Malik, Kenan. Despite the eulogies, the postwar order did little for peace – and fuelled the rise of populism. The Guardian.

Summary

Kenan Malik argues that the so-called postwar “liberal international order” (LIO) — often praised as the framework that secured global peace and prosperity after World War II — never fully delivered on those ideals. Instead of spreading genuine liberalism (rule of law, democracy, equal rights), the order mostly advanced U.S./global hegemony and neoliberal capitalism. That system contributed to widening inequality, economic dislocation, democratic disillusionment, and growing resentment. These developments helped fuel the rise of populism and nationalist backlash — including the political force of people like Donald J. Trump.

Malik suggests that instead of mourning the collapse of this order, we should rethink what internationalism means — especially at a moment when many of its promises proved hollow, and its institutions served power more than justice

Key Arguments/Main Points

1. The “liberal international order” was more about order — and less about liberalism

• According to Malik, the postwar framework (treaties, alliances, institutions like NATO, World Bank, etc.) was created not primarily to foster liberal values, but to entrench a global power structure under U.S. hegemony.

• Its proponents today celebrate it as a model of open markets, free movement, and democratic values — but those ideals were often secondary to strategic interests.

→ The “LIO” was never a purely liberal project; it prioritized global stability and capitalist order over justice, democracy, or equality.

2. Economic neoliberalism built into the order produced inequality and discontent

• The economic strand of the postwar order promoted neoliberal policies: free markets, global capital flows, deregulation, and institutions designed — as some criticism argues — to protect capitalism from democratic pressure. Malik cites the work of scholars who show how neoliberalism was institutionalized globally under the guise of liberal order.

• As a result, inequality increased, civil society eroded, and a large segment of the global — and domestic — population felt politically voiceless or excluded.

• This economic and social disenfranchisement laid the groundwork for resentment, alienation, and the appeal of populist political forces.

→ Rather than delivering broad prosperity or democratic empowerment, the order often produced precarity, inequality, and disillusionment.

3. The claim that the order guaranteed “peace” is deeply flawed

• While the postwar order may have reduced the likelihood of direct great-power wars, it did not stop the U.S. and its allies from engaging in frequent interventions. Malik notes that since 1945 the U.S. has carried out hundreds of military interventions — and many since 1989.

• These “kinetic diplomacy” operations — interventions, wars, regime change — contradict the narrative that the LIO brought global peace or consistent respect for democracy and human rights.

• In effect, the peace preserved was often structural (preventing large global wars), while many localized wars, instability, and suffering continued — particularly in the Global South.

→ The LIO’s “peace” was selective: stable for powerful states, unstable and violent for many others.

4. The failures and hypocrisies of the order fueled populism and nationalism

• As inequality and political discontent grew, large segments of populations worldwide felt excluded from the benefits of globalization and liberal order. Malik argues this exclusion helped create fertile ground for populist leaders who promise to “restore sovereignty,” “give voice to the dispossessed,” and reject global institutions.

• Ironically, many of those who benefited from neoliberal globalism — wealthy elites, “tech bros,” and corporate actors — are now part of or supportive of populist / nationalist movements. Malik uses this to show how neoliberalism can be “refracted through nationalism” rather than disappearing altogether.

• The turn to populism is not simply cultural or identity-based — it is rooted in real economic and political grievances caused or exacerbated by the postwar order.

→ Populism and nationalism are responses to disillusionment, inequality, and exclusion — not just cynical manipulations by elites.

5. The myth of a stable, liberal “postwar order” should be rejected — we need a new form of internationalism

• Malik cautions against nostalgia: calls to mourn the decline of the LIO often come with romanticization. But if the order was built on strategic hegemony and neoliberal economics, then what is being mourned is an illusion, not a moral achievement.

• Instead of trying to revive that old order, we should rethink internationalism in ways that center justice, equality, democracy, and genuine global cooperation — not the perpetuation of power imbalances.

→ The collapse of the LIO might be an opportunity, not only a crisis.

1. LIEO’s internal hypocrisy and contradictions

Malik argues that the postwar “liberal international economic order” (LIEO) was never truly liberal, even though it’s celebrated today as a system that promoted democracy, peace, and cooperation.

• The order claimed to promote rule of law, human rights, and democracy,
  but regularly violated these principles when they conflicted with Western strategic interests.

• Malik highlights how this gap between ideals and practice created deep contradictions that weakened the order from the inside.

→ The postwar order looked liberal, but functioned as a system of power.

2. Western interests always came before democracy, liberalism, or law

Malik stresses that Western powers — especially the U.S. — used the postwar order to protect their geopolitical and economic dominance, not to spread liberal values.

• The West often supported authoritarian regimes, coups, and illiberal governments
  when it benefited them.

• Malik writes that the West “underwrote illiberalism and authoritarianism when it suited their needs.”

Examples he gestures toward historically:
– U.S. support for dictatorships in Latin America
– Post-Cold-War interventions
– Strategic alliances with authoritarian states

→ Liberal rhetoric, illiberal practice.

3. “Peace” only applied to major powers

Malik disputes the narrative that the LIEO created global peace.

• He notes that major powers avoided direct war, but the rest of the world experienced constant conflict.

• Since 1945, the U.S. alone conducted hundreds of military interventions.

These include covert operations, regime changes, and outright wars.

→ The postwar “peace” was selective: safe for powerful states, violent for many others.

4. The order promoted free markets and neoliberal globalization over democracy

Malik argues that beginning in the late 20th century, the LIEO promoted:

• deregulation

• privatization

• free capital flows

• austerity

• globalization without social protections

These policies:

• increased inequality,

• weakened labor and civil society,

• reduced political agency,

• produced a widespread sense of economic insecurity.

This economic model was marketed as “liberalization,” but it actually hollowed out democracy and left many people feeling excluded.

→ Economic pain and democratic erosion created fertile ground for resentment.

5. Inequality + resentment + erosion of civil society → rise of right-wing nationalism

Malik directly links neoliberal globalization to the rise of contemporary populism and nationalism.

Because the postwar order prioritized markets over democracy, people experienced:

• job loss

• declining welfare

• political disillusionment

• distrust of elites

• loss of communal ties

This resentment fueled nationalist and authoritarian movements, which promise to restore sovereignty, order, and dignity.

→ The failures of the LIEO helped create the conditions populism feeds on.

6. Consequences: rising illiberalism, authoritarianism, nationalism, and global conflict

Malik argues that the decline of the LIEO is not primarily due to Russia, China, or populists — but to the order’s own internal failures.

These failures have led to:

• renewed authoritarian politics

• surging nationalism

• intensified geopolitical conflict

• collapsing trust in liberal institutions

Essentially, the system’s contradictions imploded and opened the door to a chaotic world order.

Short Summary

Malik argues that the postwar “liberal international order” was never truly liberal: it was built on Western power, hypocrisy, and selective application of peace and democracy. Western states routinely supported authoritarian regimes and conducted military interventions while promoting neoliberal globalization that increased inequality and hollowed out democracy. These contradictions generated social resentment, weakened civil society, and fueled the rise of right-wing nationalism and authoritarian politics. The current global crisis of illiberalism is therefore not a break from the postwar order but a consequence of it.