The un-Blairing: liberal globalism ending before it began

Liberal globalism is coming to an end, although I would argue that it never truly took hold in the first place. The consensus of the past twenty or thirty years was flawed in a lot of different ways, but the new one on the horizon (or lack thereof) makes me feel uncomfortably like the first monk on Lindisfarne wondering why shiploads of angry Swedes are heading my way.

After the downfall of the USSR,many people with strong socialist or communist sympathies began to rally behind the idea that although states like the USSR claimed to be the communist utopia, they had deviated from their true path and become something else entirely. This conveniently deflected criticism of their chosen worldview in light of dystopian architecture and queuing for toilet paper. As far as this argument is concerned communism cannot have failed, because it was never truly put into effect. I can’t help but picture a very similar deflection in ten years’ time coming from those who have committed themselves to the wonders of globalisation.

‘We thought we were right fifty years ago, but this time we’ve really cracked it! It’s just a matter of staying the course and soon the whole world will be full of peace, freedom, and disposable income!’. Sentiment like this was belted out by a chorus of politicians, writers, and political commentators (basically more socially acceptable commentary YouTubers with BBC contracts).

Those who push for globalism are guilty of nothing more than a mistake made by almost every politician in history: being completely sure that their way is completely right

Liberal globalisation, much like communism, failed to deliver the ‘end of history’ paradise that it promised. At the same time, however, it has done far less to directly worsen people’s lives. It was wrong, but not directly evil in the way many of the regimes calling themselves communist absolutely were.

It’s also inevitable that at far too many dinner parties of the future, people will be subjected to smug rants about how liberal globalism was a failure because of inherent human nature. I suppose the hardest part of making any attempt to better world politics is that people who’ve never so much as voted in a local election will see fit to spew the uninformed public consensus about your efforts as their own groundbreaking take.

Yes, global liberalism hasn’t worked out as everyone hoped. Fundamentally, however, those who push for globalism are guilty of nothing more than a mistake made by almost every politician in history: being completely sure that their way is completely right.

In criticism of liberal globalism, many point to the war in Iraq. However, the war did not constitute the death of global liberalism; rather, it is proof that the world order of cooperation never truly existed in the first place. The “coalition of the willing”, or in reality the coalition of world leaders worried that Saddam Hussein wouldn’t sell them oil at a good price, was more or less proof of what many had expected for some time, that the new internationalism was merely a front for Americanism.

Is it not better for world leaders to at least pay lip service to ideas of a peaceful international hegemony? Even pretend international peace is better than the new age of, ‘(insert your country here) first!’

The UN is not necessarily powerless, but I challenge anyone who reads this to come up with a single instance of the UN challenging the USA or the status quo. Votes to condemn and binding resolutions brought little comfort to Rwandan orphans, and today bring little comfort to Chinese Uyghur Muslims. But I cannot speak for these people, I am the latest in a long line of over-privileged students senselessly pointing fingers at everything wrong with the world. Liberal internationalism may not have been all that it promised, but is it not better for world leaders to at least pay lip service to ideas of a peaceful international hegemony? Even pretend international peace is better than the new age of, ‘(insert your country here) first!’ and overzealous, strong man nationalism, which humanity seems so eager to throw itself into with its eyes screwed shut.

There are no events or processes that have contributed to the rise and maintenance of liberal internationalism, because, in truth, it never really existed. There was, for a time, an absence of imagined threat and conflict; however, in this world that cannot last. There was, possibly for the first time in human history, no real challenge to the status quo, because the status quo worked for so many people, or at least the people with all the lovely money and military industrial backing.

There was by no means peace and free love under what was essentially American international rule, but there was at least certainty. No matter how optimistic you are, certainty is about as common as charisma in the House of Commons these days. Liberal globalism is winding down, world leaders and elites are tossing a coin, and the world is holding its breath.