Latest news with #Soviet-led
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What is the rules-based order? How this global system has shifted from ‘liberal' origins − and where it could be heading next
The phrase 'international rules-based order' has long been a fixture in global politics. Western leaders often use it to describe a framework of rules, norms and institutions designed to guide state behavior. Advocates argue that this framework has provided the foundation for decades of stability and prosperity, while critics question its fairness and relevance in today's multipolar world. But what exactly is the international rules-based order, when did it come about, and why do people increasingly hear about challenges to it today? The rules-based international order, initially known as the 'liberal international order,' emerged from the devastation of World War II. The vision was ambitious and universal: to create a global system based on liberal democratic values, market capitalism and multilateral cooperation. At its core, however, this project was driven by the United States, which saw itself as the unmatched leader of the new order. The idea was to replace the chaos of great power politics and shifting alliances with a predictable world governed by shared rules and norms. Central to this vision was the establishment of institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These institutions, alongside widely accepted norms and formalized rules, aimed to promote political cooperation, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and economic recovery for countries damaged by war. However, the vision of a truly universal liberal international order quickly unraveled. As the Cold War set in, the world split into two competing blocs. The Western bloc, led by the United States, adhered to the principles of the liberal international order. Meanwhile, the Soviet-led communist bloc established a parallel system with its own norms, rules and institutions. The Warsaw Pact provided military alignment, while the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance managed economic cooperation. The communist bloc emphasized state-led economic planning and single-party rule, rejecting the liberal order's emphasis on democracy and free markets. When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, the liberal international order appeared to have triumphed. The United States became the world's sole superpower, and many former communist states integrated into Western institutions. For a brief period, the order's universal vision seemed within reach. By the 1990s and early 2000s, however, new cracks began to appear. NATO expansion, the creation of the World Trade Organization and greater emphasis on human rights through institutions such as the International Criminal Court all closely aligned with Western liberal values. The spread of these norms and the institutions enforcing them appeared, to many outside the West, as Western ideology dressed up as universal principles. In response to mounting criticism, Western leaders began using the term rules-based international order instead of liberal international order. This shift aimed to emphasize procedural fairness – rules that all states, in theory, had agreed upon – rather than a system explicitly rooted in liberal ideological commitments. The focus moved from promoting specific liberal norms to maintaining stability and predictability. China's rise has brought these tensions into sharp relief. While China participates in many institutions underpinning the rules-based international order, it also seeks to reshape them. The Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank illustrate Beijing's efforts to establish alternative frameworks more aligned with its interests. These initiatives challenge existing rules and norms by offering new institutional pathways for economic and political influence. Meanwhile, Russia's actions in Ukraine – especially the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the 2022 invasion – challenge the order's core principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. link Western inconsistencies have long undermined the credibility of the rules-based order. The 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, widely criticized for bypassing international norms and institutions, exemplified a selective application of the rules. This double standard extends toward Washington's selective engagement with international legal bodies and its inconsistent approach to sovereignty and intervention. Supporters argue that the rules-based order remains vital for addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics and nuclear proliferation. However, ambiguity surrounds what these 'rules' actually entail, which norms are genuinely universal, and who enforces them. This lack of clarity, coupled with shifting global power dynamics, complicates efforts to sustain the system. The future of the rules-based international order is uncertain. The shift from 'liberal' to 'rules-based' reflected an ongoing struggle to adapt a complex web of rules, norms and institutions to a rapidly changing international environment. Whether it evolves further, splinters or endures as is will depend on how well it balances fairness, inclusivity and stability in an increasingly multipolar world. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Andrew Latham, Macalester College Read more: What is isolationism? The history and politics of an often-maligned foreign policy concept The Global South is on the rise – but what exactly is the Global South? How Trump's foreign aid and diplomatic cuts will make it harder for the US to wield soft power to maintain its friendships and win new ones Andrew Latham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Asia Times
12-03-2025
- Business
- Asia Times
Trump brings perestroika to America
In 1989, the Soviet army withdrew from Afghanistan after a ten-year losing battle with the Mujahedeen. Two years later, in 1991, the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact dissolved. Afghanistan solidified its reputation as the 'graveyard of empires.' Fast forward 30 years to 2021, the US army withdrew from Afghanistan after a 20-year battle with the Taliban, the Mujahedeen's successor. Four years later, in 2025, President Donald Trump placed a bomb under NATO, effectively ending the Atlantic alliance. The parallels between the Cold War superpowers extend beyond Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the Soviet economy stagnated, leading to widespread disillusionment with communism. In response, President Mikhail Gorbachev launched 'perestroika', a restructuring of Soviet society. Similarly, after the Ronald Reagan era, a growing segment of the American electorate grew skeptical of the system. Inequality increased and the system seemed rigged by an entrenched ruling elite impervious to the result of elections. In 2016, Trump was elected to 'drain the swamp', promising a drastic overhaul of the American system. Perestroika, initially proposed by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in 1979, aimed to modernize the stagnant Soviet system. In the 1980s, Soviet citizens frequently faced breadlines and empty store shelves, eroding faith in communism. The Soviet government provided housing, education, transportation and free medical care, but military spending consumed 12%–17% of the national budget, draining resources from consumer goods and needs. Meanwhile, the suppression of entrepreneurship made capitalist life dull and uninspired. Brezhnev's successor, Mikhail Gorbachev, introduced 'glasnost', or 'openness', alongside perestroika. However, entrenched bureaucrats resisted reforms, fearing loss of power and the weakening of the Soviet state. Gorbachev's attempt to mix socialism with limited market liberalization backfired, creating confusion, supply shortages, inflation and worsening living standards. His successor, Boris Yeltsin, under the guidance of neoliberal American economists, abruptly transitioned Russia from central planning to full market liberalization. The consequences were devastating: the economy shrank by 50% in the 1990s, pushing millions into poverty. The rushed privatization of state assets led to a fire sale of industries to well-connected insiders, who then funneled their billions abroad. The looting of national wealth only ceased after Vladimir Putin took power, reversing neoliberal excesses and implementing 'Russia First' policies that spurred economic recovery. Three decades after Russia started its reform, Donald Trump was elected on the promise of upending Washington's bureaucracy—the 'swamp' that many voters believed controlled the country regardless of whom held office. Since the 1980s, disillusionment with the US political system had grown, with polls showing that over 60% of Americans felt the country was on the wrong track. Neoliberal policies introduced under Reagan led to unchecked globalization and the deindustrialization of key American sectors. While the USSR marginalized entrepreneurs and elevated workers, the US did the reverse: wealth concentrated at the top, and wages stagnated. By the 2000s, millions of American workers needed two jobs to make ends meet, while CEOs earned over 300 times more than the average worker. Despite being a billionaire with global business interests, Trump resonated with working-class frustration. Re-elected in 2024, he has since escalated his earlier war on entrenched bureaucrats, slashing government jobs, restructuring departments and initiating an unprecedented cost-cutting campaign. On foreign policy, Trump has made waves by shifting America's stance on Ukraine. While he sent military aid to Ukraine during his first term, he has come to agree with Putin's view that prolonging the war is futile and should not have erupted in the first place. As the world transitions to a multipolar order, Trump must navigate numerous domestic challenges. Chief among them is America's $36 trillion national debt. For four decades, US government spending increased exponentially. In 2025, interest payments on the debt will exceed $1 trillion—more than the defense budget. The debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 120%, far above sustainable levels. Trump faces difficult choices. Reducing the debt requires slashing military and social spending. Taxing the ultra-rich would only marginally offset the debt. Failing to reduce the debt would result in hyperinflation, devastating not only the poor but also the middle class. His handling of the national debt may ultimately define his legacy. Trump and Putin, both successors to neoliberal globalists, now find themselves as key players in shaping a new multipolar world. Globalism will not end, but the ideological battle of the 20th century—capitalism vs. communism, left vs right, conservatism vs progressivism—is giving way to pragmatism and national self-interest. China recognized this shift early, with Deng Xiaoping's 1980s reforms blending central planning with market liberalization. Entrepreneurs thrived within government-set boundaries and strategies that aimed at long-term common prosperity. Trump recognizes the Chinese advantage. The biannual election cycle in the US prevents long-term planning. Asked about a drop in the stock market recently, he told an interviewer: 'What I have to do is build a strong country. You can't really watch the stock market. If you look at China, they have a 100-year perspective. We have [a perspective of] a quarter.' The US rightly prides itself on democracy, its Constitution and personal freedoms. However, if Trump's version of perestroika fails to bring systemic political reform, his efforts will bring mostly pain and very little long-term gain.
