World War II ended 80 years ago, in 1945. The war lasted six years, from 1939 to 1945, though some would argue that it really began in 1937 with the Japanese invasion of China. No one would argue, however, that the war was the deadliest in history.
Tens of millions of people died (estimates as to the number of military and civilian fatalities vary widely), of whom six million were Jews killed in the Holocaust. There was destruction of vast territories in Europe and Asia, with the Soviet Union suffering the greatest losses: around 27 million people died and over 7,000 villages and cities destroyed. And in Japan over 200,000 people—mostly civilians—died in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
By contrast, other than the attack on Pearl Harbor (a military base), the United States suffered virtually no physical damage, saw fewer than 500,000 military deaths, and only several thousand civilian casualties, mainly of American citizens living abroad.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the United States emerged from the conflict as the strongest political, military and economic power on Earth.
In a world where almost all of the major world players suffered immense damages, the United States saw an opportunity to decisively mold the postwar world to its advantage and used its position to lead shape the creation of several important institutions and the development of significant policies.
This power was no more evident than in the establishment of the United Nations. Carrying forward the ideals of the failed League of Nations (which the United States never joined), the five major victors in the war were instrumental in creating an organization that was dedicated, in the words of the U.N. Charter:
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace…”
The reality, however, saw the U.N.’s emergence as an important arena of the Cold War. The five permanent members of the Security Council—the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China—held the power of the veto. That is, any one of the five had the right to overrule any decision made by a majority of the Council by casting a “no” vote. The Soviet Union, the only major socialist power on the Security Council at the time, had to thwart repeated maneuvers by the United States and cast 79 vetoes in the first ten years.
U.S. dominance extended to the economic sphere with the creation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). At the same time, the dollar became the medium of exchange in international currency transactions.
Three years after the end of hostilities, President Harry S. Truman signed the Economic Recovery Act of 1948, better known as the Marshall Plan. The main thrust of the program was to rebuild the war-torn European capitalist countries, ostensibly, in the words of the National Archives, to support “the development of stable democratic governments in Western Europe.”
Implicit in the implementation of the Marshall Plan, however, was the creation of a bulwark to prevent what the U.S. government saw as the “spread of communism.” Over the next four years, Washington provided over $13 billion to its western allies; the Soviet Union and the developing socialist economies of Eastern Europe received not one cent.
In Asia, Japan and South Korea both received substantial economic aid, as well as the stationing of thousands of U.S. troops on their soil. Both countries were seen as major defenses against “communist expansion.”
But in the larger world picture, Japan and South Korea were merely two pieces in Washington’s broader international anti-communist strategy. By 1947, the United States actively pursued a policy known as “containment,” which was dedicated to minimizing Soviet influence in the world arena—ultimately with the aim of overthrowing the world’s first socialist state.
The main instrument of “containment” was the establishment of several military alliances, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), foremost among them. Formed in 1949 by twelve countries in Europe and North America, the alliance was dedicated to, in the words of the Office of the Historian at the State Department, providing “collective security against the Soviet Union.”
Many would argue, however, that such a view was nothing more than an excuse to pursue a military response to a non-existent threat. The USSR had no plans to invade Western Europe; instead it consistently pursued a policy of peace and peaceful co-existence with the West.
Yet, the United States and its allies were only part of a much bigger world. At the same time the Cold War was unfolding, so too were the national liberation and freedom movements among the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In the quarter-century after the end of World War II, nearly 50 countries attained their political independence.
Yet, despite the achievement of political independence, the major imperialist countries, led by the United States, maintained economic domination of international trade and finance. Through the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization, living standards in the developing countries stagnated and they accumulated huge amounts of debt.
Though burdened by an unfair economic system, the countries of what was then called the “Third World,” and now known as the “Global South,” fought back. Through organizations such as the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and the Group of 77, the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America demanded a more democratic and egalitarian economic world order.
That struggle continues and has intensified today. A number of developing countries, led by the People’s Republic of China, but including India, Brazil, and South Africa, among many others, are using their growing economic power and political importance to demand reform of the post-WWII world order.
There is no lack of calls for reform of the major pillars that underpin U.S. dominance in the economic, political, and military fields. The leaders of several developing countries have been outspoken on these subjects.
S. Jaishankar, the foreign minister of India, at the U.N. General Assembly in 2022, called for reform, saying “the current architecture is anachronistic and ineffective” and “deeply unfair, denying entire continents and regions a voice in a forum that deliberates their future.”
Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, the president of Brazil and current president of the G20, recently outlined his views on the governance of major world institutions. In the words of two writers for the Associated Press, Lula pointed to organizations “such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and multilateral banks” as places where there should be “stronger representation of developing nations.”
He sees a U.N. Security Council in need of “more countries from Africa, Latin America, as well as India, Germany, or Japan.” Lula also added, “We need to add more people and end the right of veto in the U.N., because it is not possible for one country alone to be able to veto the approval of something approved by all members.”
The most comprehensive program for reform of the international order has come from Xi Jinping, president of the People’s Republic of China. He has formulated his views in three broad initiatives—the Global Security Initiative (GSI), the Global Development Initiative (GDI), and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI).
At the G20 summit held in Rio de Janeiro in November 2024, Xi outlined China’s views on reforming global governance. He said:
“We should keep in mind that mankind lives in a community with a shared future, see each other’s development as opportunities rather than challenges, and view each other as partners rather than rivals.”
He called for adherence to a system of international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter and defended an order based on international law. To do so, he said it’s necessary to “promote an equal and orderly multipolar world and a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization.”
Xi went on to outline some key principles to achieve it, including cooperation in economic governance, stable international financial systems, open trade, working together to foster digital innovation, and “eco-friendliness.”
It is critical that the people of Earth unite around new ideas based on the world of the twenty-first century. China and other countries are doing some of the heavy lifting; we don’t have to re-invent the wheel. For those of us in the United States, it is our responsibility, indeed our duty, to work toward replacing the unequal world order created by the United States and its allies at the end of World War II and build one that reflects the hopes and dreams of all the eight billion people who live on our planet today.
As with all op-eds published by People’s World, this article reflects the views of its author.
We hope you appreciated this article. At People’s World, we believe news and information should be free and accessible to all, but we need your help. Our journalism is free of corporate influence and paywalls because we are totally reader-supported. Only you, our readers and supporters, make this possible. If you enjoy reading People’s World and the stories we bring you, please support our work by donating or becoming a monthly sustainer today. Thank you!
CONTRIBUTOR
Comments