The Global Story: The post-World War II era is over. What comes next?

Summary

---

Global News Podcast – The Global Story: The Post-World War II Era Is Over. What Comes Next?

Date: January 18, 2026
Hosts: Asma Khalid, Tristan Redman
Guest: Jeremy Bowen, BBC International Editor

---

Episode Overview

This special episode explores the seismic shifts in global order as the post-World War II era gives way to a more unstable and contested world. Hosts Asma Khalid and Tristan Redman speak with BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen about the legacy of the so-called “rules-based international order,” its historic successes and failures, and the uncertain future as great power rivalry intensifies and traditional alliances fray.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins and Aspirations of the Post-WWII Order

[03:15–08:30]

• The rules-based international system was born from the devastation of World War II, aiming to avoid future conflicts via stronger world institutions like the UN Security Council, the NATO alliance, and a web of international law and conventions.
• Jeremy Bowen: Asserts that while the aims were admirable, these structures were created not purely for altruism but because they suited the national interests of key states, especially the United States.
• Notable Quote
  • "States do things not out of charity. They do things because it benefits them." – Jeremy Bowen [05:38]

2. Where the System Worked: The Gulf War (1990–91)

[09:58–16:23]

• The first Gulf War is used as a rare positive example, where US-led global action to repel Iraqi forces from Kuwait was backed by enforceable UN Security Council resolutions.
• Jeremy details being on the ground as a young BBC correspondent, illustrating both the military and diplomatic successes and the strict legal parameters followed.
• Notable Quote
  • "In that case, you could say the system worked." – Jeremy Bowen [16:18]

3. Failures of the Rules-Based Order: Iraq War (2003) and Beyond

[16:23–19:24]

• The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 lacked UN backing, damaging the legitimacy of the system and unleashing long-term instability.
• Examples of international law being "broken especially by the most powerful countries...repeatedly since the Second World War."
• The 2020s war in Gaza cited as another case where laws have been violated with little accountability.
• Notable Quote
  • "The system has ever functioned perfectly. ...International laws have been quite widely broken, especially by the most powerful countries..." – Jeremy Bowen [18:31]

4. Critiquing the System: The Problem of Western Double Standards

[18:31–19:24]

• Jeremy points out accusations that the so-called order is often Western-centric, with rules applied harshly to adversaries but not to Western allies.
• Notable Quote
  • "They're Western rules which are normally applied to adversaries of the West and are applied in either a half-hearted or not at all way to the friends of the West." – Jeremy Bowen [18:49]

5. Is There an Alternative? Trump’s Doctrine and a Return to Spheres of Influence

[23:17–25:26]

• With a possible return of Donald Trump and the rise of other populists globally, established norms face erosion.
• Trump is described as not even "paying lip service" to the old system, instead showing signs of returning to a world where power determines influence—an echo of 19th-century empire politics.
• Jeremy argues that such a system is far less feasible in today’s interconnected, multi-polar, and educated world.
• Countries like India would resist anyone’s sphere of influence, asserting their own power.
• Notable Quote
  • "The world has changed so much that it’s going to be very difficult for a couple of strong leaders to impose their will on everybody." – Jeremy Bowen [02:15, 25:16]

6. The European Perspective: Watching From the Sidelines

[25:26–26:04]

• Europe now finds itself a bystander, having relied on American security for decades. Trump’s America questions the value of defending Europe, ending the old consensus.
• Notable Quote
  • "Europe is feeling like we’re bystanders, that we’re watching things we can’t control anymore...that consensus that American security meant European security has gone." – Jeremy Bowen [25:39]

7. Prospects for the Future: Chaos or (New) Stability?

[26:04–29:18]

• Jeremy Bowen warns that the world may be entering a more chaotic era. The number of conflicts is rising, crises risk becoming unmanageable, and there’s little optimism for a peaceful resolution in hotspots like the Middle East.
• The critical variable is whether the US and China can find stable ground between competition and open hostility.
• Jeremy stresses the importance, still, of international rules as a fragile safety net—or “guardrails”—even if imperfect.
• Notable Quotes:
  • "I hate to say it, I'm on the chaos side...This is a really worrying time...I think the danger is that little crises can become big crises and suddenly things start slipping out of control." – Jeremy Bowen [26:16, 28:49]
  • "If it's quite a chaotic, might-is-right atmosphere...it guarantees a great deal of work for people like me, but frankly a lot of worry for anyone who wants to live a peaceful life." – Jeremy Bowen [29:13]

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• On state motivation:
  "I don’t think nations are altruistic. I think they’re self-interested. I’m a realist in these things." – Jeremy Bowen [08:56]
• On why the 19th-century system can't come back:
  "Now, India is a rising power...They don’t want to be part of anyone’s sphere of influence. They want to have their own sphere." – Jeremy Bowen [24:47]
• On the essential question:
  "If you don’t have [international rules], what do you have?" – Jeremy Bowen [21:54]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• [03:15] – Jeremy Bowen sets the historical scene for the postwar order.
• [09:58] – Explains Gulf War I as a case of the system working.
• [16:23] – Iraq 2003 and Gaza discussed as failures of the system.
• [18:49] – Critique of Western double standards.
• [24:00] – Explains why a return to empires isn't possible.
• [25:35] – Europe’s marginalization in the new order.
• [26:16] – Predictions for the future: chaos or stability?
• [29:18] – Episode closes with Jeremy's reflection on future risks.

---

Tone and Language

The tone of the episode is thoughtful, occasionally somber, but laced with the clear-eyed pragmatism of long experience. Both hosts and guest maintain an analytical and accessible style, frequently drawing on personal anecdotes and historical reference for clarity, while not shying away from blunt critiques of power politics and international hypocrisy.

---

This episode is essential listening for anyone seeking a nuanced, historically grounded understanding of today’s global power shifts, what might replace the post-war order, and whether a return to global stability is possible.

Transcript

[A]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk. This message comes from Schwab. At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

[B]

Nearly Home Isn't home where we all Want to be? Reba here for realtor.com, the Pro's number one most trusted app Finding a home is like dating. You're not just looking for a place to live, you're searching for the one. That's where realtor.com comes in. Like any good matchmaker, they know exactly where to look. Where with over 500,000 new real listings straight from the pros every month, you could find your perfect match today. Ranch style with a pool, barndominium with an in law suite. Realtor.com's got em modern craftsman with a big yard and a treehouse out back. Realtor.com will have you saying yep that's the one. No more swapping. It's time to start finding download therealtor.com app today cause you're nearly home. Make it real with realtor.com Pro's number.

[A]

One most trusted app is based on August 2025 proprietary survey. Over 500,000 new listings every month based on average new for sale and rental listings. July 2024 to June 2025.

[C]

Hey there, I'm Asma Khalid.

[D]

And I'm Tristan Redman and we're here with a bonus episode for you from the Global Story podcast. Every day we focus on one story looking at how America and the world shape each other.

[C]

So we hope you enjoy this episode and to find more of our show, just search for the Global Story where wherever you get your BBC podcasts, the.

[D]

World Order as we've known it is being upended.

[C]

Great powers and strong men are trying to use their muscle and might to expand territory, and there's no better man to help us make sense of these tectonic shifts than the BBC's international editor, Jeremy Bowen.

[A]

The world has changed so much that it's going to be very difficult for a couple of strong leaders to impose their will on everybody. The danger is that little crises can become big crises and suddenly things start slipping out of control. One of the things that would stop you'd hope things slipping out of control is some kind of rules based system.

[D]

From the BBC, I'm tristan redman in london.

[C]

And I'm asma khalid in washington d.c.

[D]

And today on the global story, the post world war ii era is over. What comes next? Could you introduce yourself please?

[A]

I'm Jeremy Bowen, I'm the international editor of BBC News.

[D]

Thank you for joining us.

[A]

Good to be back.

[D]

So all this week we've been talking about spheres of influence around the world. We've looked at the American, the Chinese, the Russian spheres of influence and we've looked at how they've been vying for influence in Africa. Today we're going to try and patch it all together as well as looking at parts of the world that we haven't talked about yet. So I wanted to just go back in time a little bit and set up where the idea of a rules based international order came from. So last weekend, Jeremy, I found myself listening to a speech by Winston Churchill.

[A]

Ladies and gentlemen, here assembled.

[D]

The last time, this is not normally the sort of thing I do on a Saturday, but my daughter picked up a book about Churchill and read it. She's 11. And when she finished reading it, she saw this vinyl record that I had, which was a vinyl record of Churchill speeches that I was given by my mother in law. And we ended up listening to this speech he gave in 1943 to Harvard University about the way he saw the world after the Second World War.

[A]

The people of the United States cannot escape world responsibility. We have now reached a point in the journey where there can be no pause. We must go on. It must be world anarchy or world order.

[D]

Basically he said, the United States has a responsibility to operate in the world. It cannot withdraw from the world.

[A]

We have learned from hard experience that stronger, more efficient, more rigorous world institutions must be created to preserve peace and to forestall the causes of future wars.

[D]

If there was going to be peace after the Second World War, there needed to be something that he called a World Council. So I guess something resembling the UN Security Council. And then after the war, the Truman Doctrine happened. And it just so happens that this week is the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the UN Security Council. So Jeremy, what do you make of that ambition to create this kind of international rules based world order? Was it an admirable thing or was it misguided?

[A]

It was of course admirable. After the horrors of the Second World War and indeed the horrors of the first half of the 20th century to try to find a better way, there had been a failure after The First World War, there was an international organization called the League of Nations that never really worked. So after World War II, so much had changed. The United States had become a world power, a world military power, an industrial power. The old European powers were broken, Britain included. And when Churchill was speaking in that speech, you referenced his whole strategy in the Second World War, apart from just fighting on, was trying to get the Americans as engaged as possible. So, yeah, there were rules, because awful things had happened. And they brought in things like the Genocide Convention and a lot of the fabric of international law that we might recognize now. But naturally there were other things going on. States do things not out of charity. They do things because it benefits them. And the feeling was that some sort of apparatus of Western security with America leading it, would benefit America in terms of getting some stability in a continent that had been terribly unstable in providing new markets as well for the Americans. And as the relations between the west and the Soviet Union rapidly deteriorated after the Second World War and the Cold War kicked in and started going, there was a sense that they had to get together to stop what was seen by some at the time as the inexorable rise of communism and Soviet power. So by 1947, Britain was bankrupt. And Britain sent a message to the Americans saying, we can't do what we would like to do. We haven't got the money. So the then President of the United States, Harry Truman, decided that America had to formalize its global post war role. What he came up with the Truman Doctrine, which was an idea that America would intervene in conflicts to protect people and also in their own interests. And really it was about resisting Soviet Communism. And out of the Truman Doctrine came the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. And out of that Too came in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty, which was the foundation of NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Those things allied with the other conventions, genocide, human rights, rights of the child and so on, that came in, all of those things shaped the way that they thought the post war world might go. And for a while, in different places, it did work, actually, in some ways. But now, many years later, things have changed.

[C]

This new World order that was created in the aftermath of World War II, complete with some of these large scale global institutions. If we look at something like NATO, you mentioned a major. The largest national security alliance. These were created in the aftermath of the war. And whether or not they were done with, you could say altruistic intentions or not is debatable. But nonetheless, there was.

[A]

I don't think nations are altruistic. I Think they're self interested. I'm a realist in these things.

[C]

Yes.

[A]

Not everybody is, but I am nonetheless.

[C]

Though, regardless of their intentions, there was broadly this direct line between the Truman Doctrine after World War II, I would say, maybe with some ebbs and flows, but up until Biden's foreign policy during the last U.S. administration, you have written this really thought provoking analysis piece, I would say, on the BBC website where you talk about whether Donald Trump now is creating a new world order. And so I want to dig into that in a little bit more depth. You have been reporting for the BBC for, what is it, four decades, is that right, Jeremy?

[A]

Four decades, something like that.

[C]

More than four decades, yeah.

[A]

I'm losing count.

[C]

You've seen nonetheless where this doctrine has worked and where perhaps it hasn't worked. So let's begin with that. Is there a story where the rules based order that was created after World War II worked as it was intended to function?

[A]

Well, first let me say that from the outset, the idea of this rules based order, not everybody accepted it was going to be a great idea. As European empires decolonized in the 50s and 60s into the 70s, countries became independent. They didn't necessarily want to be told what to do by the old colonial powers, plus the United States and the other superpowers, Soviet Union or whatever. There was something called the non Aligned Movement in that period where countries said we're not going to be part of the east or the west, we're going to try and do things for ourselves. But yes, certainly in terms of the security of Western countries. And you asked for a specific example. Now this isn't actually about European security. At the time it was seen as something about global security. And that was the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On the morning of August 2nd, thousands of people in Kuwait City woke up to war by Saddam Hussein, the authoritarian leader, the dictator of Iraq. In the summer of 1990, August of 1990, the invasion by 100,000 Iraqi troops backed by air cover and tanks was brutally efficient.

[C]

The first to go for.

[A]

Yes, first Gulf War. Iraq wants control of Kuwait's territory, its oil and the money that comes with it. Kuwait major, of course, oil producing country and at the time the United States and the west very much depended on oil coming from the Arabian Gulf. And as a fairly young reporter, I was part of the BBC reporting of that. I went to Saudi Arabia just after the invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990. On the road to the border through the sandstorms, American convoys are bringing more men and more equipment, equipment to confront the armies of Saddam Hussein drove up to the border with Kuwait. This is where the Americans say they've drawn a line in the sand against Iraqi aggression. The Americans had started deploying troops to Saudi Arabia. There was an enormous military buildup. Saudi intelligence told us that the Iraqis are dug in about 25 miles inside Kuwait. I think when you say did this work? The system worked, I think because the then President George H.W. bush went to the United nations just two hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. If ever there was a rules based order guy, it was probably the first. President Bush. This military action taken in accord with United nations resolutions and with the consent of the United States Congress follows months of constant and virtually endless diplomat act diplomatic activity. And he did it all through various UN resolutions and the UN resolutions passed and they were enforceable resolutions. President Bush took really big steps to deploy a vast army with a lot of help from allies to the Gulf area, particularly to Saudi Arabia. But he did it with the authorization of United nations resolution. So there was international legality on its side.

[C]

And the stated justification for this intervention was that it was not acceptable that Iraq try to annex territory of a.

[A]

Neighboring country under the UN Charter. The only justifications for legal military action are self defense 1. If a country is invited by a state to fight for them, that would be one. And also if there is authorization through a resolution through the Security Council. So there has to be one of these Chapter 7 resolutions that is voted through that can authorize the legal use of military force. And they got one of those through and that's how they did it. We begin with news of the attack. Jeremy Bowen of the BBC reports. Now I was in Baghdad as the Americans were pushing up through Kuwait and they got into Iraq as well. The air raid started just before midnight and continued for almost five hours. Up to 20 large explosions were heard in central Baghdad. And we all wondered in Baghdad whether or not the Americans were going to arrive. The walls and windows of the Rashid Hotel where Western journalists are staying, were shaken by a number of the attacks. And certainly the Iraqis of the Saddam Hussein regime, they really believed it was going to happen.

[C]

And having God tried to overthrow you were saying the Saddam regime at that time?

[A]

Yeah, well, they thought there was. They thought their days were numbered. But then one morning I was woken up by gunfire early in the hotel where we all were staying, the Hotel Rashid. And I thought, my God, the Americans are here. Must be, must be the Americans. And then I listened more and I Thought, no, hang on, it's small arms fire. It's nothing heavy. There's no tanks, there's no mortar. It's not a fight, it's not a battle. This feels like celebratory gunfire. So I got out of my bed, I went to the window and I had a look outside. I could see Iraqis in the courtyard and down in the garden firing their Kalashnikovs, hundreds and hundreds of rounds into the air. So of course I got dressed, went down. What had happened was that the Americans and the Iraqis and the coalition actually led by America had done a quick negotiation and there was a ceasefire. Kuwait is liberated. Iraq's army is defeated. Our military objectives are met. Kuwait is once more in the hands of Kuwaitis, in control of their own destiny. They could not believe that the American led forces had stopped. The justification they gave was that they only had authorization to go as far as they went. They also realized authorization from the un yeah, it was more complicated than that, of course, but also they didn't have a resolution saying you can remove the government of Iraq. They had a resolution saying you can remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Different thing. And so they stayed within that legality. Look, these things are always flawed and nothing's perfect, but in a sense, in that case you could say the system worked.

[D]

By contrast, what would you say was an example of a story that you've reported on where the so called international rules based order didn't work?

[A]

Yeah, well, there have been numbers of examples where it didn't work. I mean, for example, let's just get on to the Next Gulf War, 2003, when another American led coalition removed Saddam Hussein and opened up a Pandora's box of killing and violence. Catastrophic consequences. Over a couple of decades, frankly, they still feel the consequences of that invasion, one of which was the rise of jihadi groups, which in the end morphed into Islamic State, isis. But one of the big issues about that invasion was they couldn't get a second UN resolution authorizing specific action because.

[D]

Famously the French vetoed it.

[A]

Right, well, the French are against it. This was the period when in the US capital French fries were renamed freedom fries. Because that was very good way of getting back at the French for being, you know, such. What they used to say at the time, cheese eating.

[D]

Oh, cheese eating, surrender monkeys.

[A]

Cheese eating, surrender monkeys. Yeah. So they couldn't get the same sort of consensus that George Bush senior had. But they went ahead anyway. And not long after that the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, well, yeah, they broke International law, this is an illegal invasion. He said that in a BBC interview, but it was a year or two afterwards. But that was a situation very much where the, the system didn't work. And more recently, of course, the war in Gaza has, is looking very much to be a textbook case in the way that international laws have been violated by all parties.

[C]

Jeremy, can I pause a bit? Because here we are having this conversation about the breakdown of the way the rules were intended to work for decades, and yet we're talking about two decades ago that the U.S. invaded Iraq. Was it already breaking down at that point?

[A]

I don't think the system has ever functioned perfectly. There's almost never been a point when it didn't function at times really quite badly. International laws have been quite widely broken, especially by the most powerful countries in the world, repeatedly since the Second World War. And the criticism of the idea of a rules based international order is that they're Western rules and they're Western rules which are normally applied to adversaries of the west and they are applied in either a half hearted or not applied at all way to the friends of the West. So it's very imperfect. But I think what is changing right now is that Donald Trump doesn't even pay lip service to it shows every sign of wanting to sweep it all.

[D]

Away as a counterpoint to the examples that you gave of places that would seem to prove that the international rules based order hasn't worked. So the second Gulf War in Gaza, there are people who might say that those two wars, those two conflicts, are examples of why it's right to try and pursue a rules based international order. Because, for example, if George W. Bush had listened to the United nations when it refused to give a resolution approving the war, then maybe the war wouldn't have happened and maybe hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved. And there are other people who might say that the, quote, unquote, rules based international order tried to intervene in Gaza. So, for example, the International Criminal Court has indicted individuals including Benjamin Netanyahu in the leadership of Hamas for alleged crimes committed in Gaza. And on October 7, the International Court of Justice has attempted to intervene as well. What would be your response to that?

[A]

I think those are all fair points. There's no doubt about it. I think that what these international rules over the years, international humanitarian law, war crimes laws, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, all those sorts of things, they provide a template against which you can measure the severity of a story. It's not simply saying, well, this is awful, you know, all these people are dying. But getting to something a little bit more forensic where you can say, for example, well, you shouldn't blow up hospitals, but if someone sets up a firing position on the top of the hospital, then you're perfectly entitled to destroy that firing position. And if the hospital gets damaged as well, that's not an illegal act. That structure of laws and customs. It is a way of trying to hold states and hold leaders to account. But yeah, look, it's never worked perfectly well. But I think the question you also have to ask is if you don't have it, what do you have? Milo's Pro Rewards members go big during Pro Savings days at Lowe's. Buy more and save more with up to 20% off job site essentials like primed finger joint boards when you spend $3,000 or more plus get up to 25% off PVC DWV pipes when you spend $250 or more. Shop Pro Savings days at Lowe's. We help you Save valid through123 Selection varies by location while supplies last loyalty program subject to terms and conditions. Visit lowe's.com terms for details. Subject to change.

[C]

This is the story of the one as an H Vac technician, he and his digital multimeter are in so when a noisy office H Vac turns out to be a failing blower motor, he doesn't break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product information, he selects the product he needs to keep everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickranger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. Warren Chi Ever heard of Warren Chi? It's an energy someone gives off when they have an American Home Shield warranty. It's the feeling of protected appliances and home systems covered repairs or replacements, H vacs, ovens, fridges. Wow, my warranty is incredible. American Home Shield don't worry, be warranty.

[A]

For 20% off our plans. Visit ahs.com listen see ahs.com contracts for coverage details including limit amounts, fees, limitations and exclusions.

[C]

Well, why don't we talk for a moment, Jeremy then about what is the alternative and what we're witnessing right now from President Trump. He has outlined this self described Dunro doctrine. He wants to focus more, he says, on the Western hemisphere and it seems that he believes in almost going back in time to this era of empires kind of carving out the world into these different spheres of influence. But it strikes me that maybe that's not possible in the year 2026 to do ever so neatly. I mean, all this week we've been looking at this story, and yet there are large swaths of the globe that we haven't talked about. I mean, where does Iran, where does India, where does Europe fit into this suggested new paradigm?

[A]

The reason why, I think the idea of returning to the way things were back at the end of the 19th century, when there were spheres of influence, very much so the way it doesn't work in the modern world is because the world has changed. When European countries, the French, the British, were carving up Africa and different parts of the world between them, they were dealing with countries that in the main were not developed, where, if there were elites, they were probably kings and people who'd inherited their massive wealth and that the vast majority of people lived very hard lives and weren't very well educated, if at all. Things are massively different. Now you look at the incredible transformations in, in India. I mean, that's one good example. India was the, you know, the jewel in the crown, as they always say, of the British Empire. Now India is a rising power with more than a billion people and undoubtedly is going to be a stronger and bigger power as it continues to develop. And they don't want to be part of anyone's sphere of influence. They want to have their own sphere of influence. The world has changed so much that it's going to be very difficult for a couple of strong leaders to impose their will on everybody.

[C]

You're joining us, Jeremy, from Europe, and I'm particularly curious. Both you and Tristan are joining us from London, and we haven't talked at all about how Europe fits into this.

[A]

That's because Europe is feeling like we're bystanders, that we're watching things which we can't control anymore. Security wise, they have been freeloading off the backs of Americans for a long time. The Americans paid the money because they felt it was in their interests. Trump doesn't feel it's in the US Interests or his interests, so he doesn't want to pay the money. And that's one thing that has changed, because that consensus that that American security meant European security has gone.

[D]

Where does it all go for you, Jeremy? Asma and I have had quite animated conversations about whether it's a given that this ends in more chaos or maybe stability. What's your take?

[A]

Well, I hate to say it, I'm on the chaos side, having been a foreign correspondent for the BBC for most of my adult life, and I have been to many, many wars as a reporter and seen hopes risen and hopes dashed. I think this is a really worrying time. I think we are absolutely right to worry about the stability of the world. Look at the way the world is, the number of places that are on fire, the number of places where conflicts aren't just not being resolved, they're getting worse. I've spent a lot of time over the years with the Arab, Israeli conflict. It's in a terribly dangerous place right now. None of this stuff is going to end well and I don't see where the positivity is in that. And I think more widely around the world there are so many unanswered questions. And the big question perhaps is how the Americans and the Chinese sort out their relationship if they can achieve some degree of strategic, economic, military stability between them. And maybe the answer is that the Americans say, look, this is our half of the world and we'll try and do what we can here and that's your half of the world. Maybe that's an answer. But China's a rising power, is getting stronger and America is still massively powerful militarily and economically. But history says that empires and superpowers don't last forever. I look with great interest on the next decade or two and some fair degree of trepidation because I think the danger is that little crises can become big crises and suddenly things start slipping out of control. One of the things that would stop, you'd hope, things slipping out of control is some kind of rules based system, a safety net if you like little interrupters along the way. People like using this phrase guardrails these days. I don't quite know what it means, but certainly if there's a shape of rules and customs that people at least can be held to account, if they don't follow them in a way, you know where you are. But if it's quite a chaotic might is right atmosphere happening in the world, well, it guarantees a great deal of work for people like me, but frankly a lot of worry for anyone who wants to live a peaceful life.

[C]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights. We really appreciate it.

[A]

Not at all.

[D]

Thank you, Jeremy.

[C]

That was the BBC's international editor, Jeremy Bowen. And that's it for the global story today. By the way, if you want to catch up on the latest news from from around the world, then we recommend checking out the BBC's Global News podcast. You can find it wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

[D]

Please send us your thoughts and ideas by emailing us. Our address is theglobalstorybc.com and please rate us wherever you're listening, it helps others find us.

[C]

And we want you to know that even if we can't respond to all the emails, we definitely read them. They don't go into a black hole. So let's share a few from this week. Week Shirley in Toronto got in touch to say she was very interested in the idea that the world has seen the US Take the Venezuelan president and asks what could this mean in the future for Taiwan if China ever decides to invade.

[D]

Now, Asma doesn't want me to read this email out because she thinks we shouldn't share pure praise, but I'm going to do it anyway. Bonnie, formerly of the World bank, got in touch about the series we've been broadcasting this week and she said, what a thoroughly excellent series. Having listened to only two episodes so far, I'm greatly enlightened. Thank you. So thank you, Bonnie.

[C]

That was a very lovely message, but I am clearly a bit uncomfortable with always accepting praise.

[D]

I'm fine with uncomfortable.

[C]

Let me move on to Richard from the University of Virginia. Thank you. You got in touch with a light correction for us?

[D]

Yes, thank you, Richard. So we said in our episode earlier this week with Anthony Zircher that In the early 19th century, the US didn't have sufficient military muscle to ensure the Monroe Doctrine when it was first enacted. And as Richard pointed out, he said that the Monroe Doctrine was actually enforced by the Royal Navy of Great Britain, not as a formal endorser of the Monroe Doctrine, but actually as a de facto enforcer because US And UK interests aligned at that moment in history. So thank you very much indeed for that, Richard.

[C]

Our episode today was produced by Cat Farnsworth and Sandra Ellen, and it was mixed by Travis Evans. Our studio manager was Ben Andrews, and our senior news editor is Chyna Collins. Thanks as always for tuning in and we'll talk to you again on Monday.

[D]

Cheerio.