Back to harsh 'realpolitik'
Sixty-five years ago, John F. Kennedy asked the world not to ask what the United States could do for it, but what they could do together "for the freedom of man." It was the expression of an idealism that, almost half a century later, would resonate in the inaugural address of the first African American president in the country's history. Barack Obama addressed "all other peoples and governments" to assure them that America was "a friend to every nation that seeks a future of peace and dignity" and that his country was prepared, once again, to exercise global leadership.
This American idealism, which believed and still believes in the liberal vision of the world order according to which cooperation between countries is possible and that institutions like the European Union or NATO can facilitate it, is currently experiencing its lowest point. With Putin's invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump's arrival at the White House, many assert that we are witnessing a return to a realpolitik A raw, brutal system where direct military power and economic coercion prevail over norms and consensus.
The current liberal order, now in its death throes, was born on the foundations of a political, yet pragmatic, idealism that connects with realism. This global system based on international rules took shape in the aftermath of World War II, when Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his famous Four Freedoms speech. Roosevelt, a pragmatic idealist whose legacy Kennedy and Obama inherited, believed that force alone was insufficient to defeat totalitarianism; it was necessary to offer a horizon of ideals in which freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear were universal guarantees.
Barrier
From this vision arises the architecture of the liberal order—with the UN, NATO, the Bretton Woods Agreements, and free trade—which has been in crisis for some time, but has been considered necessary to guarantee world peace; or perhaps we should say, the so-called Western democracies, since there have been many wars since then. These institutions, accepted by both pragmatic idealism and the realpolitikThey have served as a bulwark, although the latter current has always viewed them with suspicion and only followed them when they served its own interests.
The recent speech in Davos by the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney was devastating when he spoke of a definitive break in that world order. Carney asserted that multilateralism, despite having operated for decades as a pleasant fiction that major powers only adhered to asymmetrically and out of self-interest, no longer protects small and middle states. In response, Carney proposed a common front of middle powers based on variable geometry.: Flexible coalitions tailored to each issue, based on shared values and interests to counter the hard power of the giants and avoid subordination: "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."
This vision stands in stark contrast to Trump's nationalism, which believes in the law of the strongest and a transactional policy that seeks American hegemony by ignoring treaties and institutions. The New Start treaty expires this week This is the latest symptom of that changing era. With Trump ignoring Putin's proposed extension because he wants to force China to also comply with the limitations, the world loses another fundamental agreement on international cooperation. For the first time since the 1970s, there are no legal limits on the nuclear arsenals of the major powers.
National interests, military power, and great power competition are displacing a rules-based, multilateral world. realpolitik Raw and devoid of ideals, it prevails, weakening the liberal order and projecting a more uncertain and potentially more dangerous global scenario. Security no longer stems so much from law as from force.