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
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS