Until the turn of the century, behavioural patterns controlling political systems and the economic model were fairly predictable. Political leaders and economic decision makers not only followed an analogous script but their actions were transparent and other players knew the game and the rules—including the unwritten ones—so surprises were few.

The new thing is that the game has become unpredictable. This is the case for globalization and domestic policies, making it hard to navigate them.

In the past, nation-states complied with the decisions and rulings of international institutions such as the Security Council of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization because they expected other nation-states to do the same. This is also the case with the question often asked as to why member states of the European Union (EU) comply with the rulings of the European Court of Justice when it is powerless to enforce its rulings.

The global system was in reality not global. It was a global projection of the salient elements of the American political system and economic model. The rest of the world acquiesced because the American model had proved its worth. It actually worked and worked well. The United States was the guardian of the system, ready to step in if needed to make sure it worked. The rule of law underpinning the system was American, and perhaps British, law. Economically, the United States and Britain in the early 1950s commanded close to half of global gross domestic product (GDP). Other nation-states had to acquiesce, as the alternative was that they would not get access to the markets of these two countries. From around 1991—when the Soviet empire collapsed— until the first decade of the twenty-first century, these two countries in reality took it upon themselves to force other countries to toe the line and to accept the existing global order. The two Iraq wars and the sanctions against Myanmar serve as examples of the posture of the United States and Britain as self-proclaimed defenders of globalization, which even justified military intervention against countries that did not respect the rules of the game. There was some expectation that Russia under Boris Yeltsin would join the global order, and some observers expected China also to move in the same direction.