Versailles had no role in causing World War II. It was caused by the same thing that caused World War I. France did not have an offensive military doctrine. Thus the German General Staff was tempted into making a first strike.



Nobody starts a war, or a fight, if they will immediately get hit in their own bread-basket. Pious talk and grandiloquent Charters and International assemblies of pompous diplomats make no difference whatsoever. What matters is that both sides have a credible offensive doctrine sufficiently powerful to deter aggression.



Germany and Japan were occupied after World War II. It was made blindingly clear to both nations that they would be nuked and enslaved if they attempted to take a belligerent course. Both America and the Soviet Union were satiated powers with an offensive military doctrine powerful enough to prevent all but proxy wars. The Vietnam war, for America, and the Afghan quagmire for the Soviets, caused both countries to lose their taste for direct military intervention. The failure of Gulf War 2 to turn a profit has reinforced this trend.



The Atlantic Charter did not lead to 'eight decades of prosperity'. The end of Colonialism- which would have happened anyway but in a bloody and prolonged manner- is what prevented World Wars. It also, in places where sensible people gained power, meant that Trade and Development burgeoned and billions were lifted out of poverty. It should be mentioned that the West used its power to prevent free trade. This turned out to be a blessing in disguise for countries like South Korea. Since they couldn't grow their labor intensive exports they were forced to go in for Heavy industry. Thus tiny South Korea, between 1975 and 1990, turned into the world's biggest ship-builder.



There has never been a 'golden age of multilateralism'.



The UN and its Charter has had zero impact on positive outcomes though, it must be admitted, great hopes were attached to it by smaller nations. Still, the fact remains, China was excluded from the UN for many years while tiny little Taiwan was a Permanent member of the security council. This had no effect whatsoever.



Bretton Woods was a rich man's club dedicated to preserving rents to Finance acquired by Western European Colonialism and Conquest. Democracy is not the global norm. People prefer power to be concentrated in sensible hands provided living standards rise even if it this happens later rather than sooner. No doubt, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a period of Western triumphalism when everybody had to pretend to be dedicated to Universal Human Rights and Democracy and Globalisation and so forth. However, there has been a popular rebellion against this even in wealthy Western countries.



Meanwhile the UN has become something of a joke. It is corrupt, inefficient and wholly ineffective. The day may come when the US loses patience with it and kicks it out. Where will it go? Who will care?



I recall the widespread popular jubilation amongst the people of 'Brazil, Algeria, Iran, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam' when they heard of the 'Declaration of Principles' issued at the Munich Security Conference. I'm kidding. Nobody cared, even in Germany. Why?



Consider this statement- '“Inspired by the inalienable rights derived from our ethics, traditions, and faiths, we commit ourselves to seek a better future for our citizens and our nations.'

Since different faiths grant conflicting 'inalienable rights' regarding who gets to rule 'the Holy Land' and given that people have different ethical beliefs and traditions, it is foolish to believe that 'inalienable rights' are matters on which 'overlapping consensus' can be reached. Defeasible rights, on the other hand, can compromise with each other in a pragmatic manner.



Still, it is nice to know that these guys want a better, not a worse, future.



However, we don't believe these guys can defend anything because they don't have a powerful Army, they have no new ideas, possess no means to discover the truth, have miserably failed to challenge lies, or to confront aggression. It is sheer lunacy for these guys to say they are confident their principles will prevail because the trend is against them even in their own backyards.



Negotiations between powerful countries- like China and the US- can be helpful. However, when idealists with no power stick their oar in, the policy space become multi-dimensional such that 'Agenda Control' gains salience and 'McKelvey Chaos' prevails. Small or powerless agents should keep shtum rather than add noise to signal. Furthermore, people perceived as failed politicians ought to disintermediate themselves from new initiatives because otherwise the the thing looks like a cosmetic exercise or a sort of Twilight Home for redundant public figures.