to create a rules-based order that would promote prosperity and prevent another conflict of such enormity. The US promoted a new global architecture, in cooperation with the UK and the Soviet Union, and eventually other allies. However, US and Soviet leaders had different ideas about the goals of the global order, laying the foundation for later limitations on what the new system could accomplish.

The post-war order was based on a system of sovereign states, with multilateral institutions to facilitate cooperation and norms to guide their behavior. The UN is the key institution in this system, acting as a platform for multilateral cooperation. The UN was designed to give a voice to every state in the world, while its structure also acknowledged post-war power realities, giving special rights to the US, Soviet Union, UK, France, and China. 

Around the same time that the UN was created, the US and its Western allies established the Bretton Woods institutions to govern monetary relations between states as they rebuilt the global economy. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and what eventually became the World Bank are the key Bretton Woods institutions, which today also include the World Trade Organization and some regional development banks. 

Other global and regional institutions have been layered on top of the UN and Bretton Woods institutions to create an interlinking system of global institutions, with associated norms, to promote cooperation. In particular, the EU developed from efforts to intentionally create dependencies and mutual interests among European states to avoid the type of frequent warfare that predated the Second World War. Other institutions exist to meet specific global and regional needs. 

This post-war architecture existed alongside the Cold War’s bipolar power structure until the fall of the Soviet Union. Global institutions shaped and were shaped by the realities of US-Soviet competition. NATO, a military alliance between the US, Europe and Canada, was created in 1949 as an important multilateral organization in response to Cold War dynamics. The period following the end of the Cold War offered new opportunities and challenges, as global institutions helped to stabilize a world with shifting power structures, while those changes also demonstrated the limits of the old global order. 

In many ways, the post-war architecture of institutions and norms has proved successful. So far, it has achieved its primary goals. There has not been another world war and further nuclear warfare has been avoided. Economic prosperity in most of the world has increased massively. Human health, life expectancy, and overall well-being have all progressed in leaps and bounds since the Second World War. 

The system has achieved many other goals too. There are more democracies today than in 1945. The UN provides and coordinates essential aid to refugees, children and the hungry. Global institutions played key roles in wiping out smallpox and nearly eradicating polio, and today are essential in responding to the coronavirus outbreak.

However, the system has failed many people’s expectations. While no conflict on the scale of the Second World War has taken place, the global order has not prevented numerous horrific conflicts and even genocides. The IMF has been heavily criticized for promoting austerity measures without consideration for their impact on humanitarian and political stability. Reforms have improved this, but it still reflects an economic approach in which many have lost faith. There is a good argument that the system has significantly helped to promote human rights around the world, but it has failed to guarantee them. The system was always unequal — despite efforts to reform institutions to reflect more countries’ interests, the system continues to largely reflect the interests and values of a few powerful states. 

The system today is at risk. Trends such as digitalization, demographic changes, a diffusion of geopolitical and economic power, the rise of China, the 2008 global financial crisis, and rising authoritarian tendencies in multiple democracies are placing growing pressure on the system. For decades, the US was the most crucial advocate for the system, but President Donald Trump has expressed skepticism about the UN, NATO, and multilateral action generally, and his administration picked a World Bank president who has been a critic of the bank and the IMF. With Brexit, one of the global order’s leaders left the world’s most integrated multilateral institutions. In many countries, increasing ethnonationalist movements are rejecting the ideas of human and civil rights for all, which is a core aspiration of the post-war global order. 

The post-war system has many failings. Nonetheless, it has many accomplishments and offers the only institutions available for managing global challenges such as pandemics, climate change, and refugee flows. Reform is clearly necessary, with a pressing need to include more countries in high-level decision-making. Reforming the system is far better than tearing it down. 

• Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 16 years' experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risk. Her previous positions include deputy director for advisory with Oxford Analytica and managing editor of Arms Control Today. Twitter: @KBAresearch