As the fragility of the world order continues

The fragility of world order in 2025 reflects systemic failures.

Listen to article

Late Dr Henry Kissinger, former American Secretary of State in his path breaking book, World Order, opined: "The idea of world order was applied to the geographic extent known to the statesman of the time, a pattern repeated to other regions. This was largely because the then prevailing technology did not encourage or even permit the operation of a single global system." He lamented that "no truly global order has ever existed, what passes for order in our time was devised in Western Europe nearly four centuries ago, at a peace conference in the German region of Westphalia."

As compared to the Westphalian world order established after thirty years of religious wars in Europe in 1648, the world order of 2025 reflects the diversity of states including middle powers influencing the patterns of international system. If in 1648 the world lacked technology and geographical connectivity in the form of airplanes, high speed trains, modern roads and vehicles, there were less than 500 million people living on this planet as compared to 8 billion today. The transformation in the art of war with the advent of nuclear weapons and other means of mass destruction along with four pillars of world order consisting of globalisation, information technology, soft power and geo-economics reflects how different the world order is today than in 1648.

One wonders why the world has become so dangerous because of violent conflicts, terrorism, wars and an impeding environmental catastrophe and how in 2025 issues which threaten the very survival of this globe can be dealt with. Why do conflict zones in the Middle East, Ukraine and parts of Africa continue to claim thousands of lives? And why have the so-called custodians of world order utterly failed to establish peace? As compared to 1648 when hardly any global institution existed to shape a world order, in 2025 there are dozens of organisations ranging from the UN to G7, NATO, OIC, BRICS, SCO, G-20 and D-8 shaping a world order. Yet, the world is so insecure and volatile because of the failure of so-called global leadership to maintain order in international system.

Paradoxically, when there are numerous global and regional organisations engaged in different areas, one can observe vacuum in world leadership to prevent wars and conflicts and deal with issues related to the environmental, water, energy, food and migration. At a time when the world is facing a serious existential crisis, global and regional powers are least interested in resolving issues that threaten the survival of millions of people. The war in Ukraine, the armed conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, Chad and a fragile peace in Syria, Afghanistan, Myanmar and other vulnerable areas reflect how tenuous the world order is. Adding to the prevailing crisis in different regions of the world is internal polarisation in South Korea, Bangladesh and Pakistan and the surge of populism in the West following the election triumph of Donald Trump.

Fragility of world order is not a new phenomenon but its dangerous shape will possess the potential to destabilise the world. If Russian President Vladimir Putin urged his people to unite their country in 2025 against predictable NATO onslaught, President-elect Donald Trump after assuming power on January 20, 2025 is expected to complete his agenda which remained unfulfilled because he lost the 2020 presidential election. When the UN is unable to assert its position to deal with violent flashpoints, the vacuum is deepening with each passing day, denying major and middle powers to intervene and preclude an impending disaster. Lack of consensus among the permanent members of UNSC and other major stakeholders in world affairs to control the situation tends to expose their structural weaknesses.

Fragility of the prevailing world order needs to be examined in three ways.

First is the absence of an inclusive approach pursued by global powers, particularly the US-led Western world to deny China and Russia a multipolar world. Middle powers like South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Pakistan and Indonesia can play the role of a balancer in the world order but are facing bewildered situation because of the existing conflicts involving the US, China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Japan and India. These countries are economically, technologically and militarily powerful but are unable to engage middle powers for a stable world order. When NATO, despite the Soviet disunion and collapse of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, has expanded threatening Russia and to some extent China, there is no effort to mitigate the American policy of containing Moscow and Beijing. It is not merely the Russian attack over Ukraine which destabilised peace in Europe but NATO's aggressive posture by arming Kiev which is a major threat to the reigning world order. Is it not unfair that except Switzerland and Austria, all countries of Europe are now members of NATO encircling Russia?

Second, the surge in global military expenditures to $2.2 trillion, with the US being the largest spender of $920 billion, is a source of alarm. Forty years ago, world military expenditures were $700 billion which have surged to $2.2 trillion in 2024. Unless, serious efforts are made for mitigating arms race and controlling military expenditures, there is no way the world will prevent further escalation of violent conflicts and deal with issues like poverty, hunger and diseases. It is not only surge in military expenditures that adds to the fragility of world order, meager efforts for peace-making and peacekeeping also motivate various forces to violate international law and carry out genocide of innocent people. Since October 7, 2023, more than 46,000 Palestinians have been killed as a result of the Israeli attacks on Gaza. When Israel has been given a free hand to carry out Gaza genocide, it means there is world disorder. Likewise when millions of people are uprooted because of the wars in Ukraine and Sudan, those who are the so-called custodians of the world order look the other way, which means there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Finally, as long as a global movement is not launched against genocide, illegal use of force and military intervention against weak stakes, one cannot expect the world order to be stable and peaceful. The world order would remain fragile and unstable unless the permanent UNSC members and middle powers deal with issues - particularly inadvertent use of force, acts of genocide, unfair and unjust distribution of resources to be prevented under a new International Economic Order and meaningful steps to deal with climate change - one cannot expect any positive transformation of world in 2025 and beyond.

Democracy, human rights, good governance and rule of law are the four major requirements which are central to ensuring progress, development, peace and stability particularly in the volatile parts of the world. Without equitable distribution of wealth and eradicating the role of 'mafias' responsible for promoting violence and armed conflicts, a just world order is not possible.