At 82, I have lived through countless political and social upheavals, enough to become somewhat inured to history’s recurring cycles, but recent developments have left me profoundly shaken and afraid. The bedrock principles of international law, established in the aftermath of World War II, are being flagrantly undermined. The ban on acquiring territory by force, the obligation to protect civilians during conflict, the limitations on the right of self-defense and the UN Security Council’s mandate to “maintain international peace and security” are all unraveling, with little regard for the consequences.
In Ukraine and Gaza, occupation has been weaponized as a means of settling disputes, with civilians used as cannon fodder and the right to self-defense distorted to justify acts of retaliation and revenge — in Gaza, these actions border on genocide. Meanwhile, the US and Russia routinely abuse their veto power at the UN Security Council, reducing it to a toothless body incapable of calling for a ceasefire in either conflict. Amid this geopolitical turmoil, extrajudicial killings, once universally condemned, are celebrated as triumphs.
This breakdown reflects the rapid transformation of the multilateral security system into a multipolar order dominated by three major powers, each singularly focused on protecting its interests and expanding its sphere of influence, leaving the rest of the world increasingly insecure. In today’s global landscape, the cardinal rule seems to be: With enough power, governments can get away with murder.
The erosion of international rules and norms is compounded by glaring double standards. Western powers’ unconditional support for Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon — repeatedly justified by the refrain: “Israel has the right to defend itself” — contrasts sharply with the harsh economic sanctions imposed on Russia. Admittedly, Russia initiated the war in Ukraine, just as Hamas did in Gaza, but Israel’s violations of international law have been so numerous and egregious that it has effectively assumed the role of aggressor.
These double standards have been acutely felt across the developing world, where the common perception is that major democracies’ commitment to human rights ends at their own borders. Consequently, a profound sense of injustice and hypocrisy has intensified the long-standing distrust between the global north and south.
Alarmingly, geopolitical tensions are deepening just as humanity is grappling with three existential threats that require close international cooperation — climate change, the nuclear-arms race and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI).
The climate crisis has already escalated into a full-blown environmental catastrophe, marked by increasingly frequent and severe storms, floods, droughts and wildfires. Without drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, global warming is projected to surpass the 2?C threshold set by the 2015 Paris climate agreement and reach 3?C by the end of the century. Yet the international community is unable to agree on the actions and financing needed to avert disaster. US president-elect Donald Trump, who withdrew from the Paris accord during his first term, is widely expected to do so again, jeopardizing progress toward effective climate action.
Similarly, efforts to mitigate the nuclear threat have regressed into a frantic arms race. In stark contrast to the assertion by former US president Ronald Reagan and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” some nuclear-armed states now openly flaunt their stockpiles. Russia, for example, has repeatedly threatened to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Adding to these dangers, the New START Treaty — the last remaining agreement regulating the arsenals of the world’s two largest nuclear powers — is set to expire in early 2026.
Like nuclear power, addressing the risks posed by AI requires global oversight and collaboration, but in today’s climate of confrontation and brinkmanship, meaningful cooperation between the US, China and Russia is highly unlikely.
Rising inequality, both within and between nations, is another major driver of global instability. Economic disparities, coupled with growing public distrust of elites, have fueled a surge of populism. This is particularly concerning, since history has shown that unchecked inequality creates fertile ground for the rise of authoritarian and fascist leaders.
A new mindset is urgently needed. In the absence of an effective and inclusive security order, the global arms race would intensify, increasing the likelihood of nuclear war. Isolationism and trade wars, which would stifle economic growth and replace the rule of law with rule by force, are not the answer. Instead, governments must recognize that the only path forward is through cooperation and compromise.
It is also necessary to recognize that globalization, while not without its flaws, brings significant benefits. In the face of today’s monumental challenges, we can either work to ensure freedom and security for all or watch the world descend into chaos. To those who would call this pie-in-the-sky idealism, here is some hardheaded realism — without a renewed commitment to freedom, equality, human dignity and solidarity, we face the very real prospect of collective ruin.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general emeritus of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and former Egyptian vice president, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 jointly with the IAEA.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
US President-elect Donald Trump has been declaring his personnel picks for his incoming Cabinet. Many are staunchly opposed to China. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Trump’s nomination to be his next secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, said that since 2000, China has had a long-term plan to destroy the US. US Representative Mike Waltz, nominated by Trump to be national security adviser, has stated that the US is engaged in a cold war with China, and has criticized Canada as being weak on Beijing. Even more vocal and unequivocal than these two Cabinet picks is Trump’s nomination for
An article written by Uber Eats Taiwan general manager Chai Lee (李佳穎) published in the Liberty Times (sister paper of the Taipei Times) on Tuesday said that Uber Eats promises to engage in negotiations to create a “win-win” situation. The article asserted that Uber Eats’ acquisition of Foodpanda would bring about better results for Taiwan. The National Delivery Industrial Union (NDIU), a trade union for food couriers in Taiwan, would like to express its doubts about and dissatisfaction with Lee’s article — if Uber Eats truly has a clear plan, why has this so-called plan not been presented at relevant
RSS