The United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and
The United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and others, established the liberal world order in the wake of World War II. The goal was to ensure that the conditions that had led to two world wars in 30 years would never again arise.
In the darkness of war, when the flames of destruction had ravaged the lands and the cries of the fallen filled the skies, the people of the earth found themselves standing at the edge of an abyss. Two wars, the Great Wars of this modern age, had torn the very fabric of nations, leaving the world in ruins and its people broken. And yet, from the ashes of this devastation, there arose a vision, a profound yearning to rise again, not as individuals or isolated powers, but as a collective force, united in purpose, to ensure that such horrors would never again find fertile ground.
It was Richard N. Haass, a sage of the modern age, who spoke of the birth of what we now call the liberal world order. After the devastation of World War II, the United States, along with the United Kingdom and other great nations, sought not merely to rebuild what had been lost, but to construct something that would transcend the mistakes of the past. A world, they envisioned, in which cooperation and mutual respect would replace the greed and ambition that had driven the nations to clash so violently. The goal was simple, yet profound: to ensure that the conditions that had led to not one, but two world wars, would never again arise.
In this effort, the nations of the world sought not vengeance, but stability and peace—not just for themselves, but for all of humanity. They crafted institutions that would bind them together, like threads woven into a tapestry, ensuring that no one nation, no matter how powerful, could bring down the entire world again. It was a time of hope, as leaders gathered to forge a new path, setting aside the bitter legacy of enmity and division to create a system of rules, alliances, and institutions, where diplomacy could flourish and war could be avoided. The United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund—these were the great pillars of the new order. Through these institutions, they sought to foster economic cooperation, mutual defense, and a framework for international law that would stand as a bulwark against the tide of violence that had so often consumed the world.
Think, if you will, of the ancient times, when the wise rulers of the city-states and the empires knew that peace could only be achieved by forging alliances and ensuring that the conditions for conflict were dismantled. Consider the Roman Empire, which built roads and laws not just to expand its domain, but to create a system that would allow its vast territories to exist in harmony, under a common set of rules. Or the great treaties that ended the Peloponnesian War, where, though blood had been spilled, both sides saw that peace could only be sustained through careful negotiation and mutual understanding. Haass speaks to this same wisdom, invoking the lessons of history to show that it is only through the careful construction of a shared order that peace can endure.
But let us not mistake this for a call to complacency. For in every age, there are those who would seek to break the peace, to unsettle the delicate balance. History has shown us that there are always those who hunger for power, who would sacrifice the unity of nations for the fleeting glory of conquest. The rise of totalitarianism and extremism in the years after World War II was a reminder that the liberal world order was not a guarantee of peace, but a precious ideal, one that must be nurtured and protected, lest it be eroded by the forces of division. Vigilance, as the ancients would say, is the price of peace. One need only look to the Cold War, when the world teetered on the brink of annihilation, to see that even the most carefully crafted systems of order are fragile, requiring constant care and steadfast commitment to their preservation.
From this, we are given a lesson that transcends time. The liberal world order, born from the ashes of war, is not just a political or economic system, but a promise—a promise that the suffering of past generations will not be forgotten, and that we, as caretakers of the future, must continue to safeguard the peace they sought to build. As individuals, we are called not merely to accept the stability we enjoy, but to actively protect it, to engage in the causes of cooperation, dialogue, and understanding. In our own communities, we must remember that the peace of the world is not a faraway thing, but something that begins in our hearts, in our interactions, and in our commitments to the collective good.
And so, the lesson remains clear: Unity, cooperation, and peace are not the fruits of chance, but the results of deliberate, hard-won effort. It is not enough to stand idly by and hope that the storms of history will never return. No, we must build, with the strength of our convictions, the institutions and relationships that will keep the darkness of conflict at bay. It is upon our shoulders, as the heirs of those who built the liberal world order, that the mantle of peace now rests. Let us wear it with honor, and let us pass it on, ever vigilant, to the generations yet unborn.
UNUyen Ngo
Finally, there’s the moral claim: preventing another global catastrophe. If that’s the ethical north star, how should the order evolve to confront non-war existential risks—climate change, pandemics, AI safety, biodiversity collapse? Traditional deterrence and alliance logic don’t straightforwardly apply. What governance innovations—loss-and-damage financing, pathogen surveillance compacts, compute-cap transparency—would align power politics with planetary stewardship? I’m seeking a view on whether a ‘liberal’ order can expand beyond war-prevention to sustain long-term civilizational resilience.
NHNguyen Ngoc Han
The narrative centers the U.S. and U.K., but agency elsewhere mattered: European integration, Japanese and German reconstruction, non-aligned movements, and later the rise of China and India. Does the ‘founders’ story unintentionally erase the co-creation of norms by others, from human rights advancements to trade liberalization strategies? I’d like a perspective that maps how smaller states leveraged institutions to constrain great powers, and how that dynamic shaped both the order’s legitimacy and its brittleness under stress.
QDPham Quang Duy
I’m also thinking about institutions: Bretton Woods bodies, the UN, and the web of alliances. Were these primarily tools for collective problem-solving, or vehicles for anchoring a particular geopolitical balance? If legitimacy stems from performance, then what redesigns would update them for today’s multipolarity—weighted voting changes, Global South representation, climate and tech governance mandates? I’d appreciate an argument for pragmatic reforms that preserve rule-based cooperation while acknowledging shifts in power, demographics, and economic gravity.
VDtran van dien
The phrase “liberal world order” often implies universal rules, yet the rules seemed pliable for some and rigid for others. How do we reconcile the rhetoric of sovereignty and self-determination with coups, sanctions regimes, or selective humanitarian intervention? Is the core problem hypocrisy, or is it the reality that any order is ultimately backed by power and interests? I’m interested in a perspective that distinguishes between normative aspirations and enforcement asymmetries without collapsing into cynicism or romanticizing neutrality.
BBBeo Beo
This framing emphasizes prevention—never again letting the preconditions of global cataclysm accumulate. But if prevention is the metric, how should we evaluate the system’s performance post-1991 and post-2008? Financial crises, humanitarian failures in Rwanda and Syria, and great-power revanchism suggest incomplete safeguards. Do we judge the order by wars avoided among major powers, or by broader human security indicators? I’m curious how you would score its success if we used benchmarks like nuclear restraint, economic volatility, democratic resilience, and development outcomes.