In recent years, the idea of a stable and rules-based international order has come under increasing strain. While global power shifts and regional conflicts are often cited as primary causes, a deeper challenge lies in the growing tendency of powerful states to intervene-directly or indirectly-in the internal affairs of others. The United States, long regarded as a central architect of the post-Cold War world order, now finds itself at the center of this debate.
From Ukraine to Venezuela, and from prolonged economic sanctions on Iran to renewed attention to Iran's domestic political unrest, Washington's foreign policy appears increasingly interventionist. These actions are frequently framed in the language of democracy, human rights, and global responsibility. Yet their cumulative effect raises a critical question: do such interventions strengthen the international order, or do they contribute to its gradual erosion?
This concern is no longer limited to critics outside the Western alliance. Recent remarks by Germany's president, warning that the United States is "destroying the world order," reflect a growing unease even among close partners. Such criticism suggests that the issue is not opposition to democratic values, but anxiety over the methods used to promote them.
To better understand this pattern, Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations offers a useful analytical framework. Huntington argued that in the post-Cold War era, conflicts would increasingly emerge along cultural and civilizational lines rather than ideological ones. While his thesis has been widely debated, contemporary global politics indicates that cultural perceptions continue to shape strategic decision-making.
The United States' approach toward Iran illustrates this dynamic. Beyond geopolitical rivalry, Iran represents a political and cultural model that remains resistant to Western liberal norms. Decades of sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and now the internationalization of Iran's internal political movements suggest an attempt not only to influence policy outcomes, but to exert normative pressure on a non-Western civilizational identity. Similar patterns can be observed in US policy toward other states that challenge Western political and economic frameworks.
The emerging world order, therefore, is not defined solely by the
decline of Western power or the rise of new actors. It is shaped by a
growing disillusionment with interventionist practices that overlook
cultural plurality and political diversity. Stability cannot be achieved
through coercion or moral selectivity
Ukraine, by contrast, occupies a different civilizational positioning. Here, American involvement is widely justified as the defense of a shared political and cultural space. Support is framed as necessary to protect international norms and democratic values, highlighting how intervention becomes more acceptable when civilizational alignment exists.
Huntington cautioned that Western universalism-the belief that its values and institutions are universally applicable could provoke resistance rather than convergence. This warning appears increasingly relevant. Economic sanctions that disproportionately affect civilian populations, and selective engagement with domestic political movements abroad, risk turning human rights into tools of strategic pressure rather than instruments of global justice.
The implications for the international system are significant. Sovereignty, once a cornerstone of global order, becomes conditional. International law appears inconsistently applied, undermining its legitimacy. As a result, many states particularly in the Global South-are seeking alternative alliances and multilateral platforms that promise greater autonomy and respect.
The emerging world order, therefore, is not defined solely by the decline of Western power or the rise of new actors. It is shaped by a growing disillusionment with interventionist practices that overlook cultural plurality and political diversity. Stability cannot be achieved through coercion or moral selectivity.
If the international order is to endure, it must be grounded in restraint, genuine multilateralism, and respect for civilizational differences. Otherwise, efforts to preserve global leadership may instead accelerate fragmentation confirming Huntington's insight not as an inevitability, but as a warning that remains unheeded.
The writer is an MPhil Researcher, University of Dhaka
