The new world order proclaimed by George Bush proved notable primarily for its absence. It was proclaimed, rhetorically at least, as the promise of 1945 fulfilled, a world in which international peace and security were guaranteed by international institutions, led by the United Nations, with the active support of the world's major powers. It was a liberal internationalist prototype of a world government, cast in the image of domestic political order. Such an order requires a governmental monopoly on force, a centralized rule-making authority, a clear hierarchy of institutions, and universal membership.

That world order is a chimera. Even as an ideal, it is unfeasible at best and dangerous at worst. Many international institutions have a vital role to play in regulating world politics, but they are destined to remain servants of their member States more than masters. The United Nations cannot function effectively independently of the will of the major powers that comprise it; those powers, in turn, will not cede their power and sovereignty to an international institution. Efforts to expand independent supranational authority, from the UN Secretary General's office to the Commission of the European Union to the World Trade Organization, have been carefully circumscribed and have produced a backlash and a determined reassertion of power by member States.