The new world order? Every man for himself

Financial Times Europe

25 Aug 2026

Alec Russell alec.russell@ft.com

Kofi Annan had a favourite put-down for people who tried to argue that an autocrat

could be the right answer for a weak or troubled state. “That’s Johnnie Walker talking . . . ” he would say, recalling how he and friends used to respond in Ghana when

he was growing up and someone made an outlandish claim. Autocracies were “built

on sand”, he believed; the only way to nurture a nation was via good governance;

you just had to keep working at it.

I heard the late UN secretary-general deliver this gentle “Johnnie Walker” rejoinder

on a tour of Tanzania 15 years ago. It was a time when the post-cold war teleology

of hope had run its course. And yet an aspirant breeze of democracy was blowing

across much of the developing world.

How dispirited Annan would be now. Authoritarianism has of course been on the

rise in great powers, such as China and Russia, for over a decade, and in “middle

powers”, from Turkey and the Gulf to India, and more recently and quite rapidly

Indonesia too.

But now that America has decided to hang up its hat when it comes to championing

democracy, there is a broader springtime for tyrants. From Zimbabwe to Myanmar,

thuggish autocracies seem emboldened to do pretty much what they like without

fear of even a rhetorical reproof.

As for Tanzania, the authorities have just suspended a newspaper for daring to

report on possible tension in the government. A decade ago such an act would have

led to pressure from western donors. How liberating it must be for intolerant politicians to be able to clamp down on the media with no fear of sanction . . .

Some will be tempted to riposte that this is nothing new: since when has America

been a paragon of virtuous behaviour? It has, after all, always been self-i

and hypo crit ical — as have all dom in ant powers over the years.

When Mark Car ney, Canada’s prime min is ter, lam basted the idea of the US-led“rules-based global order” as “pleas ant fic tion” in Janu ary, his cri tique found par tic -u lar favour in the global south. Many there have long resen ted the west’s incon sist -en cies. Exhibit A for the pro sec u tion: Zaire’s dic tator Mobutu Sese Seko in the coldwar. He was a king of klepto cracy, yet he and other des pots were cos seted by mul -tiple US pres id ents as anti-Soviet pawns.

And yet, unfash ion able as it is to defend Amer ica’s record on the world stage, that’snot the whole pic ture. Over the post-1945 dec ades there were many coun tries inwhich belea guered oppos i tion parties and news out lets were kept going by the sup -port of the US state depart ment and its agen cies. In the early 1990s, when cor res -pond ents of the US gov ern ment-fun ded Voice of Amer ica trav elled to Angola, a one-party state open ing up to the world, they were hailed as legends, such had been theimpact of their broad casts.

Well that was then. Voice of Amer ica was closed by the Trump admin is tra tion lastyear. Demo cracy pro mo tion is off the US agenda. When last month allies of Zim b -abwe’s pres id ent Emmer son Mnan gagwa forced through a new law to extend histerm, in breach of the con sti tu tion, there was not a chirp of protest from Amer ica.Other west ern coun tries too seem to have lost their spine. Bri tain and France arefocus ing on debt relief for Zim b abwe while say ing noth ing about the power grab.

The fin an cial sav ings from this retreat and a broader dis in vest ment in soft powerare a round ing error. But the impact on oppos i tion parties is dire. It is also short-sighted. Beijing is filling the soft power vacuum.

In Zim b abwe, Mnan gagwa’s back ers are call ing for him to stay on as a de facto pres -id ent-for-life. He has just pro moted 10 of them to be sen at ors. He is said to havedrawn heart from Trump’s off hand past sug ges tion that he might seek a third term.And so a tyranny takes root.

Some talk des pair ingly — and inac cur ately — of a return to “the law of the jungle”.When Rud y ard Kip ling, the chron icler of Brit ish imper i al ism, coined the phrase asthe title of a poem, it was a com pli ment. He was salut ing the way wolves workedtogether; his law of the jungle was about com munity, not chaos. “For the strength ofthe pack is the wolf,” he wrote. “And the strength of the wolf is the pack.”

Car ney impli citly invoked this “pack” spirit as a source of inspir a tion when hetalked about middle powers need ing to work together to keep mul ti lat er al ism alive.Some times this will hap pen. The idea of plur i lat er al ism — ad hoc coali- tions onspe cific issues — is gath er ing fans, as is flex i lat er al ism, whatever that may mean.

But over all the global zeit geist is “every man for him self” — or what is, yes, com -monly under stood as the law of the jungle. This is a cut-throat age when you canand hypocritical — as have all dominant powers over the years.

When Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister, lambasted the idea of the US-led

“rules-based global order” as “pleasant fiction” in January, his critique found particular favour in the global south. Many there have long resented the west’s inconsistencies. Exhibit A for the prosecution: Zaire’s dictator Mobutu Sese Seko in the cold

war. He was a king of kleptocracy, yet he and other despots were cosseted by multiple US presidents as anti-Soviet pawns.

And yet, unfashionable as it is to defend America’s record on the world stage, that’s

not the whole picture. Over the post-1945 decades there were many countries in

which beleaguered opposition parties and news outlets were kept going by the support of the US state department and its agencies. In the early 1990s, when correspondents of the US government-funded Voice of America travelled to Angola, a oneparty state opening up to the world, they were hailed as legends, such had been the

impact of their broadcasts.

Well that was then. Voice of America was closed by the Trump administration last

year. Democracy promotion is off the US agenda. When last month allies of Zimbabwe’s president Emmerson Mnangagwa forced through a new law to extend his

term, in breach of the constitution, there was not a chirp of protest from America.

Other western countries too seem to have lost their spine. Britain and France are

focusing on debt relief for Zimbabwe while saying nothing about the power grab.

The financial savings from this retreat and a broader disinvestment in soft power

are a rounding error. But the impact on opposition parties is dire. It is also shortsighted. Beijing is filling the soft power vacuum.

In Zimbabwe, Mnangagwa’s backers are calling for him to stay on as a de facto president-for-life. He has just promoted 10 of them to be senators. He is said to have

drawn heart from Trump’s offhand past suggestion that he might seek a third term.

And so a tyranny takes root.

Some talk despairingly — and inaccurately — of a return to “the law of the jungle”.

When Rudyard Kipling, the chronicler of British imperialism, coined the phrase as

the title of a poem, it was a compliment. He was saluting the way wolves worked

together; his law of the jungle was about community, not chaos. “For the strength of

the pack is the wolf,” he wrote. “And the strength of the wolf is the pack.”

Carney implicitly invoked this “pack” spirit as a source of inspiration when he

talked about middle powers needing to work together to keep multilateralism alive.

Sometimes this will happen. The idea of plurilateralism — ad hoc coali- tions on

specific issues — is gathering fans, as is flexilateralism, whatever that may mean.

But overall the global zeitgeist is “every man for himself” — or what is, yes, commonly understood as the law of the jungle. This is a cut-throat age when you cruth lessly pur sue goals. UN offi cials talk des pair ingly of how as many as 10 coun -tries are fuel ling the war in Sudan, all feel ing assured of impun ity.

Sup port ers of Amer ica’s dis en gaged approach talk of a long-over due return to real -ism. The world has changed, they say. That is true. But the end of US inter- est inspread ing enlight en ment ideals comes at a high price.

Annan would have known how to respond to any one seek ing to defend the pre vail -ing cyn ical dis reg ard of the mer its of demo cracy. Quietly but firmly he would haveridiculed the notion, say ing: “That’s John nie Walker talk ing.” And he would, ofcourse, have been right.