 Welcome to the U.S. Naval War College, the Navy's home of thought. NWC Talks features our world-class experts examining national security matters. We hope you enjoy the conversation. In recent times, political leaders, media commentators, foreign policy experts, everyone's been talking about the future of the liberal international order. Some fear its disintegration, while others welcome its apparent demise. It's not always clear, though, what exactly the liberal international order is, what it's accomplished, whether it will or should survive. My name is Professor Brent Hart, and this is NWC Talks, and I'm going to try to explain today what on earth is the liberal international order. Now, the liberal international order is commonly defined as that system of institutions, alliances, and rules that have governed the post-war world. The institutions include the United Nations, the NATO Alliance, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other regional organizations. But the question is, where did this come from, this order come from? And I would say this order came from the disorder of World War I and II, the complete devastation and chaos of that time. Dean Atchison, who wrote his memoir, Present at the Creation of This Order, essentially, said the challenge was to create order from the chaos that they inherited and to try to avoid blowing the whole world up in the process. Now, when Atchison and his colleagues tried to create this order, they weren't a bunch of idealists sitting around smoking cigars over brandy. They weren't seeking to control the world. They were seeking specifically to meet the crisis that they faced. As Atchison noted, slowly, he and his colleagues came to realize that the whole structure that they had inherited from the 19th century was gone, and they needed to replace it right in the midst of this global struggle with the Soviet Union. So this was not about abstract issues or strict rules or doctrines. It was really about finding pragmatic solutions to real problems. Now, it's important to understand also what the liberal international order is and what it's not. It's not the same as the international system. The system is the global realities, the balance of power that exists among major powers, the level of development, the economic resources available. Now, the international order is a structure to try to govern the chaos that is the world. Now, that order can be good or bad. If we think of global history, we've had orders from Alexander the Great to the Napoleonic order to the Nazi order. So this is good or bad. But it is the way that states interact with each other. Now, beyond the international order, there is such a thing as a rules-based order. Now, the rules is essentially the commitment to pursue interests among states in accordance with certain agreed rules. It can be shaped by international law, by regional security arrangements, and by trade agreements. These are rules of the road. Now, the liberal international order takes that a step further. The rules of the road reflect the ideals of liberalism, not the kind of liberal and conservative issue that we talk about in our domestic policy, but enlightenment liberalism, the moral philosophy of liberty, consent of the governed, and equality. So the liberal international order is a way to respond really to the dangers and opportunities presented by the modern world. It's a belief, rooted in the belief, that the world can be a better place if it operates by a set of open, transparent rules that everyone follows. It's not based on specific plans, but on core convictions about the kind of world more likely to maintain peace and prosperity for the majority of human beings. Now, these core convictions are there are five core convictions. The first is openness, the idea that trade, finance, people, ideas. All of this leads to more growth and prosperity. There's more exchange and there's closer relationships among countries in the world. The second core conviction is a commitment to rules, these rules that facilitate cooperation. The third is a sense of security cooperation that there's an alliance system, whether formal or informal, there are security partnership. But the idea that when you join others together, you can be more secure. The fourth conviction is a belief that there are mutual gains from cooperation that, in fact, by working together everybody can be better off. You can create win-win situations. And finally, there's a belief that the liberal international order strengthens democracy at home. It helps countries meet their domestic promises and obligations. So now let's move from foundational ideas to really concrete elements of the liberal international order. The first element is a trade regime. As I mentioned, following the post-war devastation, people wanted to get working again. So the trade regime was set up to facilitate trade and investment flows. And you had in Europe the European Coal and Steel community that ultimately became the European Union. On trade you had the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT that became the World Trade Organization. And finance you had the IMF and the World Bank. So that was a trade regime. You also had a security regime which was rooted in the United Nations Charter and non-aggression, protecting the sovereignty of nations, constraining force and preventing aggression. And this was reinforced by alliances and by agreements such as a non-proliferation agreement. You also had rules, norms, and institutions. And within the United Nations system and in other areas there are a whole series of institutions that help grease the gears of commerce and human movement around the world. Civil aviation, telecoms, postal fisheries, world health, migration, refugees, poverty. All of these issues and many more are dealt with by global institutions. All of this helps to create an ordered world of flows, of commercial flows of people and helps maintain security and safety for people worldwide. The other concrete element of the order are the values, the shared enlightenment values, the respect for human rights and the rule of law for press freedom, for religious freedom of expression, for open markets and the sovereignty of nations. And the liberal international order is appealing precisely because it rests on the dignity and freedom of individuals and tolerance. So those are the core elements of this order. So what have been the outcomes? What's happened from the order? Well, we've had the longest time without conflict in the world from the end of World War II to today. We haven't put an end to war by any means, but we certainly limited the spread of nuclear weapons. We've established norms against biological and chemical weapons. We have UN peacekeeping operations that help keep the peace when it's achieved by diplomatic efforts and to help create space for those diplomatic efforts to succeed. The UN Security Council will sanction aggressors. Fundamentally, the world is safer and more secure because of the institutions, alliances and treaties that we've created. Now, on the issue of prosperity as well, the order has created unparalleled prosperity. The world has grown seven times economically since 1960 alone. The levels of trade, investment and development are as high as they've ever been. Trade as a percentage of gross domestic product is up from 25% to 60%. Think about it. In 1950, three-quarters of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, that's less than 10%. People have more today. They work less. They live better. They're healthier. Literacy has gone from 33% to 85%. And with vaccines, we have a much healthier world population. The final outcome is in the area of democracy and human rights rooted in FDRs for freedoms of speech and worship, freedom from want and fear. And since 1945, we have had a steady increase in people who live in democracies and decline in people who live in autocracies. So with all of this progress, why is everybody so grumpy? Why are people so fearful for the stability of the order? Why is this order under attack? Where have we gone wrong? Well, I would say to you, as human beings, we tend to overlook good news and we focus on the bad. And it's also true that our historical memory recedes. We forget what we came from at the end of World War II, the devastation of the world. Frankly, we grow bored with peace and prosperity. Richard Kagan has made a note that world order is one of those things that people don't think of until it's gone. And that's really, unfortunately, the way people are designed. So let's take a look at some of the complaints people make about the order today. The first one is about economic stagnation with prosperity having been the core of the order. If people aren't prosperous, they're going to complain. Even if the reality is, by and large, people are more prosperous. If people believe they're not prosperous, they will lose faith in that institution and they'll seek alternatives in populism and protectionism. The other problem that people talk about frequently is growing inequality. The world today has 26 billionaires who have as much wealth as 3.8 billion of the poorest people. Clearly, that's not fair. That generates frustrations and anger. Wealth is concentrated among the few. Middle-class worldwide has had stagnant growth. The poorest have had some growth. But the wealthiest of the wealthy have grown 12% a year. And this clearly leads to frustrations and anger. The other source of frustration is the loss of cultural identities. Globalization challenges our cultural identities. Now, globalization is not the same thing as the liberal international order. But it does with mass production and mass media, cultural penetration. It does challenge our communities and our cultures. And this leads to a backlash of nationalism and populism and nostalgia. We saw that in the Brexit vote where older Brits felt that they wanted to go back to Britain the way it used to be. So the final area where people complain about the order is they say, well, the order was created by the United States and its allies in the post-war period when they were much more powerful than they are today. And there are now many other countries that have economic and political and military influence. And we created this order to advance our interests and our priorities. Now, our leadership has been largely benevolent, certainly looking after our interests, but also amplifying the benefit that our allies and partners bring to the world order. But as this power extends beyond the West and more countries want to have a say, that will affect the structure of the order. And people have also pointed to the Iraq War and the 2008 economic crisis as reasons countries are less willing to follow the United States. But that was not a fault of the liberal order. That was a fault of bad strategic and policy choices. So does the liberal international order need reform? And if so, how? Well, despite all the hand-wringing, the order is resilient. It can still advance the global common good. And there is public support in the United States and other countries for the order. Let's look at the economic foundation of the order. Despite protectionist trends, there is still solid growth in trade and investment flows worldwide. The World Trade Organization continues to guide. And there is growing public support for trade, as people have come to realize that tariffs do make those goods that they like more expensive. Let's look at, as we mentioned, the problems of the inequality and the stagnation. That suggests to keep support for the liberal international order. Countries need to do a better job at home. They need to have adjustment costs for those who have been left out by companies moving around the world. But again, these challenges, these are not the fault of the global order. They're really the fault of bad domestic policies. We need to look at those social needs and address them. And we also need to address the damage from volatile financial markets that led to the 2008 economic crash. What about security? People want to feel secure. And by and large, they have for 70 years today. However, there are new threats. People see threats from terrorism, both international and domestic. They see waves of migration. They see intrusive technologies and global rivalries that make them feel less secure. Here, too, the structures are good. We have the UN. We have NATO, the regional organizations, non-proliferation regime. But there are risks. Again, as Professor Kagan has noted, there are always dangerous actors in the world. Order can break down. And when it does, rocks are overturned. And then the things that are beneath the rocks crawl out, the dark elements of the human spirit, those elements that led to Hitler and Mussolini in World War II. Now, U.S. power and alliances have protected and sustained the order. And the American people and the world want to see this continue. What about the norms and values? Democracy and political systems and rule of law fight against corruption. Well, since 1945, here, too, the trends have been positive. But there are sources of concern. In 2015, there were 72 countries that marked a net decline in the Freedom Index. Press freedom has also gone down. And the challenge of corruption is very serious because if people feel that either their democratic systems or their economic system is corrupt, they will lose faith in the order. But I think what leaders need to ask is, what do citizens get from this liberal international order? What does it do for their lives? What economic and physical security does it provide? If there is no progress at home, then is that a failure of the liberal international order? Or is that a failure of domestic policy or both? So again, it's important to understand that this order, it's a framework for coping with modernization. It's not a means to a perfect society. It's a pragmatic response to opportunities and dangers. And it crucially depends on the willingness of the U.S. and its allies and partners to support and restore the legitimacy by tackling the stagnation and the inequality, environmental degradation, migration, and all of these other challenges that we're facing. To do this, we need to recover our vitality. To secure this order for another 70 years, we need to recover vitality. And we need to be innovative and experimental with the global order. But most critically, we need to strengthen our countries from within and rebalance the rights and responsibilities abroad. Our institutions are resilient, but they need tending. There are no real attractive alternatives to the liberal international order. Think about what a Chinese-led order or a Russian-led order would offer. What about a nationalist-led order or a winner-take-all system? Basically, because of the values that we've talked about, that gives the liberal international order credibility around the world. People want to live in that order. So it is still very much in our interest and that of our allies to guide and to keep the evil that exists in the world from overturning from these rocks. So it would be folly for the United States to abandon our alliances, our trading relationships, and the structures we've created over these past 70 years. This is the best guarantee of world peace that we've ever known. This has been the genius of the United States that we have created a system that benefits us and benefits others as well. This order is not expensive. It's a bargain. And it's vital that we tend the garden of this order rather than digging graves as we discovered in the first half of the 20th century. So thank you. Again, I'm Professor Brent Hart, and this has been NWC Talks.