Written by Diya Rudra
On 14 October, Rory Stewart, now a Professor in the Practice of International Relations at LSE, delivered the public lecture Weaponising Dependency: The New World Order. Hosted by LSE’s Department of International Relations and chaired by Professor Jeffrey Chwieroth, Head of the Department, the event drew on the speaker’s background as a diplomat and former Cabinet minister. Stewart discussed the intersection of politics, economics and power, examining how the United States leverages its financial position to enforce – and weaponise – its hegemony.
Stewart opened by outlining the shift from “poor autocracies to prosperous democratic states” that came into being between 1989 and 2004, which implied democratic countries – stimulating freedom, competition, and growth – were inherently more prosperous. Against this background, the unprecedented position post-war America found itself in (comprising about “half the global economy”) enabled it to spearhead this transition into democracy and economic growth globally. Indeed, contemporary American policies – including “burden-sharing” and “pivot to Asia” (particularly Taiwan) – had led to liberal consensus on this role as a “global policeman,” particularly in Europe. Yet, Stewart argued, these ideals were fundamentally challenged due to extraordinary economic growth in China and the 2008 financial crisis. When coupled with dramatic failures in Iran and Afghanistan, the turn of the century saw a breakdown in correlation between democracy and economic prosperity. Simultaneously, the Arab Spring illustrated social media influence on accelerated information flow: “the graph of public opinion collapsed into a U-shape,” while the media’s ability to “leap across borders and constitutions at an unprecedented rate” catalyses this polarisation. The compounded effect of these factors is, in essence, what Stewart described as a collapse in the familiar “rules-based international order”.
Instead, Stewart posits geopolitics has progressed starkly toward “the equivalent of an America-first world order.” This apparent dependency on the US, and its inextricability from economic and diplomatic spheres, is what he calls “intolerable.” He proposed that structural elements in American policy that propagate this intolerable order mirror those of late 19th century colonial powers. Intervention appearing to be “done for [nations’] own good,” with high-handed rhetoric of US dependency being a “privilege, not a right,” creates “a coercive, abusive relationship” with the middle powers the US claims it supports. He illustrated the role of humiliation in American attitudes toward Ukraine as an example of this, whilst secondary sanctions in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz augmented international dollar dependency as well as on American oil. Above all, he asserts “there is nothing more dramatic than US-founded (AI) models,” where US monopoly over innovation constricts global access.
So, what does understanding this intolerability mean, and what actions does it necessitate? To Professor Stewart, the “only logical structure is a coalition of middle powers.” Driven by humiliation and American denial of intolerability, the conversation has veered from normative policy frameworks to a “hubristic abuse of an inferior, and the necessary response of injured pride, of honour.”
Addressing questions on AI nationalisation, Professor Stewart emphasised a “need to agree on thresholds to mobilise for global agreement” among leaders. He recognised long-term collaboration between middle powers, including on data centers, may create opportunity for a “third residual group with control” – a defence stack independent from the US or China. Deliberating if EU-UK relations already reflect ‘coalition,’ he considered them “structural shifts with very little intentionality,” emphasising paradoxes in US support for nationalist European governments (“much less natural allies in regard to NATO and questions of foreign policy”). Finally, he recognised the fallacy of considering equal power distribution among US, China, Middle Powers and Global South, instead suggesting joint maneuvers would be crucial.
The lecture was positively received, with attendees commending Stewart’s historical analogies and ability to ‘disagree agreeably’. However, some attendees reported that they thought Stewart could have integrated the Global South better into the broader discussion, along with the immediate steps he proposes be taken toward this coalition.
