On Jan 3, the United States invaded Venezuela, bombing key facilities, abducting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and later placing them on trial under US domestic law. This imperialist action, carried out without authorization from the United Nations or the US Congress, in serious violation of the UN Charter and international law, aims to take control of Venezuela’s oil resources, intimidate all Latin American countries, and consolidate US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.
The attack on Venezuela has naturally triggered shock, condemnation, unease, and fear in the international community. However, from another perspective, this action reflects that the US-led “liberal international order” is already on its last legs — if not completely collapsed. In fact, the US has not strictly adhered to the spirit and rules of the “liberal international order” for a long time. Since the end of the Cold War, in a unipolar world, the US has increasingly violated without a qualm the international rules it set, making the “liberal international order” increasingly unsustainable. The attack on Venezuela could be the final straw.
For a long time, Western scholars, such as John Ikenberry, have tirelessly eulogized and promoted the American “liberal international order”. Ikenberry believes that this international order is attractive to other countries because it possesses characteristics lacking in past international orders. First, it upholds international openness; different countries can benefit from and achieve peace through free trade and interaction. Second, it embraces multilateralism and rules-based international relations, with the US willing to adhere to these rules. Third, democratic nations tie themselves together and cooperate to increase their security. Fourth, this international order serves progressive social purposes, aiming to promote the rights and well-being of the people of member states and advance social fairness and justice.
Other Western political scientists believe that the reason why the US’ “liberal international order” has been popular is because: 1) the US is willing to make concessions to other countries, especially by opening up its market, providing various forms of assistance, allowing other countries to retain some protectionist trade and financial measures, and bearing trade deficits; 2) the US will not use its overwhelming national power to bully others, it will mainly use its power to maintain peace, protect human rights, and prevent humanitarian disasters; 3) the US will not act unilaterally, it will allow other countries to participate in the process of making significant decisions, so they will feel that they are stakeholders in US policies and are respected by the “benign hegemon”; 4) the US, by adhering to free trade and the market economy, will not engage in protectionism, politicize, or weaponize economic activities; 5) the US is willing to provide various public goods to the international community “free of charge” to promote international exchanges; 6) the US will respect the various multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization, as well as international agreements it has signed, such as international climate agreements and agreements on the reduction of weapons of mass destruction.
US international strategy is increasingly driven by the desire to sustain US hegemony and interests, rather than upholding lofty political and moral values. Particularly lamentable is the US’ growing tendency to resolve issues by force, disregarding international law and principles, and pushing the world toward a perilous state of jungle law, featuring “might is right” and “survival of the fittest”
However, the US has increasingly deviated from the principles and rules of that “liberal international order”. The most obvious example is that the US has constantly undermined the UN’s reputation and operation. The US-led wars in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), and its significant involvement in NATO’s bombing of Serbia (1999) were all conducted without UN authorization. In recent years, embracing unilateralism, the US has repeatedly acted without consulting its allies, even disregarding their opposition and interests. Examples include its overwhelming support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, threatening to seize the Panama Canal, Canada and Greenland, sanctioning judges of the International Criminal Court, and withdrawing from international climate agreements and nuclear limitation agreements signed between multiple countries and Iran.
The US is increasingly unwilling to make concessions, provide security guarantees, or unconditionally provide public goods to other countries, including allies. Instead, it has resorted to protectionist actions against other countries. Washington is increasingly weaponizing trade, tariffs and the dollar to coerce other countries; it is ruthlessly disrespectful of international institutions such as the UN, NATO and the WTO, and has even threatened to withdraw from them. US international strategy is increasingly driven by the desire to sustain US hegemony and interests, rather than upholding lofty political and moral values. Particularly lamentable is the US’ growing tendency to resolve issues by force, disregarding international law and principles, and pushing the world toward a perilous state of jungle law, featuring “might is right” and “survival of the fittest”. These are just a few examples, but they are sufficient to demonstrate that the US-led “liberal international order” is a thing of the past.
The next question is, as the US becomes a growing threat to the interests and security of many countries, will smaller nations form alliances to protect their interests? Currently, it seems highly unlikely that smaller nations will form military alliances to counter the US because it possesses overwhelming military power, and even if smaller nations were to team up, they would struggle to cope with the US’ military might. Moreover, Washington will inevitably use coercion and inducement to drive a wedge among these countries. That said, in the economic and financial spheres, more and more countries will try to strengthen multilateral cooperation to safeguard their own interests. They are likely to seek greater economic and trade cooperation with China. Of course, the US will try to prevent this. But those countries will try every means to circumvent US obstruction and pressure, including passive resistance and noncooperation. Meanwhile, Washington will also be deterred somewhat by China’s countermeasures, and thus will not dare to go too far.
The trajectory of changes foretells that by getting rid of the constraints of the “liberal international order” and indulging in imperialist bullying, Washington will increasingly undermine the foundations of its decades-old hegemony, damage its long-term interests, severely erode its soft power, ignite fierce anti-American sentiment and movements globally, and trigger political protests and sabotage actions targeting US interests around the world. Washington’s perverse actions will not only fail in the end but will also backfire, including triggering more severe political divisions and domestic wrangling.
The author is a professor emeritus of sociology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a consultant for the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
