R

ea
de
r's
C
lu
b
M
as
oo
d
Al
iT
ha
hi
m
03
12
36
49
93
0
Key Ideas
1. What’s in it for me? A look at what created our
current world order.
2. Our relative post-war stability resulted from
balanced power and the threat of nuclear war.

0
93
3. Economic and diplomatic agreements were major

49
36
contributors to a stable post-war world order.

12
4. The United States has maintained stability with

03
China by not interfering with its domestic affairs.

m
hi
ha
5. Rwandan atrocities led to laws governing
iT

international intervention, but they have proven

Al

difficult to implement.
d
oo

6. The illegal invasion of Iraq dramatically shook

as
M

world opinion of the United States.

b
lu

7. Action must follow threats, and military activity

C
r's

should never be abandoned casually.

de

8. The new world order depends on cooperation

ea
R

between the three major powers.

9. Final summary
 1
What’s in it for me? A look at what created our current
world order.
Since the end of the Cold War, international relations have
changed drastically. From a grounding in non-

0
93
interventionist foreign policies, the world is moving toward

49
a more interventionist world order with a growing number

36
of powerful players.

12
03
These pages examine a geopolitical system which is

m
increasingly defined by global disorder, from atrocities that
hi
ha
are all too often ignored, to terrorist threats that are used to
iT

justify illegitimate wars. You will learn about the foreign

Al

policies that have shaped our new world order. You will
d
oo

discover just what the United States, as the most dominant

as

country, needs to do to create a more stable planet.

M
b
lu

You will also discover

C
r's

• that the Cold War era was, in fact, a rather peaceful

de

time;
ea
R

• how it took a genocide to make international

intervention a protective principle; and
• why the Syrian War is an example of passivity leading
to disaster.
 2
Our relative post-war stability resulted from balanced
power and the threat of nuclear war.
If you look back at history, it appears that World War Two
was followed by a long, relatively peaceful period. But such

0
93
apparent calm wasn’t the result of a sudden pacifist turn

49
among world leaders. More accurately, during the Cold War

36
era, which lasted from 1947 to 1991, a global balance of

12
03
power prevented active conflict.

m
For instance, the North Atlantic Treaty allied North
hi
ha
American countries with a set of European nations, all of
iT

which decided to cooperate militarily through NATO. This

Al

agreement meant that an attack on any one of these nations

d
oo

was an attack on them all, a fact that deterred military action

as

from outside the coalition.

M
b
lu

Not just that, but following the war, the United States
C

implemented the Marshall Plan. This package of economic

r's
de

support for the countries of Western Europe, particularly

ea

France, Germany and the United Kingdom, was intended to

R

insulate these countries from the growing influence of the

communist Soviet Union.
The power balance achieved through these military and
financial agreements acted as a major bulwark against all-out
war. When the Soviet Union blocked road and rail access
into West Berlin in 1948 due to disagreements about how
the divided city should be run, no combat ensued despite
the dramatic standoff. Instead, Western countries launched

0
93
a series of supply drops into the city, with hundreds of

49
planes flying over East Germany and into West Berlin daily.

36
12
03
m
However, the greatest safeguard against armed conflict was
hi
the existence of nuclear weapons, which significantly
ha
iT

reduced the military ambitions of the two major power

Al

blocs, the United States and the USSR. After all, both
d
oo

countries recognized that a nuclear confrontation would be

as

unconscionably destructive, and were therefore highly

M

motivated to avoid any direct altercation.

b
lu
C
r's
de

But this balance of power and the threat of nuclear

ea

destruction weren’t the only factors that contributed to

R

stability. In the next page, we’ll take a look at some other

key elements that maintained global peace during this period.
 3
Economic and diplomatic agreements were major
contributors to a stable post-war world order.
Do you ever feel like financial interests rule the world? Well,
you wouldn’t be so far off. In fact, there was a shift toward

0
93
prioritizing finance after World War Two. This shift is in

49
part a result of the way the economy was propped up after

36
the war, which also contributed to global stability.

12
03
Here’s what happened.

m
hi
The Bretton Woods system was inaugurated in 1944 as the
ha
first uniform financial system – one that would reunite
iT
Al

enormous portions of the Western world. Under Bretton

d

Woods, the dollar was set as the world currency, and all
oo
as

other currencies were valued relative to it. The plan also

M

backed all paper money with gold.

b
lu
C

Around the same time, the International Monetary Fund

r's

was formed. This new body enabled financially troubled

de

countries to take out temporary loans to cover their

ea
R

insolvency.
And finally, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,
or GATT, cut costs on exporting and importing goods
across national borders, thereby encouraging a global
economy.

0
93
Such systems of financial support more generally reinforced

49
a global world order, which in turn reduced the risk of

36
armed conflict.

12
03
m
hi
From there, diplomacy played a major role in stabilizing this
ha
newly formed Western world order. Most famously, it was
iT
Al

during this time that the diplomatic institution known as the

d

United Nations, or UN, emerged. It created a space for

oo
as

world leaders to negotiate their interests and resolve

M

disputes without resorting to war.

b
lu
C

The Security Council of the UN was tasked with monitoring

r's

the world order and was even authorized to intervene

de

militarily if global or regional peace was at risk. Since the

ea
R

major emerging world powers – Russia, China and the

United States – could veto the Security Council, there was
also an assurance that the UN would not be inappropriately
used to attack a single country.
This diplomatic system, the world order it protected and the
economic aid that supported such a shift were yet other
means of avoiding armed conflict. Together, they succeeded
in maintaining peace throughout the Cold War. But what

0
came next?

93
49
36
12
4

03
The United States has maintained stability with China

m
hi
by not interfering with its domestic affairs.
ha
iT

During the spring of 1989, Chinese students descended on

Al

Tiananmen square in Beijing. They were assembling to pay

d
oo

respects to Hu Yaobang, a communist who was killed after

as

attempting to reform the government.

M
b

The state responded by ordering the military to clear the

lu
C

square, resulting in thousands of people being injured or

r's

killed. At the time, the United States was tasked with

de
ea

making a decision about how it would react to such a

R

violation of human rights.

In the end, the country chose a non-interventionist
approach. In other words, President George H.W. Bush did
not take punitive measures in response.
How come?
Well, for starters, America had major political and economic

0
93
incentives to maintain good relations with the powerful

49
nation of China. To put it more bluntly, the United States

36
was unwilling to give up what they stood to gain from

12
03
China because of the country’s violent domestic policies.

m
But beyond that, sanctioning China and further isolating the
hi
country from the world order would likely have produced
ha
iT

detrimental consequences that would only lead to more

Al

repression.
d
oo
as
M

The situation was similar in Taiwan, a country toward which

b
lu

the United States also adopted a non-interventionist policy.

C

The island nation, also known as the Republic of China, had

r's
de

been a contentious topic between the United States and

ea

China ever since World War Two. During this period, a

R

nationalist government ruled China and, during the war,

fought alongside America against Japan.
But that changed in 1949, when the communists led by Mao
Tse-Tung took power, forcing the nationalists to flee to the
island of Formosa, which would later become Taiwan. To
the present day, communist China will not acknowledge the
independence of Taiwan, and Taiwan will not recognize
China as having dominion over it.

0
93
49
36
Over the years, the United States has worked tirelessly to

12
03
balance this situation and, thus far, armed conflict hasn’t

m
been necessary. It’s another good example of how outright
hi
war has largely been avoided since World War Two, but, as
ha
iT

you’ll soon learn, interference in domestic policies is a

Al

whole different story.

d
oo
as
M
b
lu
C
r's
de
ea
R
 5
Rwandan atrocities led to laws governing international
intervention, but they have proven difficult to
implement.
In 1994, a long-drawn-out conflict in Rwanda between the

0
93
Hutu majority and Tutsi minority reached a breaking point.

49
Within months, nearly one million Tutsi were murdered as

36
the international community stood by, failing to take action.

12
03
Although the lives of hundreds of thousands of people

m
could have been saved with minimal military risk, nothing
was done. hi
ha
iT

This cataclysmic event marked a major shift in international

Al

relations. More specifically, it precipitated a shift toward

d
oo

intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries. The

as

Rwandan genocide would also eventually result in a large

M
b

scale change in the international military order.

lu
C

For instance, in 2005, the UN adopted a principle known as

r's
de

the responsibility to protect. According to this doctrine,

ea

sovereign nations are tasked with ensuring the safety of

R

their citizens from war crimes and genocide. When a state

fails to fulfill this responsibility or commits such atrocities
itself, the international community must defend the
victims – through military intervention if necessary.
The passage of this resolution was revolutionary. For the
first time in history, a law was signed which allowed
countries to be invaded, even if they hadn’t attacked
another sovereign nation.

0
93
However, applying the new approach has been anything but

49
straightforward as the Syrian war amply demonstrates. This

36
conflict began during the Arab Spring of 2011, at a time

12
03
when Syria was ruled by an authoritarian family that

m
belonged to the ethnic minority of the Muslim Alawites.
hi
The majority of the country’s population are Sunni Muslims,
ha
iT

many of whom rebelled against the minority government.

Al

In response, the government became violent, and pretty

d
oo

soon a full blown civil war broke out. Hundreds of

as

thousands of Syrians perished in the chaos that ensued,

M
b

while millions were forced to emigrate.

lu
C

It was a clear-cut case of a state failing to protect its citizens,

r's
de

but despite the obvious nature of the situation, the

ea

international community didn’t act on its responsibility to

R

protect. Diplomatic disagreements about who was

responsible simply couldn’t be resolved.
So, the responsibility to protect can be tricky to apply, but
there’s one case in particular in which the United States
clearly violated the rules. You’ll learn all about it in the next
page

0
93
49
36
12
03
m
hi
ha
iT
Al
d
oo
as
M
b
lu
C
r's
de
ea
R
 6
The illegal invasion of Iraq dramatically shook world
opinion of the United States.
America plummeted in popularity in 2003 when it decided
to invade Iraq. At the time, people across the globe

0
93
responded with outrage, speaking out against what they saw

49
as a violation of humanitarian law.

36
12
But despite the vocal public disapproval, it wasn’t until

03
things calmed down that the inappropriate nature of the

m
invasion was truly apparent. Once the dust did settle, it was
hi
ha
clear that the US invasion was illegitimate, despite the
iT

doctrine of responsibility to protect.

Al
d

Here’s the story.

oo
as

During the Gulf War in 1991, President George H.W.

M

Bush’s government sent troops into Iraq. This initial

b
lu
C

invasion was in response to Iraq’s attack on Kuwait, a

r's

sovereign nation. Because of this, the deployment could

de

technically be justified.
ea
R
However, when US troops again landed on Iraqi soil in
2003, based on the notion that Iraq was amassing an arsenal
of nuclear weapons, there was not only no definitive
evidence, but this supposed buildup of armaments was also
no stand-in for a real armed attack on another nation.

0
So, while an attack could have been justified under the

93
49
responsibility to protect if Saddam Hussein had failed to

36
protect Iraqi citizens from genocide, nothing of the sort

12
occurred. Iraq’s dictatorship was definitely acting in

03
violation of domestic human rights, but they weren’t

m
hi
coming close to committing something like ethnic cleansing
ha
or genocide. As a result, the US invasion was illegitimate.
iT
Al

Or, to put it differently, the invasion of Iraq was preventive,

d
oo

rather than preemptive.

as

What’s the difference?

M
b
lu

Well, a preemptive invasion can sometimes be justified. However,

C

for this to be the case in Iraq, the country would have had to be on
r's

the verge of attacking the United States, which it clearly was not.
de
ea

The preventive attack that did occur was spurred by America’s

R

knowledge of a potential threat, a hypothetical menace that the

United States foolishly decided to extinguish. After all, in a world
order with numerous emerging powers, preventative warfare
can easily spark chaos.
 7
Action must follow threats, and military activity should
never be abandoned casually.
Anyone who reads the news knows that the war in Syria has
been devastating. The conflict has been so horrific that it

0
93
has even raised fundamental questions about how the

49
international community should respond to such events.

36
12
One major topic of discussion in this broader debate is the

03
difference between words and actions. After all, the UN is

m
tasked with upholding the responsibility to protect, which
hi
ha
means not only speaking out against atrocities but acting to
iT

stop them.
Al
d

The Syrian War is a prime example of how failing to do so

oo
as

can swiftly lead to disaster. Just take Obama’s reaction when

M

the rebellion began to grow. He simply called on President

b
lu

Bashar al-Assad to step down. The conflict escalated and, in

C

2012, rumors began to spread that the Syrian government

r's
de

was using chemical weapons against rebels.

ea
R

Obama issued a public statement that using such weapons

would force America to reconsider its military involvement
in Syria. However, when Assad used gas in 2013 to kill
1,500 people outside Damascus, the US government didn’t
intervene.
While the United States convinced Syria to destroy their
chemical weapons to avoid invasion, Obama should have
instead stood by his promise of retaliation if such weapons
were used.

0
93
So, it’s important to follow through on threats that are

49
made, but it’s also key that, once military action is taken, it’s

36
not dropped lightly. When President George W. Bush – son

12
03
of George H.W. Bush – invaded Iraq in 2003, the situation

m
in the country fell apart over the course of the years that
hi
followed. So, in 2007, Bush increased the presence of
ha
iT

American troops, offering military support to certain Sunni

Al

tribes.
d
oo

This course of action was proving successful, but when

as

President Obama pulled troops out faster than originally

M
b

agreed, the area soon destabilized. Not long after, militant

lu
C

Islamic extremism returned, this time as Islamic State, or

r's

ISIS. It just goes to show how dangerous it can be to

de
ea

prematurely abandon a military responsibility once it’s

R

undertaken.
 8
The new world order depends on cooperation between
the three major powers.
These days, it’s easy to get worried about looming conflicts,
such as Russia expanding into Ukraine or China claiming

0
93
territory in the South Seas. However, while these countries

49
are certainly broadening their influence, there’s nothing to

36
suggest that they intend to expand their territory very far

12
03
beyond their borders.

m
Since the West can count on this fact, it should make every
hi
ha
effort to work with these nations for our mutual benefit. In
iT

fact, forging stronger diplomatic bonds between China,

Al

Russia and America would do wonders for stabilizing the

d
oo

world order.
as
M

Take the Cold War as an example. During this period,

b
lu

cooperation usually came with conditions. The United

C

States would agree to work with another nation

r's
de

economically, only if it agreed to cooperate on a different

ea

level, say, militarily. In so doing, each country endeavored to

R

derive the maximum benefit for itself.

But today, a new cooperation with China and Russia could
come with far fewer strings attached. The countries could
agree to cooperate whenever possible, avoiding
disagreements that can’t be solved. In this new climate, it’s
essential that the United States restrains itself when
presented with opportunities to intervene in domestic issues

0
93
that affect the other two nations.

49
36
More specifically, economic cooperation between the three

12
nations should be ensured. China and Russia must be

03
allowed to expand their network of bilateral agreements, a

m
hi
critical tool for maintaining strong economies.
ha
iT
Al

The United States should not attempt to undermine the

d
oo

economies of the other two nations. That’s because the best

as

chance for global stability and peace is a scenario in which

M
b

all the major powers are prosperous and content.

lu
C
r's
de

By sticking to this strategy, the West will be able to respond

ea
R

to the new world order, one dominated by interventionist

politics and the three new major powers.
9
Final summary
The key message in this book:

0
World War Two marked a major shift in the world

93
49
order and set off the Cold War era. This period was

36
largely peaceful due to a variety of factors, but the

12
global scene is once again changing. New tactics are

03
required to maintain peace in this volatile terrain, and
m
the West must adapt. hi
ha
iT
Al
d
oo
as
M
b
lu
C
r's
de
ea
R