Rethinking Global Order in an Age of Transition

The international order was not designed democratically. Borders were drawn by imperial fiat, power was rebalanced in line with superpower interests, and global institutions were largely constructed under American hegemony after WWII. When great powers decide, they decide with their interests in mind. Geopolitics. Economics. Ideology. The tools and scars of these interests continue to define global conflict today.

From the Sykes-Picot Agreement to the founding of the United Nations, might has not always made right, but it always made itself heard. As we transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order, the echoes of these decisions are perhaps the most poignant in the Middle East. Looking back at these decisions might help us to solve the problems they left behind.

Imperial Cartography and the Middle Eastern Question

The self-inflicted ruins of empire come in many forms, but few are quite as impactful as the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France after World War I. Lines were drawn where Britain and France pleased, with little regard for the historical, ethnic, or political realities on the ground. The consequences of this action have echoed through history.

The Balfour Declaration stands out amongst these imperial decisions. A mix of humanitarian guilt regarding Jewish suffering across Europe and imperial machinations in the Middle East: Europe exported centuries of antisemitism and pogroms into genocide: the Holocaust. But instead of solving the problem, Europe solved itself of its unwanted Jewish population problem in Palestine.

What should have remained a moral responsibility became an internationalized conflict. 1948 brought Israel, and with it a problem that looks unlikely to abate anytime soon. Israel and Palestine continue to stand apart as a historical example of importing someone else's problem.

Institutions and the Limits of Global Governance

The United Nations was meant to overcome some of those weaknesses. But the victors of World War II also designed a United Nations with grossly unequal membership. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council were granted veto power as a reflection of the post-1945 global balance of power. Now, several decades later, the world has changed dramatically, but the UN has not. When looking at the situations in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and elsewhere, it is easy to see how grossly underpowered global governance institutions are at effecting real change for the better. Injustice seems to keep trumping justice.

American Leadership and the Continuity of Strategic Influence

The US filled the vacuum left by the European powers' loss of global supremacy, playing a leading role in the restructuring of the world order after WWII. Cooperation, like the Five Eyes alliance, goes beyond mutual defense interests. It is also the extension of Western spheres of influence established throughout history.

Calls for democracy and human rights have been rhetorical accompaniments of US imperialism. Despite this advocacy, America has fiercely intervened in the Middle East, with little end to civilian suffering in sight. Can we say the West has exported instability instead?

The Rise of Multipolarity and the Global South

"The era when the world was built around assumptions that placed Western countries at the center is coming to an end," said the President of Finland this last month at the Raisina Dialogue.

With the rise of emerging economies and regional powers rewriting the rules of global influence, he said that we find ourselves in a time of "multipolarity with more global actors than in previous post-war eras." But while he acknowledged that there are risks during this transition, he also believes it provides an opportunity to craft "a world that includes all of us."

While several countries were mentioned during his keynote speech, India was notably described as practicing "values-based realism," straddling its democratic identity and desire for autonomy by diversifying its partnerships and strengthening its role within multilateral organizations.

Reforming Global Institutions for a Changing World

The speech by Finland's President highlighted the need for international organizations to be reformed to keep pace with changing times. Finland's President suggested increasing the number of permanent members of the UN Security Council to represent regions such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America, as well as reforms to the Bretton Woods institutions to make them more equitable and inclusive.

What was also important was creating inclusive rules to govern emerging domains such as artificial intelligence, the digital landscape, and climate politics. Reform must take place; otherwise, we risk slipping further into a world where the power wielded by these institutions does not align with geopolitical reality, which, in turn, will undermine trust in the system itself.

Another layer that Finland's President highlighted during his speech was the regional bodies. He pointed to organizations such as ASEAN, the African Union, the European Union, Mercosur, and the Gulf Cooperation Council as vital stakeholders in confronting global issues.

Toward a "New Delhi Moment"

Maybe the most compelling suggestion was the possibility of another "San Francisco moment." San Francisco, being the birthplace of the UN in 1945, of course. The possibility of that moment coming from New Delhi suggests an understanding that leadership in this next chapter of global governance will come from outside the traditional global powers of the West.

That's hopeful, not exactly revolutionary. Realizing that while liberalism as an international order is flawed, throwing it out completely would hasten destruction.

Aligning Power with Justice

What we call West Asia today is less a crisis than a reflection of a hundred years of political choices made by others. In shaping the post-war world order, it will be incumbent on those leading the shift to a multipolar world to ensure that power also equates with responsibility and justice, not just expediency.

Experience tells us that sustainable order cannot be dictated from without. We can shape a more open international order, built on dignity, engagement, and common accountability. But first, we must be willing to learn the lessons of history's incomplete homework.