Israel’s devastating war in Gaza, Russia’s bloody invasion of Ukraine, the US’ extraterritorial assassinations and China’s aggressive expansionism all point to one conclusion: The global system that emerged after World War II is giving way to a world without order. However, while the upheaval is undeniable — and being compounded by a reshuffling of trade and investment flows, rapid technological advances and profound demographic shifts — what will emerge from it remains an open question.
The coming transition could be illuminated or even accelerated by the outcome of key elections this year, when 4.2 billion people would be eligible to vote in 76 countries, making this year the biggest election year in history. Elections are to be held in eight of the world’s 10 most populous countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia and the US) — and the EU.
This year’s raft of elections would serve as a gauge of the state of democracy globally. With autocracy on the rise, there is plenty of cause for concern. The new year began with controversy-fueled elections in two democracies in the Global South: Bangladesh and Taiwan. In Bangladesh, the opposition boycotted the election altogether, calling it a sham, and as expected, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina secured a fourth consecutive term in office.
Bangladesh is not the only country where elections this year would bring no surprises. Russian President Vladimir Putin would undoubtedly be “elected” to another term. Assuming he completes it, he will have surpassed Soviet leader Joseph Stalin as the longest-serving Russian ruler since Catherine the Great. In Pakistan, the election result is practically a moot point, since the military would ultimately remain in control.
However, even true democracies are at risk of a rightward lurch in upcoming elections, continuing a trend seen in Finland (a freshly minted NATO member) and, most recently, in Argentina. While Poland bucked this trend, the upcoming European Parliament elections — the first since Brexit — appear likely to prolong it.
Right-wing politics could tilt the scales from peace to war. Consider Israel: though the catalyst of the war in Gaza was the horrific terrorist attack carried out by Hamas on Oct. 7, the hardline policies pursued by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government — the most nationalist in Israel’s history — undeniably set the stage for conflict.
However, this is not always the case. In the US, President Joe Biden’s national security team largely comprises “liberal interventionists” — essentially, hawks on the left — whereas many on the right could be considered non-interventionists (or, as their critics call them, “isolationists”).
Elections are not everything. Numerous dangerous trends in international relations have persisted across election cycles. Longstanding rules and norms — including non-intervention and non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and the prohibition of territorial conquest — have increasingly been flouted in recent years, often by those that preach adherence to them most loudly. The countries that made the rules — starting with the US — have proved all too willing to disregard them when their perceived interests are at stake.
Meanwhile, the influence of international institutions such as the UN is waning, as the Western countries that established them resist structural reforms that would better align global governance with current geopolitical realities. All of this is undermining the rules-based order that the West claims to be trying to preserve.
Other efforts to preserve the West’s global supremacy have also proved counterproductive. For example, the routine use of sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy and the weaponization of finance are encouraging non-Western states to pursue “de-dollarization” — an effort gaining momentum in oil markets — and parallel financial arrangements. On Jan. 1, the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) expanded its membership to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Rifts between East and West, North and South, are widening.
As global tensions rise, countries are increasingly embracing protectionist and nationalist economic policies, raising the specter of economic fragmentation and the emergence of rival trading blocs. This trend could not only impede economic growth and development but also threaten peace. Recall that a similar shift from multilateral trade toward trade within geopolitical blocs in the 1930s fueled tensions that eventually contributed to World War II.
The risk of Chinese aggression against Taiwan appears particularly acute. The victory of the pro-sovereignty William Lai (賴清德) in the nation’s recent presidential election, together with mounting global turbulence and China’s economic slowdown, could lead Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) to decide that China’s window of opportunity to impose unification on Taiwan is closing fast.
Any way one looks at it, a major geopolitical reconfiguration is under way. The outcome would depend significantly on developments over the next year.
Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and a fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin. He is the author of Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international