As the world inches back to a pre-WW2 order, the ‘middle powers’ face a grave new challenge
As the world inches back to a pre-WW2 order, the ‘middle powers’ face a grave new challenge
In January 2002, I was invited to deliver a keynote at Columbia University’s Journalism School. The city was still reeling from the 9/11 attacks, and its collective mood was evident in the expressions of New Yorkers I encountered. During my speech, I reflected on America’s role in shaping the post-war era, noting how the nation’s influence had fostered peace, security, and growing prosperity in Western Europe. I mentioned the U.S. military’s pivotal role in curbing Soviet expansion and highlighted the transformative impact of the Marshall Plan, which provided resources for Europe’s economic recovery and reinstated democratic governance.
After the presentation, a young man in the front row approached me with trembling eyes. He had been overcome by emotion, and I sensed the weight of his words. A few days prior, he had arrived in New York from Pakistan, eager to study at Columbia. He compared the United States to Imperial Rome, suggesting that those within its borders experienced power as a stabilizing force, while those on its periphery felt its arbitrary reach. “You live in the citadel,” he said, “and see American strength as protective. But for us, it’s a tool of dominance, unchallenged and unchecked.”
“If you are lucky enough to live within the walls of the imperial citadel… you experience American power as something benign. It protects you and your property. It bestows freedom by upholding the rule of law. It is accountable to the people through democratic institutions.”
His perspective reframed my understanding of the international system. While the U.S. had long championed a rules-based order, its benefits were unevenly distributed, as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney noted at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false,” he remarked. “That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or victim.”
Later, Donald Trump made a bold move at Davos, pushing to assert control over Greenland. He argued that Denmark’s defense of the territory was minimal, likening it to “adding one more dog sled.” This gesture revealed a dismissive attitude toward European allies, echoing the sentiment of Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who called European nations “pathetic” in a private Signal conversation. “I fully share your loathing of European freeloading,” Hegseth declared, though he was unaware that the editor of The Atlantic had been included in the group. The moment underscored a growing tension between the U.S. and its traditional partners, as the balance of power shifted once more.