Thoughts on Stephen Walt's How to Build a Better Order
Digging up some old musings on the 2022 Sept/Oct print issue of Foreign Affairs, in which there was Timothy Synder's absolutely blessed article on Ukraine, a a really good article on Putin's view of history, and a decent article on how America must support democracy globally. There was also notable realist Stephen Walt's article on how to build a better world order. I suggest reading it with an open mind, but it boils down to a framework in which countries categorise their foreign policy as:
- Prohibited Actions: which might include many UN charter principles such as respect for sovereignty and a ban on territorial conquest.
- Compromise is feasible/mutually beneficial: this would include things like trade agreements or arms control agreements.
- Multilateralism is needed: things like climate change initiatives which suffer from free rider problems.
- Unilateral Action Expected or Legitimate: most domestic policy, including things like education and, as a given example, speed limits..
So he suggests great powers use these categories.
Aaaaaaannndd that's it.
The first question you may have is, what if countries disagree about where something should fit in this framework. After all, aren't most international disputes caused by disagreements rather than agreements? Say Russia says Ukrainian NATO membership is a non-negotiable and the US says Ukrainian sovereignty and ability to choose NATO membership is a non-negotiable? Where does that leave us? "When [great powers] do not agree, as will often be the case, adopting the framework can still enhance communication among them, clarify why they disagree, and offer them incentives to avoid inflicting harm on others, even as they seek to protect their own interests."
Enhance communications through what channels? Offer what incentives? Is there going to be some sort of institutionalised framework to bring these categories together? No, of course not.
A big part of the selling point of this framework is that it provides more than an all-or-nothing "all-out rivalry" logic and helps us "move beyond the simple dichotomy of "friend or foe."" As if there isn't currently already existing this sort of nuance in international relations? China's one of the largest trading partners with the West: they've been walking and chewing gum for quite some time now.
I half suspect the whole article was just a vehicle for Walt to push his continued appeasement of Russia. He spends two pages criticising the West for not negotiating Ukraine's neutrality for them. He even writes "unilateral action in Ukraine has also caused significant harm to third parties... Western sanctions on Russia have dealt a severe blow to the economies of low- and middle-income countries." Yeah, that huge coalition of Western nations acting "unilaterally." 🙄🙄🙄 How exactly his framework would help here is unspoken, though he does decide to give himself and his proposed framework credit for stopping further escalation.
It just seems vapid to me...