The world adrift

THE world is at an inflection point, in the middle of geopolitical upheaval and turmoil. It is more unstable today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Rising geopolitical tensions and fierce geoeconomic competition are contributing to instability. The old order with its rules has gone. The international system is fragmenting. Multilateralism remains under unprecedented stress. Power shifts continue to reshape the international landscape, marking the advent of a multipolar era. The disregard for international law and norms by big and regional powers has left countries having to navigate a rule-less terrain at a time of uncertainty and volatility.

Hard power is back, and with a vengeance. Not that it ever went away. But now it’s the first option, not the last for powerful countries to use to bend other states to their will. Diplomacy only happens after missiles fly. The US and Israel’s attack on Iran, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s war on Gaza, Lebanon and Syria and India’s military action against Pakistan all testify to the increasing use of force. All these actions flouted international law and the legal prohibition on the use of force. They were carried out with impunity, further fragmenting an already crumbling global order. The future outlook isn’t just troubled. It appears chaotic.

What should we make of this state of disorder? A number of recent books deal with a world in transition, the present disarray and what might follow. They include The Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order by Alexander Stubb, The Return of the Great Powers by Brendan Simms, and Statecraft: The New Rules of Power in a Divided World by Jack Watling. These scholarly works offer insightful though varying perspectives on the current state of play and differ in how they see the future panning out.

Stubb is the president and former prime minister and foreign minister of Finland. He draws on that experience for his analysis of the international system and how to address its weaknesses. The liberal world order is in tatters, he argues, and trust that has been the basis of the international system, is broken. What happens next will depend on the interplay between the triangle of the Global West (US and Western allies), Global East (Russia, China) and Global South (the global majority). The latter is underrepresented in the current global system and wants a redistribution of power. It does not want to take sides but seeks agency in the system.

What kind of international order will emerge from a divided and unstable world?

Stubb sees the Global South playing a key role in rebalancing and shaping the new order. He calls for cooperative multilateralism and choosing ‘Helsinki’ over ‘Yalta’. This means accommodating the views and interests of the Global South and economically empowered middle powers by more powerful states.

Cambridge historian Brendan Simms’s compelling book is about the return of “traditional geopolitics and the “new great power world”. This is seen as a departure from the post-Cold War period when international law and economic cooperation were dominant. Globalisation was valued as delivering benefits for all. But the belief that great power conflict and rivalry had ended and cooperation would outrank raw power was belied in the past decade. The world was no longer flat as interdependence came to be weaponised. Globalisation began to be reversed as a reaction to its homogenising effects and the vulnerabilities it created. Now, Simms writes, military might is valued more than economic heft, law or morality. Decisions are driven by geopolitical logic and not economic logic. Hence, “geopolitics may kill us before climate change does”.

Global governance is in retreat as major powers compete for primacy. But this doesn’t mean great powers can do what they want and succeed. There are constraining factors. Nevertheless, Simms sees great powers dominating the world in the foreseeable future and shaping the new order. But without a single hegemon. He points to the risks of war between the great powers and urges the need for a strategy that recognises that reality and seeks to deal with it.

Statecraft’s focus is on how states compete in a dynamic contemporary milieu, how they can exercise leverage and influence and effectively pursue their interests even when they do not possess the majority of power in that environment. Watling is principally concerned with how countries can achieve better strategic outcomes through their statecraft at a time of chaos. States, he says, pursue strategies but it is humans that bear the consequences. In today’s fraught security landscape, the need for statecraft has never been greater. This is especially so because today the competition is multipolar not bipolar while the arena for competition has vastly expanded. In a divided world what matters is not a country’s size or economic resources. The states that thrive are those that practice statecraft across all domains, not just defence.

A broader question is raised by today’s rule-less international environment where big and regional powers act unilaterally and wantonly resort to force to achieve their objectives. Does this mean might-makes-right? If recent developments are anything to go by, the answer is no. Stronger powers have been unable to prevail because modern warfare, with its drones, missiles and asymmetrical strategies, has levelled the ground between them and smaller/weaker countries The US/Israel-Iran war showed the failure of military force. Its use did not compel Iran to surrender. In today’s world, military superiority does not guarantee dominance or victory. This is testified by America’s Operation Epic Fury, Russia’s unwon war against Ukraine and India’s aggression against Pakistan last year.

Then there is the middle powers question. Can they reshape geopolitics or is that just for great powers to do? The debate continues. Some say only great powers move the board. Others see middle power activism as the new normal, as an important aspect of the emerging global order. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told Davos which side he is on. Middle powers acting together could deal with bigger powers from a position of strength. He was acknowledging their power to reshape the world.

Countries must adapt to a shifting global environment. But the problem isn’t just complexity. It’s a fractured and unmoored world that will remain volatile and unpredictable for the foreseeable future.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

Published in Dawn, June 29th, 2026 ...