A World in Disarray

A World in Disarray Plot Summary

Introduction

The world has entered a dangerous era of instability. Looking back at the early 1990s, when the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, many hoped for a new age of international cooperation and harmony. The first Gulf War in 1990-91 seemed to confirm this optimism, as the world united under American leadership to reverse Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait. President George H.W. Bush spoke eloquently about a "new world order" emerging from the ashes of the Cold War, one where rule of law would replace the rule of the jungle. Yet this promise remains unfulfilled. Instead, we face a world characterized by increasing disorder across multiple fronts: Russia's annexation of Crimea, China's assertive actions in the South China Sea, the collapse of several Middle Eastern states, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, refugee crises, climate change, and cyber threats. The traditional concept of sovereignty—that governments can do what they want within their borders—no longer works in an age where problems easily cross borders. What's needed is a transition from what might be called "World Order 1.0" to "World Order 2.0"—a framework where nations accept not just the rights of sovereignty but also its obligations to others.

Chapter 1: From Westphalia to World Wars (1648-1945)

The modern international system emerged from the ashes of the Thirty Years War, which had ravaged Europe between 1618 and 1648. The resulting Peace of Westphalia established a revolutionary principle: sovereign states would interact as equals within a common legal framework, regardless of size, power, or internal configuration. Most importantly, states agreed not to interfere in each other's internal affairs. This represented a significant departure from previous centuries when religious authorities claimed the right to dictate terms across borders. This Westphalian system functioned relatively well for nearly two centuries, despite occasional conflicts. The next major restructuring came with the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15, following the Napoleonic Wars. Diplomatic virtuosos like Metternich, Castlereagh, and Talleyrand created the "Concert of Europe," an arrangement where the great powers would meet regularly to resolve disputes and maintain stability. This conservative system prioritized order over equality and stability over justice, but it largely kept the peace in Europe for decades. By the late 19th century, however, this order began unraveling. Rising powers, particularly a newly unified Germany under Bismarck, challenged the status quo. Meanwhile, old empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottomans were weakening. The balance of power that had maintained stability was shifting dangerously. Concurrently, many assumed that growing economic interdependence would prevent major conflicts, as nations became too financially intertwined to risk war. This optimism proved catastrophically wrong. In 1914, Europe stumbled into World War I through a combination of entangling alliances, militarism, nationalism, and miscalculation. Unlike the even more devastating conflict that would follow, the First World War was largely accidental and avoidable. Over 16 million people died in a war that no participant had fully wanted or expected, demonstrating that neither military balance nor economic interdependence alone guarantees peace. The punitive Treaty of Versailles that followed sowed seeds of resentment, particularly in Germany, that would bear bitter fruit within a generation.

Chapter 2: The Cold War Era: Bipolarity and Stability

The period from 1945 to 1989 represented a paradox in international relations. Despite being an era of intense superpower rivalry and proxy wars, the Cold War also introduced remarkable stability to the global system. This stability emerged not from harmony but from the establishment of clear rules, deterrence, and communication channels between the United States and Soviet Union—creating what historians call a "bipolar" international system. At the core of this stability was nuclear deterrence. Both superpowers developed arsenals capable of surviving a first strike and retaliating with devastating force, creating the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD). This nuclear standoff made direct conflict between the superpowers unthinkable, as neither side could win in any meaningful sense. Arms control agreements like SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty formalized this balance, while hotlines and diplomatic protocols reduced the risk of miscalculation. The Cold War also operated on unwritten but well-understood rules. Both sides recognized spheres of influence—areas where one superpower's interests predominated. The United States, for instance, did not intervene militarily when Soviet forces crushed uprisings in Hungary (1956) or Czechoslovakia (1968). Similarly, the USSR generally avoided direct military involvement in Latin America, which the U.S. considered its backyard. When these implicit boundaries were tested—as during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962—both sides ultimately found diplomatic solutions rather than risk catastrophic war. Regional conflicts did occur, from Korea to Vietnam to the Middle East, but they remained contained. Neither superpower wanted local disputes to escalate into direct confrontation. This era also saw the emergence of formal alliances (NATO and the Warsaw Pact) that further structured international relations. While these alliances were military in nature, they also created predictable patterns of behavior that enhanced stability. Perhaps most remarkably, this superpower competition ended peacefully. By the late 1980s, the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev recognized it could no longer sustain its imperial ambitions. Economic weakness, failed interventions like Afghanistan, and internal political pressures led to a gradual Soviet retreat from Eastern Europe. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 without a shot fired. That the Cold War concluded without catastrophic conflict represents one of history's more fortunate outcomes.

Chapter 3: Post-Cold War Optimism and Disillusionment

The early 1990s witnessed a surge of optimism about the future of international relations. With communism discredited and the United States standing as the sole superpower, many believed the world was entering an era of democratic expansion and peaceful cooperation. The remarkable international coalition that reversed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 seemed to validate this vision. The United Nations Security Council passed multiple resolutions authorizing action against Iraq, and dozens of nations contributed to the military effort. President George H.W. Bush spoke hopefully of a "new world order" characterized by rule of law, shared responsibility, and respect for the weak. This initial optimism, however, quickly encountered harsh realities. The first major challenge came with the violent breakup of Yugoslavia. As ethnic tensions erupted following the Cold War's end, the international community proved painfully slow and divided in its response. While Western powers eventually intervened to halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo, these operations took place outside UN authority due to Russian opposition. This pattern—where major powers disagreed about legitimate international action—would become increasingly common. The 1990s also saw the emergence of failed states as a central security challenge. In Somalia, Rwanda, and elsewhere, the collapse of government authority created humanitarian disasters and security vacuums. The international community struggled to develop effective responses. In Somalia, a UN humanitarian mission expanded into nation-building, only to withdraw after 18 American soldiers were killed in 1993. In Rwanda, the world stood by as genocide claimed approximately 800,000 lives in just 100 days, demonstrating the gap between noble principles and practical intervention. Meanwhile, the United States found its unipolar moment more constrained than expected. While no country could match American military power, translating that power into political outcomes proved difficult. The Clinton administration pursued an ad hoc approach to international engagement, intervening in some humanitarian crises (Bosnia, Kosovo) while avoiding others (Rwanda). The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, would later demonstrate that even unrivaled military superiority could not insulate America from asymmetric threats emerging from ungoverned spaces. By the end of the 1990s, the optimistic visions of a cooperative world order had given way to more complex realities. States remained the primary actors in international relations, but they increasingly struggled to address transnational challenges like terrorism, refugee flows, and climate change. The liberal international order created after World War II remained in place, but its foundations were showing signs of strain as power diffused throughout the international system and new actors emerged to challenge established norms.

Chapter 4: Regional Instability and Failed Interventions

The post-Cold War era has been marked by dramatic regional transformations, with the Middle East experiencing particularly profound instability. What began with the 2003 Iraq War—a preventive military action based partly on faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction—unleashed forces that continue to reshape the region. The removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, coupled with subsequent decisions to dismantle Iraq's army and purge members of the Ba'ath Party, fueled sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias. Far from spreading democracy as its architects had hoped, the Iraq intervention highlighted the dangers of attempting to transform societies through external military force. The Arab Spring uprisings that began in Tunisia in December 2010 further destabilized the regional order. Protests against authoritarian regimes spread rapidly across the Middle East, toppling governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. However, these transitions rarely led to stable democracies. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood's electoral victory and subsequent military coup demonstrated the complexity of democratic transitions. In Syria, peaceful protests evolved into a devastating civil war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions. The conflict attracted intervention from multiple external powers, including Russia, Iran, Turkey, and the United States, each pursuing different objectives. Western interventions produced consistently disappointing results. The 2011 NATO operation in Libya successfully removed Muammar Gaddafi but left behind a failed state and terrorist safe haven. In Syria, American hesitation—particularly after President Obama's "red line" on chemical weapons use went unenforced—damaged U.S. credibility and created space for Russian intervention. These experiences revealed the limits of military power in addressing complex political challenges and the difficulty of building legitimate governance in divided societies. Meanwhile, other regions faced their own forms of instability. In Europe, Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent destabilization of eastern Ukraine represented the most significant violation of European territorial integrity since World War II. In East Asia, China's increasingly assertive territorial claims in the South China Sea created tensions with neighbors and challenged freedom of navigation. In South Asia, nuclear-armed India and Pakistan maintained their dangerous rivalry over Kashmir. The era's interventions and non-interventions alike have prompted painful soul-searching about when and how outside powers should engage in regional conflicts. The "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, which emerged after the Rwanda genocide, suggested that sovereignty entailed responsibilities to protect citizens from mass atrocities. Yet implementing this principle proved enormously difficult, as the Syrian catastrophe demonstrated. Foreign interventions, whether motivated by humanitarian concerns or strategic interests, frequently produced unintended consequences that outlasted their initial objectives.

Chapter 5: The Global Gap: Challenges Outpacing Solutions

Today's world faces an unprecedented mismatch between the transnational nature of its challenges and the predominantly national structure of its institutions. Climate change represents perhaps the quintessential example of this "global gap." Carbon emissions from any country affect the entire planet, yet efforts to address the problem have repeatedly faltered due to disputes over responsibility and burden-sharing. The 2015 Paris Agreement marked progress by establishing voluntary national contributions toward emissions reduction, but even full implementation would fall short of preventing dangerous warming. The climate challenge underscores a fundamental reality: sovereignty remains the organizing principle of international relations even as problems increasingly transcend borders. Nuclear proliferation presents similar difficulties. Despite broad agreement that the spread of nuclear weapons threatens global security, the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime has struggled to prevent determined states from acquiring them. North Korea withdrew from the treaty and developed nuclear weapons; Pakistan and India never joined at all. Iran's nuclear program was temporarily constrained by a 2015 agreement, but the accord's time-limited provisions highlight the challenge of permanently reversing proliferation. Meanwhile, existing nuclear powers have been reluctant to fulfill their own treaty obligations to work toward disarmament, undermining the regime's legitimacy. Cyberspace has emerged as an entirely new domain of international activity with minimal governing rules. Unlike nuclear technology, cyber capabilities are widely accessible to states and non-state actors alike. Activities ranging from cybercrime and intellectual property theft to election interference and critical infrastructure attacks occur with limited accountability. Disagreements about basic principles—like whether international law even applies in cyberspace—have prevented the development of meaningful norms of behavior. The result is an increasingly chaotic digital environment where offensive capabilities far outpace defensive measures. Global health security similarly illustrates the governance gap. The 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa and the subsequent COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant weaknesses in international response mechanisms. While the International Health Regulations theoretically require countries to report outbreaks and maintain certain capacities, compliance has been inconsistent. The World Health Organization lacks both adequate funding and enforcement authority. Meanwhile, vaccine development and distribution have been hampered by intellectual property disputes and national hoarding. Economic governance has proven somewhat more robust, with institutions like the World Trade Organization and coordinated central bank actions helping to manage global financial crises. Yet even here, growing nationalism and protectionism have undermined international cooperation. The failure of the Doha Round of trade negotiations and the proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements reflect the difficulty of reaching truly global solutions to economic challenges. This gap between global problems and governance capabilities exists not because solutions are technically impossible, but because the political will to implement them remains insufficient. Nations continue to prioritize short-term national interests over long-term collective welfare. The phrase "international community" is frequently invoked but rarely manifests as a coherent decision-making body capable of addressing humanity's most pressing challenges.

Chapter 6: Great Power Competition in the 21st Century

The relationship between established and rising powers has historically been fraught with tension and conflict. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides observed that the Peloponnesian War erupted because "the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta" made war inevitable. Many analysts worry that similar dynamics could emerge between the United States and China in the coming decades, potentially triggering what has been called the "Thucydides Trap." The U.S.-China relationship has defied simple characterization since the end of the Cold War. Economic interdependence has grown dramatically, with bilateral trade increasing from approximately $20 billion in 1990 to nearly $600 billion by 2015. Both countries have benefited enormously from this relationship—China gaining access to American markets, technology, and investment; the United States receiving affordable goods and a major buyer of its government debt. This economic entanglement has given both sides powerful incentives to avoid conflict. Yet strategic competition has intensified alongside economic cooperation. China's military modernization, territorial assertions in the South and East China Seas, and initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank reflect Beijing's desire for greater regional influence. The United States has responded with its "pivot" or "rebalance" to Asia, strengthening alliances and increasing its military presence in the region. Areas of friction have multiplied, from cybersecurity and human rights to trade practices and Taiwan. Russia's relationship with the West has deteriorated even more dramatically. Following the Soviet collapse, Russia experienced a traumatic transition to market economics and diminished international status. NATO's eastward expansion—which eventually incorporated former Warsaw Pact members and even former Soviet republics—fueled Russian resentment. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has increasingly defined itself in opposition to Western influence, culminating in the 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine. Russia's subsequent military involvement in Syria further demonstrated its willingness to assert itself as a global player. Other powers have emerged as significant regional actors. India continues its rise as a major economic and military power, while maintaining the world's largest democracy. Japan remains an economic heavyweight despite demographic challenges. The European Union, for all its internal difficulties, represents a formidable economic bloc. Increasingly, these powers pursue independent policies rather than automatically aligning with either the United States or China. Unlike the bipolar Cold War system, today's international order is characterized by "nonpolarity"—a distribution of power across numerous actors, including non-state entities like corporations, terrorist groups, and NGOs. This diffusion of power complicates traditional balance-of-power calculations and makes coordinated global action more difficult. Major powers retain significant advantages in military capability and economic weight, but they increasingly struggle to translate these advantages into desired outcomes. The central question for the coming decades is whether great powers can avoid the destructive competition that characterized previous power transitions. This will require a delicate balance—maintaining sufficient military deterrence to prevent aggression while creating diplomatic and economic interdependence that gives all parties a stake in stability. It will also require recognition that today's most pressing challenges, from climate change to terrorism, demand cooperative solutions that no single power can impose unilaterally.

Chapter 7: Sovereign Obligation: A Framework for World Order 2.0

The traditional concept of sovereignty that has guided international relations since 1648 is increasingly inadequate for today's interconnected world. The Westphalian model emphasized what governments could do within their borders and prohibited interference from outside powers. This approach provided stability by establishing clear rules of the game, but it fails to address transnational challenges that no single nation can solve alone. What's needed is an evolution to what might be called "World Order 2.0"—a framework based on the principle of "sovereign obligation." Sovereign obligation represents a fundamental reimagining of what it means to be a responsible member of the international community. Unlike the traditional view of sovereignty as primarily about rights and privileges, this approach emphasizes that governments have obligations to other countries and peoples affected by their actions or inactions. This isn't about diminishing sovereignty but updating it for an age where events in one country inevitably impact others. When a country allows terrorists to operate from its territory, fails to control disease outbreaks, or contributes disproportionately to climate change, the consequences don't respect borders. This approach differs fundamentally from the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, which focuses on a government's duties to its own citizens and potential intervention when those duties are abrogated. Sovereign obligation instead addresses a government's responsibilities to other governments and their citizens. It's about limiting the negative "spillover" effects that can result from domestic policies or failures. For instance, countries have an obligation not only to avoid supporting terrorism but also to prevent terrorist groups from operating within their borders, regardless of whether those groups target their own citizens or those of other nations. Implementing sovereign obligation would require developing specific frameworks for different domains. In public health, countries would commit to detecting disease outbreaks, notifying others, and taking necessary containment measures. In climate policy, they would accept responsibility for reducing emissions based on their capabilities and circumstances. In cyberspace, governments would pledge not to attack critical infrastructure and to prevent non-state actors from conducting attacks from their territory. In the nuclear realm, they would accept enhanced safeguards against proliferation and material transfers to terrorists. Building consensus around these obligations will take time and diplomatic effort. No single enforcement mechanism or international body can impose these responsibilities. Instead, implementation will require a mixture of incentives, assistance, capacity-building, and, when necessary, sanctions or intervention. Different challenges will demand different approaches—from formal treaties in some areas to informal norms and "best practices" in others. Throughout this process, multilateralism must be reimagined to include relevant non-state actors alongside governments. The United States has a special role to play in advancing sovereign obligation, but it must lead by example rather than dictate terms. American credibility depends on meeting its own obligations—whether reducing carbon emissions, honoring treaty commitments, or contributing to global health security. Double standards and inconsistent application of principles will undermine the entire enterprise. At the same time, the United States cannot expect perfection from others, especially developing countries that may lack capacity rather than will. The transition to World Order 2.0 will inevitably be gradual and uneven. Some domains will see faster progress than others. Some countries will embrace sovereign obligation more readily than others. But the fundamental logic—that interconnectedness requires mutual responsibility—is becoming increasingly difficult to deny. Just as the Westphalian system emerged from the chaos of the Thirty Years War, a new international order based on sovereign obligation may be the world's best hope for addressing the challenges of the 21st century.

Summary

Throughout human history, the nature of international order has evolved in response to changing realities. From the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that established the principle of sovereign states, through the Concert of Europe that maintained stability after the Napoleonic Wars, to the Cold War's nuclear-backed bipolarity, each era has developed mechanisms to manage relations between powers. Today, we face a fundamental mismatch between our challenges and our institutions. Global issues like climate change, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, and cyberattacks do not respect borders, yet our international system remains organized around sovereign states primarily concerned with their narrow self-interest. The path forward requires moving from what might be called "World Order 1.0" to "World Order 2.0"—a framework that recognizes sovereign obligation alongside sovereign rights. This transition demands several practical steps: First, major powers must avoid falling into destructive competition while maintaining sufficient deterrence to prevent aggression. Second, governments must accept that what happens within their borders affects others, creating responsibilities beyond their own citizens. Third, international institutions need renovation to include relevant non-state actors and address transnational challenges. Fourth, the United States must provide leadership by example, meeting its own obligations while building coalitions for collective action. Without such evolution, we risk letting the world's most pressing problems outpace our capacity to solve them, potentially triggering crises that could have been prevented through foresight and cooperation.

About Author

Loading...

Richard N. Haass

Read more