In my first article about the 2021 Atlantic Charter, I wrote about the extent to which it is a symbolic document. In particular, I wanted to compare the 2021 agreement to its more famous predecessor.
Here, I want to focus in on the actual text of the new charter. I want to put aside discussions of symbolism and look closely at the eight commitments expressed in the document, taking them more or less at their word. In this light, it is worth considering what it all means for the diplomatic agendas of both countries. What substantive and stylistic conclusions can be drawn? What can we infer about the future geopolitical priorities and tactics of the United States and the United Kingdom?
There are, I think, four essential takeaways.
One, there is an uneasy tension at work here. On the one hand, both powers are very eager to move past the Cold War and Iraq-Afghanistan debacles. Neither leader wants to police the world or reawaken accusations of imperialistic interventionism. To this end, there is none of the righteous, ‘axis of evil’ language we might have seen only a few years ago. The charter promises to “remain united behind the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.” It is careful and restrained, avoiding any insinuation that might justify forceful political or social change. Instead, “we will work through the rules-based international order to tackle global challenges together.”
At the same time, however, the document clearly perceives a rivalry with the autocratic nations of China and Russia and notes that international threats are present and growing. Gone is the heady, self-assured optimism of the ‘end of history.’ Indeed, the charter is in places defensive and uncompromising. It promises “to oppose interference through disinformation or other malign influences, including in elections” (a not so subtle dig at Russia in particular) and “to affirm our shared responsibility for maintaining our collective security and international stability and resilience against the full spectrum of modern threats, including cyber threats.” ‘Collective’ and ‘resilience’ are the two most important words in this sentence, because they indicate that a long-term contest between opposing groups is underway. So all in all, it is still a dangerous world and neither Western power is willing to back down. But, critically, Biden and Johnson are unwilling to face these threats unilaterally or go on some geopolitical offensive, à la Bushes and Thatchers of old.
Gone is the heady, self-assured optimism of the 'end of history.'
Two, the charter clearly signals the entrenchment of environmentalism as an ideal of international politics – not the only ideal mind you, merely one of several. Commitments six and seven explicitly stress the importance of promoting sustainability and fighting climate change. The charter is also scant on how environmental progress is actually going to be made, but that is to be expected; neither side would be willing to talk tangible specifics in a document like this, because a bullseye is easier to miss than a garbage truck. If nothing else, this means that both powers want to be seen as environmental champions, that they link global legitimacy with green politics. Appearances and perceived legitimacy matter more in politics than many recognize. In the coming years, the US and UK will face many diplomatic calculations on how to act and who to support. The new charter suggests that such choices will be shaped by whether or not an action denigrates either power’s environmental reputation. It might no longer be worth the prestige hit at home and abroad to prop up petroleum states or shrug off biodiversity disasters. This is only a first step in the geopolitical battle against climate change, but not one to be ignored.
Three, democracy remains the lodestar of Western principles and institutions. All the usual values are here: open society, civil society, the rule of law, independent media, human dignity, etc. This is largely what the 1941 Charter promised. Here, however, there is more frankness about improving democracy, rather than just expanding its scope. Echoing Biden, the first commitment asserts that “we must ensure that democracies – starting with our own – can deliver on solving the critical challenges of our time.” This is one of the most important phrases in the whole agreement, a direct consequence of the last four, tumultuous years. It suggests that Western geopolitics can no longer operate from a totally secure platform of superiority; while patrolling and improving the world, they must also tend to their own gardens. And while both countries clearly eschew isolationism – “we intend to strengthen the institutions, laws, and norms that sustain international co-operation to adapt them to meet the new challenges of the 21st century, and guard against those that would undermine them” – they also face a more complicated path than in 1941. There is no war to win and peace treaty to construct. That’s why this charter emphasizes long-term stability and structural integrity; in anticipation of the slow, grueling competition in a fast-paced, multidimensional century. Democracy still matters, but it matters as a system to be perfected and a prize to be guarded – not as a vision of a new world order.
they must also tend to their own gardens.
Four, while most of the charter bleeds multilateralism and rule-based diplomacy, it still places the West firmly in the driving seat of global politics. Commitment four, for instance, is explicitly competitive and ambitious. It recognizes the closing technological gap (remember, technology is always a proxy of power) and seeks to correct this phenomenon: “we resolve to harness and protect our innovative edge in science and technology…to promote the development and deployment of new standards and technologies to support democratic values.” ‘New standards.’ The US and UK are still setters of standards, and all the bold, aggressive energy taken away from intervention and big stick waving might soon be redirected towards the pursuit of high-tech and cutting-edge infrastructure. I talked about this a little bit in a previous article on Chinese-American competition, but it also bears mention here. Commitment five also emphasizes Western leadership by strongly endorsing NATO as a guardian of global security.
This is just a shortlist. There are undoubtedly more compelling insights to be gleaned from the Charter. But it is an important list, because it gives us a good sense of which way the international wind is blowing. The two leaders who agreed to these tenets are, after all, both highly conscious of history and legacy. They would not dress up promises in such grand clothing had they no desire to keep them. In any case, the future of these aims will depend on circumstance, savvy, politics, and luck. And make no mistake, if different governments are swept into power in either country, the charter might be reduced to a dead letter.
For my part, I find this, on balance, a noble set of commitments to make. I hope, in however many years, we will be able to consider the 2021 Atlantic Charter fulfilled. It would be much more ominous to see its idealism dashed against the rocks.
Comments