The Peace of Westphalia did not establish 'the right of countries to an independent existence' even amongst its signatories. Out of 109 delegations attending or otherwise involved, the vast majority lost their sovereignty by conquest or force majeure. Non Christian, non White powers were never considered as enjoying even such notional sovereignty as might be bruited, that too simply as a diplomatic fiction, till they gained countervailing power of a military or economic kind.

There has never been a world in which borders aren't forcibly violated- whether by us or against us- because the world is real, not some utopian fiction, and all complex biological processes involve conflict and instability.

We have never had an 'operating system' in which we respected anybody's sovereignty unless we had to or it paid better to do so. What great respect have we shown for Iraqi or Afghan or Libyan or Syrian sovereignty? Powerful countries have not scrupled to meddle in the internal politics of even countries they are friendly with. It has never been the case that 'what goes on inside a country' has been off limits for our policy makers. We were against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan before Osama got there. Why? We didn't like the way they treated their women. No doubt, Saudi Arabia isn't a perfect society but they have countervailing economic power- i.e. have bribed a lot of our top people. If that weren't the case, we'd happily have meddled in their internal politics. Indeed, for all we know, something of that sort might be happening right now.

The current 'international order' has a plethora of 'norms' and 'arrangements' most of which conflict with each other and all of which can be flouted with impunity by any country determined enough to do so.

Why speak of 'Bids for statehood'? Taiwan may have a good claim but they aren't going to be recognised any time soon, unless Trump goes tonto- in which case, sure, it can happen because it doesn't really matter anyway. Nothing with the word 'international' attached to it does.

Take 'climate change' agreements. Countries grow at different speeds. Those which cause a lot of pollution tend to be on a higher growth path and so their own planners start taking action now because that is what rational economic policy dictates. The old story about rich countries helping poor countries is baloney. Some of those 'rich countries' are running enormous deficits at the expense of 'poor countries'. There can be no transfer of resources here. The thing is a joke.

What about cybserspace? The real struggle here is between the State and the Citizen, not anything between States. International agreements can't be benign. They can only be either a nuisance or a waste of time.

Global health doesn't present any challenge at all unless diplomats crowd out Doctors. Let the Doctors alone and there is no problem. The Red Cross wasn't created by Diplomats. No doubt there are other organisations where a 'Diplomatic' mindset has caused Doctors to go crazy and do stupid things but the solution is to disintermediate the Diplomats and Public Intellectuals.

When it comes to refugees it is vital that truly transparent International Agencies promise everybody under the sun safe passage to decent accommodation, education and livelihoods next door to you.

Trump will not really disrupt that much on the ground even if everybody stops talking nonsense about a new International Order and gets a proper job for which they are actually qualified- like bagging groceries at Kwiksave.

Why? The World has always been real and realist theories give rise to not just Nash equilibria but also correlated ones.

Why pretend that History since 1664 has been one long interregnum of peace and mutual respect amongst sovereign nations which, only recently, has begun to fray at the seams?

Is Haas trying to show that Trump is actually smarter than all the vaunted bien pensant I.R mavens who have been adding noise to signal with their silly books all these years?