Description
Within much popular commentary, the 1990s have been held hostage by romanticised narratives about the Liberal International Order (LIO). This narrative posits a clean progression from the LIO’s birth in the ashes of the second World War, to its apogee in the 1990s within the unipolar moment, to its decline in the mid-2010s. Challenging this narrative, this paper reconceptualises the “Asian Values debate” within international theory, utilising the tools of global intellectual history. Casting skepticism on universalist narratives through cultural resources, Asian intellectuals challenged various tenets of the LIO and United States’ hegemony across different fora, including American elite house journals outlets like Foreign Affairs, as well as various United Nations’ events. Traversing the lineage and encounters of the “Singapore School” - the primary purveyors of Asian Values discourse - this paper surfaces two interrelated critiques about the LIO’s sacralised account: it emphasises how its triumph in the 1990s was a contingent outcome that required compromise and negotiation; and that the LIO has never displayed a pure, all-encompassing form, instead exhibiting a localised, composite character. A refreshed conception of the 1990s thereby reveals how international political theory can afford greater clarity to the current historical juncture, destabilising idealized notions about the nature and historicity of international orders.
