There are no favorable winds for liberal internationalism in the world. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza, the transgression, omission, contestation or ineffectiveness of the conventions and regimes that regulate the international system of the United Nations in matters of prevention and resolution of conflicts and intervention in matters of humanitarian aid,
“humanity on the brink of a absolute loss of faith in global norms and standards
” in the recent words of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
And on the other hand, visions that, in East and West, in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Southern Hemisphere, tend to characterize the global scenario in terms of a Manichaean struggle between “the forces of good” and “the forces of evil.” , or in its theological-political version, between the "forces of light" and the "forces of darkness." President Javier Milei enters this context, announcing
“an active geopolitical alignment (of Argentina) with the United States, in its fight for Western values against the enemies of freedom
.”
“
Can the United States save the liberal order by illiberal means
?” asks Professor Hal Brands, in the latest issue of the American magazine Foreign Affairs (FA) entitled “The Age of Amorality.” Brands is the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/age-amorality-liberal-brands
If the world is truly caught in a contest between democracy and autocracy,
“then the United States may need to make moral concessions in foreign policy, but engaging in serious amorality will prove politically corrosive
,” Brands writes. It is not something new, it is known. During the Cold War, coups d'état and support for repressive regimes were justified with the argument of preventing Third World countries from “becoming communist.”
Brands warns: “
a spirit of pure expediency is fraught with danger, from domestic disillusionment to the loss of the moral asymmetry that has long amplified America's influence in global affairs
.”
“Support for democracy and human rights is not an all-or-nothing proposition -
concludes the FA note
- A foreign policy that raises international living standards through trade, addresses global problems such as food insecurity and remains firm against war between great powers serves the cause of human dignity very well
.”
The vision of what is at stake in the current international scenario divides waters between liberals and libertarians. It is not just a difference between more principled and more realistic, more extremist or more moderate.
Liberalism observes that Western principles and values must be defended by strengthening the international system defined in the United Nations Charter: maintaining international peace and security, and to this end: taking effective collective measures to prevent and eliminate threats to peace, and to suppress acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace; and achieve by peaceful means, and in accordance with the principles of justice and international law, the adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations that may lead to breaches of the peace.
The non-compliance or violation of these principles does not validate their validity, the evidence being that it is the only thing that keeps the world away from complete international anarchy.
The geopolitical vision of a West on the defensive, which must arm itself to confront "its enemies", is in tune with the maps of Moscow and Beijing and represents, as such, another threat to the Kantian vision of liberal internationalism.
It turns its back on the dream of a world regulated by rules and commitments to resign itself - or claim - the inevitability of wars and conflicts everywhere, with no other containment than the defense and survival capacity of each town, country, block of countries and civilizations in conflict. The world described by Hobbes where anarchy prevails.