Brownstone Institute
The Fraying of the Liberal International Order
From the Brownstone Institute
International politics is the struggle for the dominant normative architecture of world order based on the interplay of power, economic weight and ideas for imagining, designing and constructing the good international society. For several years now many analysts have commented on the looming demise of the liberal international order established at the end of the Second World War under US leadership.
Over the last several decades, wealth and power have been shifting inexorably from the West to the East and has produced a rebalancing of the world order. As the centre of gravity of world affairs shifted to the Asia-Pacific with China’s dramatic climb up the ladder of great power status, many uncomfortable questions were raised about the capacity and willingness of Western powers to adapt to a Sinocentric order.
For the first time in centuries, it seemed, the global hegemon would not be Western, would not be a free market economy, would not be liberal democratic, and would not be part of the Anglosphere.
More recently, the Asia-Pacific conceptual framework has been reformulated into the Indo-Pacific as the Indian elephant finally joined the dance. Since 2014 and then again especially after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February last year, the question of European security, political and economic architecture has reemerged as a frontline topic of discussion.
The return of the Russia question as a geopolitical priority has also been accompanied by the crumbling of almost all the main pillars of the global arms control complex of treaties, agreements, understandings and practices that had underpinned stability and brought predictability to major power relations in the nuclear age.
The AUKUS security pact linking Australia, the UK, and the US in a new security alliance, with the planned development of AUKUS-class nuclear-powered attack submarines, is both a reflection of changed geopolitical realities and, some argue, itself a threat to the global nonproliferation regime and a stimulus to fresh tensions in relations with China. British Prime Minister (PM) Rishi Sunak said at the announcement of the submarines deal in San Diego on March 13 that the growing security challenges confronting the world—“Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, China’s growing assertiveness, the destabilising behaviour of Iran and North Korea”—“threaten to create a world codefined by danger, disorder and division.”
For his part, President Xi Jinping accused the US of leading Western countries to engage in an “all-around containment, encirclement and suppression of China.”
The Australian government described the AUKUS submarine project as “the single biggest investment in our defence capability in our history” that “represents a transformational moment for our nation.” However, it could yet be sunk by six minefields lurking underwater: China’s countermeasures, the time lag between the alleged imminence of the threat and the acquisition of the capability, the costs, the complexities of operating two different classes of submarines, the technological obsolescence of submarines that rely on undersea concealment, and domestic politics in the US and Australia.
Regional and global governance institutions can never be quarantined from the underlying structure of international geopolitical and economic orders. Nor have they proven themselves to be fully fit for the purpose of managing pressing global challenges and crises like wars, and potentially existential threats from nuclear weapons, climate-related disasters and pandemics.
To no one’s surprise, the rising and revisionist powers wish to redesign the international governance institutions to inject their own interests, governing philosophies, and preferences. They also wish to relocate the control mechanisms from the major Western capitals to some of their own capitals. China’s role in the Iran–Saudi rapprochement might be a harbinger of things to come.
The ”Rest” Look for Their Place in the Emerging New Order
The developments out there in “the real world,” testifying to an inflection point in history, pose profound challenges to institutions to rethink their agenda of research and policy advocacy over the coming decades.
On 22–23 May, the Toda Peace Institute convened a brainstorming retreat at its Tokyo office with more than a dozen high-level international participants. One of the key themes was the changing global power structure and normative architecture and the resulting implications for world order, the Indo-Pacific and the three US regional allies Australia, Japan, and South Korea. The two background factors that dominated the conversation, not surprisingly, were China–US relations and the Ukraine war.
The Ukraine war has shown the sharp limits of Russia as a military power. Both Russia and the US badly underestimated Ukraine’s determination and ability to resist (“I need ammunition, not a ride,” President Volodymyr Zelensky famously said when offered safe evacuation by the Americans early in the war), absorb the initial shock, and then reorganise to launch counter-offensives to regain lost territory. Russia is finished as a military threat in Europe. No Russian leader, including President Vladimir Putin, will think again for a very long time indeed of attacking an allied nation in Europe.
That said, the war has also demonstrated the stark reality of the limits to US global influence in organising a coalition of countries willing to censure and sanction Russia. If anything, the US-led West finds itself more disconnected from the concerns and priorities of the rest of the world than at any other time since 1945. A study published in October from Cambridge University’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy provides details on the extent to which the West has become isolated from opinion in the rest of the world on perceptions of China and Russia. This was broadly replicated in a February 2023 study from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
The global South in particular has been vocal in saying firstly that Europe’s problems are no longer automatically the world’s problems, and secondly that while they condemn Russia’s aggression, they also sympathise quite heavily with the Russian complaint about NATO provocations in expanding to Russia’s borders. In the ECFR report, Timothy Garton-Ash, Ivan Krastev, and Mark Leonard cautioned Western decision-makers to recognise that “in an increasingly divided post-Western world,” emerging powers “will act on their own terms and resist being caught in a battle between America and China.”
US global leadership is hobbled also by rampant domestic dysfunctionality. A bitterly divided and fractured America lacks the necessary common purpose and principle, and the requisite national pride and strategic direction to execute a robust foreign policy. Much of the world is bemused too that a great power could once again present a choice between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for president.
The war has solidified NATO unity but also highlighted internal European divisions and European dependence on the US military for its security.
The big strategic victor is China. Russia has become more dependent on it and the two have formed an effective axis to resist US hegemony. China’s meteoric rise continues apace. Having climbed past Germany last year, China has just overtaken Japan as the world’s top car exporter, 1.07 to 0.95 million vehicles. Its diplomatic footprint has also been seen in the honest brokerage of a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia and in promotion of a peace plan for Ukraine.
Even more tellingly, according to data published by the UK-based economic research firm Acorn Macro Consulting in April, the BRICS grouping of emerging market economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) now accounts for a larger share of the world’s economic output in PPP dollars than the G7 group of industrialised countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, USA). Their respective shares of global output have fallen and risen between 1982 and 2022 from 50.4 percent and 10.7 percent, to 30.7 percent and 31.5 percent. No wonder another dozen countries are eager to join the BRICS, prompting Alec Russell to proclaim recently in The Financial Times: “This is the hour of the global south.”
The Ukraine war might also mark India’s long overdue arrival on the global stage as a consequential power. For all the criticisms of fence-sitting levelled at India since the start of the war, this has arguably been the most successful exercise of an independent foreign policy on a major global crisis in decades by India. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar even neatly turned the fence-sitting criticism on its head by retorting a year ago that “I am sitting on my ground” and feeling quite comfortable there. His dexterity in explaining India’s policy firmly and unapologetically but without stridency and criticism of other countries has drawn widespread praise, even from Chinese netizens.
On his return after the G7 summit in Hiroshima, the South Pacific and Australia, PM Narendra Modi commented on 25 May: “Today, the world wants to know what India is thinking.” In his 100th birthday interview with The Economist, Henry Kissinger said he is “very enthusiastic” about US close relations with India. He paid tribute to its pragmatism, basing foreign policy on non-permanent alliances built around issues rather than tying up the country in big multilateral alliances. He singled out Jaishankar as the current political leader who “is quite close to my views.”
In a complementary interview with The Wall Street Journal, Kissinger also foresees, without necessarily recommending such a course of action, Japan acquiring its own nuclear weapons in 3-5 years.
In a blog published on 18 May, Michael Klare argues that the emerging order is likely to be a G3 world with the US, China, and India as the three major nodes, based on attributes of population, economic weight and military power (with India heading into being a major military force to be reckoned with, even if not quite there yet). He is more optimistic about India than I am but still, it’s an interesting comment on the way the global winds are blowing. Few pressing world problems can be solved today without the active cooperation of all three.
The changed balance of forces between China and the US also affects the three Pacific allies, namely Australia, Japan, and South Korea. If any of them starts with a presumption of permanent hostility with China, then of course it will fall into the security dilemma trap. That assumption will drive all its policies on every issue in contention, and will provoke and deepen the very hostility it is meant to be opposing.
Rather than seeking world domination by overthrowing the present order, says Rohan Mukherjee in Foreign Affairs, China follows a three-pronged strategy. It works with institutions it considers both fair and open (UN Security Council, WTO, G20) and tries to reform others that are partly fair and open (IMF, World Bank), having derived many benefits from both these groups. But it is challenging a third group which, it believes, are closed and unfair: the human rights regime.
In the process, China has come to the conclusion that being a great power like the US means never having to say you’re sorry for hypocrisy in world affairs: entrenching your privileges in a club like the UN Security Council that can be used to regulate the conduct of all others.
Instead of self-fulfilling hostility, former Australian foreign secretary Peter Varghese recommends a China policy of constrainment-cum-engagement. Washington may have set itself the goal of maintaining global primacy and denying Indo-Pacific primacy to China, but this will only provoke a sullen and resentful Beijing into efforts to snatch regional primacy from the US. The challenge is not to thwart but to manage China’s rise—from which many other countries have gained enormous benefits, with China becoming their biggest trading partner—by imagining and constructing a regional balance in which US leadership is crucial to a strategic counterpoint.
In his words, “The US will inevitably be at the centre of such an arrangement, but that does not mean that US primacy must sit at its fulcrum.” Wise words that should be heeded most of all in Washington but will likely be ignored.
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
There is a lack of public comment and debate about Kamala Harris’s call for price controls on groceries and rents, the most stunning and frightening policy proposal made in my lifetime.
Immediately, of course, people will reply that she is not for price controls as such. It is only a limit on “gouging” (which she variously calls “gauging”) on grocery prices. As for rents, it’s only for larger-scale corporations with many units.
This is nonsense. If there really are national price-gouging police running around, every single seller of groceries, from small convenience stores to farmers’ markets to chain stores, will be vulnerable. No one wants the investigation so they will comply with de facto controls. No one knows for sure what gouging is.
Don Boudreaux is correct: “A government that threatens to punish merchants for selling at nominal prices higher than deemed appropriate by government clearly intends to control prices. It’s no surprise, therefore, that economists routinely analyze prohibitions against so-called ‘price gouging’ using exactly the same tools they use to analyze other forms of price controls.”
As for rental units, the only result will be fewer amenities, new charges, new fees for what used to be free, less service, and a dramatically reduced incentive to build new units. That will only lead to a pretext for more subsidies, more public housing, and more government provision generally. We have experience with that and it is not good.
The next step is nationalizing housing and rationing of groceries because there will be ever fewer available.
The more the betting odds favor Kamala, the stronger the incentive to raise prices as high as possible now in anticipation of price controls come next year. That will provide even more seeming evidence for the need for more controls and a genuine crackdown.
Price controls lead to shortages of anything they touch, especially in inflationary times. With the Federal Reserve seemingly on the verge of cutting rates for no good reason – rates are very low in real terms by any historical standard – we might see wave two of inflation later next year.
Stay Informed with Brownstone Institute
Here are real interest rates historically considered as they stand. Do you see a case here for lowering them?
Next time, however, merchants will not be in a position to respond rationally. Instead, they will confront federal price investigators and prosecutors.
Kamala is wrong that this will be the “first-ever” ban on price gouging. We had that in World War II, along with rationing tickets on meat, animal fats, foil, sugar, flour, foil, coffee, and more. It was a time of extreme austerity, and people put up with it because they believed it was saving resources for the war effort. It was enforced the same as we saw with covid lockdowns: a huge network enlisting state and local institutions, media, and private zealots ready to rat out the rebels.
Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8875 on August 28, 1941. It claimed broad powers to manage all production and consumption in the US. On January 30, 1942, the Emergency Price Control Act granted the Office of Price Administration (OPA) the authority to set price limits and ration food and other commodities. Products were added as shortages intensified.
And yes, all of this was heavily enforced.
In case you are doing the math, that’s a $200,000 fine today for noncompliance. In other words, this was very serious and highly coercive.
Technology limited enforcement, however, and black markets sprung up everywhere. The so-called Meatleggers were the most famous and most demonized by government propaganda.
What happens when the government restricts meat consumption?
During World War II, food rationing led to significant changes in consumption habits in the United States.
Adults and children over 12 were limited to 2 lbs of meat per week, which was monitored through rationing… pic.twitter.com/goCU1FGMnD
— Meat Head (@markeatsmeat) February 20, 2024
In a nation with more agriculture in demographic proximity, people relied on local farmers and various methods of bartering goods and services.
Years went by and somehow people got through it but production for civilian purposes came to a near standstill. The GDP for the period looked like growth but the reality was a continuation and intensification of the Great Depression that began more than a decade earlier.
There are fewer people alive now that recall these days but I’ve known some. They adopted habits of extreme conservation. I once had a neighbor who simply could not bear to throw away tin-foil pie pans because she had lived through rationing. After she died, her kids discovered her vast collection and it shocked them. She was not crazy, just traumatized.
How would such a thing transpire today? Look at the program SNAP, the new name for food stamps. For those who qualify, the money goes into a special account managed by the federal government. The recipient is sent an EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card, which is used like a credit card in stores. It costs taxpayers some $114 billion a year, and works out as a huge subsidy to Big Agriculture, which is why the program is administered by the Department of Agriculture.
Transitioning that program to the general population would not be difficult. It would be a simple matter of expansion of eligibility. As shortages grow, so too could the program until the entire population would be on it and it would be mandatory. It could also be converted into a mobile app instead of a piece of plastic as a fraud-prevention measure. With everyone carrying cell phones, this would be an easy step.
And where could people spend the money? Only at participating institutions. Would non-participation institutions be entitled to sell food, for example, at local farmers’ co-ops? Maybe at first but that’s before the media demonization campaigns come along to decry the rich who are eating more than their fair share and the sellers who are exploiting the national emergency.
You can sell how this all unfolds, and none of it is implausible. Only a few years ago, governments around the country canceled gatherings for religious holidays, limited the numbers of people who could gather in homes, and banned public weddings and funerals. If they can do that, they can do anything, including the rationing of all food.
The program that Harris has proposed is not like other matters that she has flip-flopped on. She is serious and repeats it. She spoke about it even during the debate with Trump but there was no followup or critique of the scheme offered. Nor does such a crazy plan require some legislation and a vote by Congress. It could come in the form of an executive order. Yes, it would be tested by the Supreme Court but, if recent history holds, the program would be long in effect before the Court weighed in. Nor is it clear how it would rule.
The Supreme Court in 1942 heard the case of Albert Yakus, a Boston-based meat seller who was criminally prosecuted for violating the wholesale beef price ceiling. In Yakus vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled for the government and against the meat-selling criminal. That’s the existing precedent.
Nor does all this have to unfold immediately following the inauguration. It can happen as matters become ever worse following anti-gouging edicts and when inflation worsens. After all, a presidency that believes in central planning and forced economic austerity would last a full four years, and the coercion could grow month after month until we have comprehensively enforced deprivation by the end, and no one remembers what it was like to buy groceries at market prices with their own money.
I wish I could say that this is an outlandish and fear-mongering warning. It is not. It is a very realistic scenario based on repeated statements and promises plus the recent history of government management of the population. There is likely another wave of inflation coming. This time it will meet with a promise to use every coercive power of government to prevent increases in prices on groceries and rents.
What if voters actually understood this? What then?
Keep in mind the main legacy of the Covid years: governments learned the fullness of what they could do under the right circumstances. That’s the worst possible lesson but that is what has stuck. The implications for the future are grim.
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
Accountability for those responsible for the disasters of global governments’ handling of the Covid-19 pandemic is nearly impossible. For several reasons.
Namely, that accountability would have to come from those currently in government. Many, if not most, of whom supported the mask mandates, vaccine passports, and other absurdities inflicted on the global public. It would also require those responsible to actually acknowledge their mistakes, then take responsibility for them. How often do we see politicians or influential public figures admit that they were wrong?
Especially when the consequences were, and are, so severe.
It’s refreshing when we see the rare blissful examples of people in charge, those who will influence decisions, admitting that mistakes were made. That absurd policies with no basis in science were forced on the public. And apologize for their role in it.
Former Australian Premier Admits Vaccine Mandates Were Wrong
Dominic Perrottet is the former premier in New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state and home to Sydney. Australia, infamously, was one of the most prolific spreaders of Covid misinformation during the pandemic, while also being home to some of the world’s most restrictive policies and mandates.
While Daniel Andrews from the state of Victoria often receives most of the criticism, and rightfully so, for his extremism during the pandemic, New South Wales was nearly as restrictive.
The state under Gladys Berejiklian banned gatherings of 500 people or more in March, with the order enforced by state police with punishment including prison time, fines, or both. They closed their borders, even to other Australians, from July 8th, 2020 to November 2020, then again from January 2021 to the middle of February 2021. Even after the borders opened, visitors returning to the state from Victoria were forced to quarantine.
NSW made QR code check-ins mandatory in 2021 for “contact tracing,” a laughable, futile attempt to track a highly infectious respiratory virus. Retail stores, taxis, offices, and many other locations required individuals to scan a QR code upon entry.
In March 2020 they also made it illegal for more than two people to gather at a time, as well as banning people from leaving their own homes without a “reasonable excuse.” That’s not an exaggeration; the law quite literally states “that a person must not, without reasonable excuse, leave the person’s place of residence.”
Masks were mandated, including at outdoor events, well past 2021 and into 2022. In fact, as late as August 2021 NSW enforced curfews from 9 pm to 5 am and made masks mandatory anytime someone left their home. In late September, some restrictions were relaxed, allowing residents to create a 3-person “friend bubble” where leisure activities were permitted.
By October, the state reached an 80% full vaccination rate, allowing for the vaccinated to regain a small measure of freedom.
As with the rest of Australia, none of it worked. Lockdowns, mandates, an 80% vaccination rate, restrictions on the unvaccinated — none of it mattered.
Even more hilariously, New South Wales’ vaccine passport system came into effect directly before the state saw its highest rate of Covid spread during the pandemic.
And Perrottet, who presided over the period of vaccine mandates, passports, and unrestrained Covid spread from 2021 into 2023, has now admitted that he and the state were wrong.
“If the impact of vaccines on transmission was limited at best, as is now mostly accepted, the law should have left more room for respect of freedom,” Perrottet said in a recent speech, according to ABC Australia.
“Vaccines saved lives, but ultimately, mandates were wrong. People’s personal choices shouldn’t have cost them their jobs.”
“When I became premier, we removed [vaccine mandates] or the ones we actually could, but this should have happened faster,” he told the legislative assembly this week.
“If a pandemic comes again, we need to get a better balance encouraging people to take action whilst at the same time protecting people’s fundamental liberty.”
This isn’t nearly enough, but it’s still startling to see someone from one of the world’s most authoritarian Covid countries admit that their policies were ineffective and harmful, as well as being an infringement on fundamental liberties.
For perspective, has Joe Biden or Kamala Harris admitted that their illegal vaccine mandate was a mistake? That it was a mistake to bar unvaccinated visitors like Novak Djokovic from entering the country based on misinformation from Dr. Fauci?
Has the CDC acknowledged that their recommendations were arguably wrong, that their claims of vaccine efficacy against infection or transmission were a world-altering, historic failure? What about the media and their role in promoting that misinformation? Have they apologized?
Of course not. Politicians and their media partners don’t acknowledge mistakes; they don’t take responsibility for their actions. Especially when their actions have disastrous consequences. The only way these policies ever permanently end is if more people in positions of power such as Perrottet admit they were wrong.
Fauci, Biden, and Harris never have, and never will. This raises the disturbing thought that they’d easily reimpose those same restrictions again if given the opportunity.
It’s reassuring to see at least one prominent politician admit they were wrong. But there should be more.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
Biden Admin Touts Reduction In Border Crossings While Flying In Hundreds Of Thousands Of Migrants
Bombshell long-term study of Pfizer, Moderna COVID shots shows ‘self-assembling nanostructures’
Border Patrol Agent Lashes Out At Biden-Harris Admin, Calling Job ‘Migrant Concierge Service’ Amid Border Crisis
Police arrest second suspect in August 6 murder and attempted murder in Rocky View County
Proposed emissions cap threatens critical Canada-U.S. energy trade
Public opposition in Regina halts Dewdney Avenue renaming as Kamloops mass grave allegations unravel
Alberta government can soften blow of Ottawa’s capital gains tax hike
-
COVID-192 days agoCanada approves Moderna’s latest experimental COVID shot starting after 6 months old
-
National2 days agoConservatives plan non-confidence vote against Trudeau gov’t next week, setting up possible fall election
-
National1 day agoLiberal House Leader tells gov’t-funded media they must ‘scrutinize’ Conservatives
-
Automotive1 day ago‘Gross Overreach’: Energy Groups Urge Congress To Throw Biden-Harris Admin’s ‘EV Mandate’ Overboard
-
Daily Caller1 day agoEast Anglia educated environmental scholar says it’s time to “Scrap Green Energy Handouts Once And For All”
-
Business1 day agoFeds blow $2.7 million on global film festivals
-
COVID-1919 hours agoTamara Lich laments after Freedom Convoy trial the devastating effects of COVID mandates on society
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoThe Explosive Cost of Canada’s Civil Service Hiring Binge