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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS