The politics of delay

Power in international politics is mostly linked with acts of decisiveness, or military intervention, sanctions, vetoes, recognition or denial. Yet one of the most influential powers of the present day is in a much less obvious form: delay. Waiting, increasingly, is not an accident of global governance but a technique of it. In a global order where coercion is not overt, time is a fine but powerful tool of power.

Delay is political since it is administered. Who is waiting on a visa application, who is on ceasefire talks without a timeline, which sanctions are under review, whose IMF tranche is released or not, is determined by someone. Such choices are hardly reflected as rejections. They are instead in the form of procedures, assessments and technicalities. And, in IR, controlling procedure is frequently controlling outcome.

This logic is not new. Imperial powers governed colonies not only through force but through slow courts, postponed reforms and bureaucratic bottlenecks that drained resistance without triggering revolt. Even time itself became a disciplinary tool. The only difference is that this reasoning has shifted to international organisations that boast of neutrality, legality and humanitarian interests.

Let's consider contemporary asylum regimes. When refugees leave conflict zones, they may have to wait years before being granted legal status either in the host countries or through UNHCR procedures. At this place of waiting they are in legal limbo — they cannot work wholly, they cannot go back, they cannot plan. There is no official rejection but life is practically suspended. The lack of decision becomes the decision. In IR terms, we call it governance without accountability: states have the benefits of retaining control without bearing the political costs of refusal.

Another evident example is sanctions. Approved states are often put in long periods of 'review', 'conditional relief' or 'gradual compliance'. Sanctions are not lifted or tightened; they merely remain. This indefinite temporality produces economic pressure while preserving the appearance of diplomatic flexibility. The power here lies not in escalation, but in the ability to keep a country waiting which is economically crippled, politically isolated and constantly uncertain.

The International Monetary Fund has the same temporal dynamic. IMF programmes are structured around benchmarks, reviews, and tranches that stretch over years. Financial aid is never denied, it is postponed until the reforms, re-assessments or verification of compliance. This brings about a managed dependence condition to the borrowing states, particularly the Global South. Sovereignty is not directly violated but it is suspended in practice in time-conditionality that never really stops.

Delay is even becoming a part of conflict diplomacy. Ceasefires are brought down gradually, not abruptly. Peace processes create structures without time, negotiations without an end. In Kashmir, Palestine and Ukraine, negotiations tend to replace results. Delay stabilises conflict and does not resolve it, which lets powerful actors handle crises instead of ending them.

This is important as the international order today is not as much about decisive victory but maintenance of controlled instability. Waiting, indefinitely, procedurally, unevenly may now be more important than a capacity to impose outcomes. Power is no longer exerted by saying no, but by never quite saying yes.

If delay is now a tool of power then global governance must be judged not only by what it decides but by whom it keeps waiting and for how long.