“Enduring solutions will not rest on the logic of force, but on the foundations of justice, equality and the right to self-determination.”
(Statement from Palestinian Christian leaders in 2025)1.
Current news headlines illustrate that we are witnessing the clash of two fundamentally opposed understandings of international relations. The understanding that has largely prevailed since the Second World War was that peace and prosperity are built through multilateral co-operation within a framework of International Law. Recent US actions exemplify a much older approach to international affairs grounded in power, acquisition and unilateral action.
The use of US economic power through tariffs and trade restrictions has already had direct consequences throughout the world, including the UK. Military power has been used seemingly without regard to International Law. The reality of such enormous power being untethered from such rules is frightening to many – and it seems that may be the point.
A determination to avoid the mistakes that led to two World Wars
The preamble to the United Nations Charter is an extraordinary statement of values. It was initially agreed in 1945 by 50 nations and eventually signed up to by 193 states. The nations declared they were determined to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, by acknowledging the “dignity and worth of the human person”, “promote social progress and better standards of life” and fostering the conditions for international law to be respected.
The preamble is premised on the idea that peace is something that flows from justice. It is built through lasting co-operation between nations that respects both the law and the dignity of all people. Two devastating World Wars which had caused unimaginable suffering led the authors to reject the old ideas that armed conflict was an acceptable foreign policy tool, or that that military might – no matter how vast – could protect a nation from the horrors of war. Peace was to be built on the pursuit of mutual prosperity and co-operation.
Building the “rules-based order”
This belief was central to a process of creating numerous multinational organisations, some under the UN, and others like the World Bank or the World Trade Organisation (WTO) through other treaties, to build a “rules-based order”, which regulated how countries interacted with other: ostensibly to promote peace through shared prosperity and development.
There is a lot to criticise about these institutions: how they were too often bent to the will of the powerful and embedded existing economic and political power. How in reality the rules of this system did not apply equally to all. How the benefits and protections of the system were not equally shared. But this system’s lack of perfection should not bind us to their improvement over the great power, imperial politics, that had gone before – where domination and intimidation were open and even respectable forms of diplomacy – which seemed inevitably to lead to repeated and sometimes catastrophic wars.
Setting a norm of behaviour
The UN charter’s vision of how nations should relate was an aspiration, but over time it also set a norm of behaviour. Therefore, even those who did not genuinely subscribe to it, who breached both its spirit and its letter, felt the need to pay it lip service. It was important to state that actions were compatible with International Law and respect for human rights, and deny that any use of force was for raw self-interest lest they become pariahs, ostracised by other nations.
Over the past year that basic norm appears to be crumbling with no ideal to put in its place, beyond the old and dangerous “might is right”.
Creating a “Board of Peace”
President Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” is a reflection of a view of international relations grounded in no discernible principles beyond power and might. Long-term access to the board requires a payment of $1Bn dollars. This figure is the total annual government expenditure of Lebanon, and greater than the total annual spending of at least 18 UN member states, but represents just 0.0078% of US govt spending. Nations without economic power need not apply.
The current list of signatories appears low on nations strong in democracy and human rights, and high on authoritarians. Certainly, the criteria for invitation does not appear to include respect for International Law. Nor is any prior history of respecting peace or human rights required, including as it does multiple countries and leaders under international sanction, including one with an international arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court.
Finally, the Board’s structure guarantees Donald Trump a veto for life, and the power to appoint his successor. If it is a “Board for Peace”, that peace will be on terms negotiated, and approved by the most powerful nation, and imposed without representation on the weakest.
It’s not all about Trump
It is hard to talk about the multiple crises facing the international community without focusing on the chaos that surrounds Donald Trump’s erratic approach to foreign policy.
But the changes to how nation states relate to each other are about much more than one man, have roots in political ideas that were developed long before Trump’s ascendency, and will have consequences long after his time in office has ended.
Populist parties value sovereignty over co-operation
In three of the four most populous countries in Europe (UK, Germany and France), populist right parties are currently leading in the opinion polls and in the fourth (Italy), the populist right is already in government.
These parties, in common with the Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, share a rigorous interpretation of national sovereignty, believing a nation’s actions should not be subject to external restrictions or scrutiny. Consequently, they share a deep scepticism and sometimes antagonism towards international institutions such as the EU, the UN and even the WTO.
This unfettered view of sovereignty can lead to the guiding principle of international relations becoming “what do we want and can we get it?”. Consequently, International Law moves from a being guiding principle to just another potential cost to be weighed up. And for the most powerful, or those with powerful allies, that cost is no longer very large.
The view that laws are not necessary
Another populist leader, Victor Orban of Hungary, has repeatedly breached the norms of international co-operation, but it has largely gone unnoticed by those not directly affected. Trump’s actions are larger and more significant because as the leader of the world’s largest economic and military power, given huge latitude by invoking emergency powers, the immediate direct consequences of behaving outside the rules are virtually nil.
Recently asked, “Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage?”
Donald Trump responded “Yeah, there’s one thing. My own morality, my own mind. That’s the only thing that can stop me. And that’s very good. I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people. I’m not looking to kill people.”2
This response comes from an interview given to the New York Times five days after the Trump administration ordered a military raid on Venezuela, removing its President and killing at least 50 military personnel and a similar number of civilians. After this he immediately – and apparently without irony – complains about not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
The sentiments are said in the Trump style, but the idea that my nation’s actions should not be subject to external restriction is held more commonly and more openly by leaders around the world, especially populists and authoritarians.
Revealingly later in the interview Trump said, “NATO is not feared by Russia or China at all”, in a passage equating fear and respect and not being feared with weakness and humiliation. Again, these are common themes for populists and authoritarians – but it is a logic that demands ever increasing unilateral power.
Forgetting important lessons
Typically, it is the least powerful nations (and people) that bear the brunt of injustice and war, meaning international co-operation and the avoidance of war can have clear advantages. For the powerful, who believe they will win wars and believe they can prosper or even dominate by themselves, co-operation looks less essential and war more acceptable.
It is perhaps significant that it was only after a war so devastating that victory came at an intolerable price, that powerful nations accepted that peace and prosperity can only be achieved through co-operation and agreed to rules that restricted how their power was wielded. Perhaps it is also significant that only after the generation that learnt that hard lesson had passed away could the resurgence of the old, dangerous ideas of national greatness though aggression, power and acquisition return to the mainstream.
Remembering and moving on
“More than ever, now is a time for costly solidarity. By its very nature, true solidarity is costly. It has a price. It is a faith-based stance, a human commitment, and a moral responsibility. True solidarity is also the embodiment of our shared humanity and fraternity. Either we live together — or we perish together.”
(Statement from Palestinian Christian leaders in 2025)3
This and the quote at the top of this blog come from the Kairos II statement from Palestinian Christian leaders, desperate for a just peace. It comes from the perspective of those who have faced and are facing overwhelming power. The words come from deep reflection on the gospel, and the nature of Jesus who walked in their land, who championed the least powerful, and challenged those who used power unjustly or for selfish ends.
The belief that solutions flow from justice and not force was embedded in post-war principles of multilateralism, as was the recognition that we must stand together in the face of force being wielded unjustly. While the imperfect institutions of that post-war system may be crumbling, that belief must not be lost.
- Palestinian Christian leaders, Kairos II (2025) A Moment of Truth: Faith in a Time of Genocide. Part 4, Paragraph 2. ↩︎
- Interview with New York Times, 8 January 2026. ↩︎
- Palestinian Christian leaders, Kairos II (2025) A Moment of Truth: Faith in a Time of Genocide. Part 3, Paragraph 11. ↩︎