Here is a thought that I originally posted as social media commentary:
The Epstein client list epitomises the decline of liberal internationalism. The list is a who’s who of (mostly Western) liberal internationalist leaders: billionaires, bankers, Silicon Valley tech moguls, athletes, academics, royalty, fashion entrepreneurs, politicians, philanthropists, diplomats, former presidents and prime ministers, special envoys, international organization leaders, sundry oligarchs and industrial magnates, etc. Other than some decadent Arabs, no tin-pot Latin American, African or Asian dictators are to be found amongst them. They were/are a E Suite aggregation and living embodiment of the liberal international order taken to excess, a epiphenomenal reflection of the institutional decay that infected the entire postcolonial, post WW2 edifice once the Cold War ended.
They traded in money, power, status, influence and darker things. It was their step into darkness that toppled them. Otherwise they would still be networking as usual and their sordid hypocrisy–enlightened and rationalist on the outside, greedy, privileged and perverted on the inside– continue unabated. Theirs was a culture of impunity destroyed by venal over-reach.
Likewise, liberal internationalism as a global ordering device fell due to its own internal decay, corruption, sclerosis and contradictions, not from the actions of external actors (although some may have pushed from the margins). The behaviour of liberal institutions like the World Bank, IMF, WEF and assorted subject and regionally focused agencies belied their ostensible universalist and humanitarian goals. In other words, the downfall of liberal internationalism is self-induced. That includes democratic governance in the West, which has been in decline for well over a decade due to its lack of responsiveness to public demands and capture by elite-driven special interests.
Like the Epstein investigation, the post-liberal international order must begin with an evaluation of its institutional architecture and the flaws inherent in it. From that can come an improved edifice better prepared to confront the global challenges that lie ahead in a more equitable and inclusive fashion. Because in an age of AI, robotics and nanotechnological crossover that knows no national borders and where post-industrial knowledge economies are the wave of the future where the privilege of Empire no longer applies, an International system made for and by Anglo-Saxon white males no longer is suited for, much less capable of dominating, the demands and pressures emanating from those who are not part of that demographic. In a time in history where things like climate change impacts and commercial and military use of space and deep sea environments are tangible and real, there is urgency to the needs for institutional transition.
Hint: the interests of the Global South (understood as a post-colonial ideological construct, not a geographic designation) need to be accommodated in a more equitable honest way.
Where do we find the “client list”?
Geoff:
Good question. DoJ supposedly has it but it is very clear that they have (illegally) interfered with it and selectively released only parts that will not incriminate Trump or other MAGA associates (although Steve Bannon is mentioned quite often with regards to political and financial schemes). Maxwell clearly has the entire list and more, either in her head or more likely stored somewhere for blackmail or get out of jail purposes. She did not get out of jail but it did get her special treatment by the Trump DoJ in exchange for her silence.
Slowly but surely, in drips and drabs, more will be realised by people on the inside of the investigation who either want to cover their rear ends or jump ship and cut deals before it capsizes. Because it will. Meanwhile, prepare for “wag the dog” scenarios and martial law in the form of a (perhaps earlier than) October Surprise.
Mega-corporations are the new empires, and billionaires are the new emperors. And it may not be long before someone leaks the unredacted Epstein Files.
PS. the Trump-led Mar-a-Lago Pact has a provisional formal name: the Alliance of Sovereign Nations.
https://bsky.app/profile/shekhovtsov.substack.com/post/3mfmgwtgxv42f
A range of African dictators emerged from the post-colonial order during the Cold War. Instead of transitioning to democracies, they imposed brutal rule on their countries and filled up the United Nations with toxic forces.
Also, the United Nations Security Council’s omission of the likes of Japan was another issue with the existing international order.
The above issues were ignored before the U.S. began to walk away from its post-war international leadership role.
@Kumara Republic made an excellent point about corporations. I will have to save my thoughts on that matter for another time.
Luke,
The post was about the death knell of the liberal internationalist order, not post-colonial African despotism. Given the Cold War, nationalist-revolutionary struggles in Africa and elsewhere became zones of contestation between East and West, with one inevitable result being the rise of strongmen in places where democracy never existed. So expecting democracy to arise from the ashes of colonialism is unrealistic. The UN is the brainchild of liberal internationalists, not post-colonial nationalist-revolutionaries, so pointing out the latter as a “toxic force” in the UN is a bit rich, IMO.
More generally, no revolution in the last century or so has led to democracy no matter what they promise. The nature of the revolution/wars of independence process is such that violence is integral to it and lasts well into the “purgative” phase where after the defeat of the old regime, counter-revolutionary, dissident and third column elements are rooted out from the post-revolutionary society (so that the new regime agenda can be imposed and perhaps consolidated). Also, the liberal internationalist order uniformly reacted negatively to nationalist-revolutionary change no matter what the ideology motivating the “liberators.” These movements tend to be led by hard personalities due to the nature of the process, so expecting them to engage in concessions and compromise with political and social adversaries (often tribal in nature) is unrealistic. Be it tension-release or contention model in nature, nationalist revolutions always lead to more authoritarianism, just of a different type.