Latest news with #AntonioGramsci
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Beyond Sturgeon, Salmond and the centrist collapse
No, we are at an interregnum, an idea from Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks in which 'The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear'. In Scotland, this means a period of tittle-tattle and gossip over Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon's disputed legacy that leads us nowhere other than bitter rancour, which will not, and cannot be resolved. In place of strategy, we have anecdote; in place of meaningful dialogue or unity, we have personal animus and tribalism. The answer is not going to come from the old guard slugging it out, but an entirely new guard listening and strategising and outlining an entirely new prospectus. READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself In England, the interregnum means a period of watching as a new populist Left emerges from the shambles of Keir Starmer's regime, or the country decays into Nigel Farage's fever dream. Some of the coverage of the end of the old regimes is hilarious. Alex Massie, apparently seriously, suggests that Sturgeon was sustained by something called the 'London Left', surely a phantom of the Unionist Right that doesn't bear much examination. In a massive statement of the obvious, in The Guardian, Martin Kettle writes: 'The most important thing about Sturgeon's political career is not whether she was relatable, good on television or better than the men. Pretty obviously, she was all three. "It is whether she was right to be a nationalist. In my book, she was wrong. From her teenage years, Sturgeon's overriding political goal has been to break up the United Kingdom. It still is.' Who knew? Across the pages, Iain MacWhirter takes the opposite view from Kettle, arguing that: 'The tragedy of Nicola Sturgeon: she was never a Scottish nationalist.' Too much? Not enough? It depends on where on the incredibly narrow political spectrum your white male columnists decide. None of this feeding frenzy matters. Getting On and Off THE world has moved on since Winnie Ewing uttered the immortal words 'stop the world, Scotland wants to get on' in 1967. Now, it's increasingly obvious that – in 2025 and beyond – Scotland needs to 'get off' the world that is predicated on endless growth, extractivism, fossil fuel economics and a commitment to the moral depravity that is support for, and involvement in genocide. All of this requires a complete break from the British state and a complete break from the disastrous economic orthodoxies that have led us into poverty, grotesque social inequality and a mindset which is rapidly destroying the ecological system on which, ultimately, we all depend. At some level, almost everyone knows this. 'Independence is normal', goes the slogan, and so it is. But so too is the routine abuse of power that comes with states of every size. Actually imagining and enacting something genuinely different is clearly the task at hand. This is way beyond a theatre of personality politics and tribes as we are currently seeing played out, and also way beyond the idea of 'course correction' or new strategems. It may even be beyond the idea that party politics or mainstream politics deliver change, there is no real evidence to support this claim, even if it is the operating system in which most discourse takes place. READ MORE: Rhoda Meek: Why do Scotland's islands pay the same tax for lesser services? Our colleagues in Believe in Scotland have posted on the fact that independence support jumps 5% if you tell people an independent Scotland will be a republic: 'People want radical change not an 'everything will be the same indy Scotland'. They think it's not worth the risk if nothing much is going to change!' So, let's do it. The first plank of a completely new plan for independence must be for a Scottish republic. It's 2025. Just as the disruptors of Farage or Zarah Sultana slug it out amid a failing system, so too in Scotland, we need a new politics. The old dictum (from Tony Blair and beyond) that you 'only win from the centre' is so obviously redundant to everyone apart from the commentariat that cling to old shibboleths and trundle out the same tired old prose. The centrist political project has collapsed, and this has consequences for Scotland. As Jonathon Shafi wrote a few weeks ago: 'There is no door-knocking to be done, and no community outreach to be had. Instead, this has to be a period of ideas. It is not impossible to make the independence question the gravitational pole for the most interesting and dynamic political thinking available. 'This involves opening big debates about Scotland's role in the world, and about its economic future. 'We should be producing more theorists, writers and speakers, building on the best radical traditions we have.' READ MORE: Jonathon Shafi: No referendum is coming. Let's drop 'Yes' and refocus I suspect that Shafi and I might not agree on what these might be, but I have to agree with his analysis that: 'For this to happen, we would need to escape the bandwidth as proscribed by the [SNP] on the one hand, and the main Westminster parties on the other to rebuild and rethink the foundations and principles of the project as a whole. To make them fit for the world as it is today. 'At present, it does not exist in any meaningful or political form. And here, you cannot avoid politics. 'The British state is becoming more authoritarian, so the response has to be to uphold civil liberties. Privatisation has failed, so the response has to be rooted in bringing our resources into democratic control. 'The UK Government has been arming a genocide, so the response must be to advocate for an entirely new foreign policy based on peace and justice. 'Only once the base achieves ideological coherence can there be a serious campaign which aims to reach out to wider sections of society.' He's not wrong, and this is not just the failure of a handful of personalities or a generation of political leaders. They did what they could from the world they had inherited. They failed, not out of treachery or incompetence but because they were (and are) trapped in a political system which doesn't work anymore. As the late, great Ursula Le Guin had it: 'We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.' The Union seems inescapable, and a hundred scribes and more have careers dedicated to telling you this is so, even when they themselves can't believe it. Britain has changed; it has been transformed since the Blair era. The descent of British political values – and a salient reason to exit this Union as fast as possible – comes with the anniversary of Robin Cook's passing. He came from an era when Scots politicians could have serious heavyweight influence at Cabinet level, and when serious ideas, such as floating the notion of an 'ethical foreign policy', could be taken seriously. To be fair, they weren't taken too seriously, were they? His resignation in March 2003 – 22 years ago – marks a passing of time but is also a useful barometer of political change. Cook's resignation from his positions as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons on March 17, 2003, in protest against the invasion of Iraq is unthinkable today, in an era when Labour proscribe Palestine Action and arrest grannies en masse and roll out facial recognition tech. There will not be another Cook in British history, and this is a low bar. We are where we are, but it's a long way from where we were. Back to the Future THE task ahead of us not just to re-orient ourselves around this reality, or recover from the myths and tragedies of neoliberalism, but to cast aside the gaslighting of the British state and media that there are any circumstances in which it is OK to be embroiled in genocide, or in which siding with a quasi-fascist like Donald Trump could be excused under the pretence of 'pragmatism'. Back to Shafi's idea that we should 'be producing more theorists, writers and speakers building on the best radical traditions we have'. By definition, I don't know what the future theorists, writers and speakers will be – though I do know they will be future-focused and as far from the current clutch as can be imagined. But what are the best radical traditions we might draw on? To 'escape the bandwidth', we might look to figures as diverse and iconoclastic as Jimmy Reid (below), Nan Shepherd, RD Laing, AS Neill, Mary Barbour, John Maclean, James Connolly, Elsie Inglis, John McGrath, or Geoff Shaw – or a thousand other under-recognised figures. We would need to look beyond them as individuals as beacons of clarity or insight, and see what movements they represented and came out of. Reassessing and establishing and archiving our own past would provide a rich seam to mine for, paradoxically, new ideas on social housing, land ownership, healthcare, political organisation, mental health, or our relationship with nature. This might, or might not, seem a laudable platform to transcend the current impasse. You might rule it out in favour of 'one last heave' or some other wild strategem. 'Go to the UN!' springs to mind. However, stay with me, if you can. There's another element that is going to make this difficult, and that is the calling of romance and melancholy that particularly affects the left, and regularly afflicts the Scots. We are enthralled to grandiose romantic failure, and we are addicted to it. We are enthralled with both a left and a Scottish melancholia. The Scots version: The King Across The Water, we might be familiar with, from Bonnie Prince Charlie, to John Smith, to Kate Forbes to Alex Salmond, is familiar to us all. It serves the purpose of succumbing to a state of perpetual regret. It is a romantic melancholy that allows us to dwell in the past and in victimhood. JK Gibson-Graham (a pen name shared by feminist economic geographers Julie Graham and Katherine Gibson) writes of the left equivalent: 'In which attachment to a past political analysis or identity is stronger than the interest in present possibilities for mobilisation, alliance or transformation. 'Rather than grieving and letting go, the melancholic subject identifies with lost ideals, experiencing their absence as feelings of desolation and ejection … We come to love our left passions and reasons, our left analyses and convictions, more than we love the existing world that we presumably seek to alter.' So as well as moving beyond a narrow bandwidth of political, economic and cultural thinking, we also need to transcend the tradition of melancholic victimhood and reminiscence of what 'might have been'. It's disabling and disempowering. READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: Why Darren McGarvey wants out of the prison of his own persona With this task in mind, the publication of Sturgeon's memoirs could act as a bookend to an era. We might divide recent Scottish history into phases that run from the post-war era 1945-1967, dominated by both British hegemony and cultural upheaval; the 1967-1997 period with the rise of Scottish nationalism alongside Thatcherism ultimately led to devolution, and the 1997-2026 era in which Blairism and then Tory rule culminated in the referendums for independence and Brexit. We are now in a period beyond that, a period dominated by Gramsci's 'morbid symptoms' in which everything seems moribund and stuck. However painful, this period is unlikely to last forever. The crisis of British Labour has deep consequences for the Union, and if we can go beyond the matters of personality politics and rebuild a movement for change, we can climb out of the present morass and move towards a brighter future.
Express Tribune
14-07-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
End of 'The End of History'
Year 2025 has seen immense turbulence. Since Donald Trump's formal inauguration as President of the United States, 60% of international development funds have been slashed, immigration controls in the West have multiplied exponentially, trade barriers have gone up, AI has wiped out hundreds of thousands of jobs, the Palestinian genocide has entered its final phase, and conflicts involving nuclear powers have intensified. In the words of Antonio Gramsci, "The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters." Following the end of WWII, America experienced 25 years of relatively inclusive growth. Real wages - adjusted for inflation - for both white and blue collar trades rose consistently until 1970. Technological breakthroughs were frequent and significant. The digital computer, data storage devices, microchip technology, and packet-switched networks, which served as precursors to the internet, all entered the fray during the '50s and '60s. In aviation, the sound barrier was broken, the first satellites went into orbit, and rockets landed on the moon. In biomedicine, the DNA structure was mapped, the polio vaccine discovered, and oral contraceptives approved. In media, portable radios and colour TVs were made ubiquitous. Perhaps most significantly, basic amenities like food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare were easily affordable for single-earner middle class families. Simultaneously, a comprehensive international development architecture was set up. At the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the World Bank and IMF were formally established to foster macroeconomic stability in 'developing' countries - particularly following decolonisation - via policy formulation, short term credit agreements, and infrastructure-related assistance. The UN was inaugurated a year later to promote trade, sociocultural exchange, and peace/harmony between nations. The WHO was set up in 1948 to address public health crises. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), created in 1961, spearheaded development in the domains of economics, governance, and humanitarian assistance across the world for subsequent decades. During this period, these global institutions played a genuinely constructive role in industrialisation, agricultural modernisation, and institutional strengthening in developing countries. While conflicts (such as the Vietnam War and Korean War) broke out in the context of the Cold War, significant people's movements such as the Civil Rights Movement, Anti-war Movement, Counterculture Movement, first two waves of feminism, and several anti-colonial independence movements also took off and expanded liberties and sovereignties worldwide. The tides began to shift in 1971, when the dollar was unpegged from gold by President Nixon - sending shockwaves across global economies. The US Federal Reserve could now print money to its heart's desire: thus triggering massive inflationary pressures that corroded purchasing power. A couple of years later, the mainstreaming of 'finance capital' was observed. 1973's oil embargo sent prices skyrocketing by almost 300%, following which OPEC countries saw a massive influx of dollars - which they parked in US banks due to limited domestic capacity. These reserves were then recycled into US Treasury securities in exchange for military protection. This fueled a movement away from growth/innovation in tangible goods and services in favor of 'speculative trading' in bonds, stocks, derivatives, etc - a trend that led to greater inequality and declining real innovation. Things took an even worse turn under President Reagan, who kickstarted neoliberalism and aggressive imperialism. The first functioned to empower big corporations via massive reductions in taxation, regulation, trade restriction, etc and widespread crackdowns on organised labour - effectively subverting the state apparatus to the interests of big capital. The 1989 Washington Consensus codified 'privatize, liberalize, deregulate' as global economic orthodoxy, trapping the Global South in debt and resource extraction arrangements that revived colonial dynamics. Second, a series of military and intelligence interventions were launched as part of a broad strategy to lay the pressure on the Soviet Union. While Afghanistan was the major confrontation, the backing of several regimes and militia groups - particularly in Latin America - was a central feature of the 'Reagan Doctrine'. The former included the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Argentina, and Chile; while the latter constituted the Contras in Nicaragua and 'Mujahideen' in Pakistan. This initiated a cycle of violence, with entire economies of arms/ammunition, sex/drug trafficking, and extremist indoctrination projects proliferating across vulnerable communities. Many of these groups were later involved in the 9/11 attacks, triggering decades-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that killed millions. This pattern - economic precarity at home, violence overseas - continued throughout the 2000s and 2010s. The 2008 financial crash, Obama's drone warfare, the rise of ISIS, turmoil in Afghanistan, Israel's continued occupation, and the abysmal handling of Covid-19 were all indications of terminal decline. Even in tech, progress almost ground to a halt during the two decades: reduced to marginal annual improvements in consumer electronics (like the iPhone) with hardly any groundbreaking discoveries. Large language models in recent years have admittedly been the major breakaway from this uneventful pattern, but even these potentially revolutionary tools have been deployed to advance military, surveillance, and immigration control systems - accelerating the movement towards fascism. Having withdrawn from the WHO, drastically reduced contributions to UN agencies, ignored directives from the International Criminal Court, and shut down USAID, it is all but evident that the 'rules based international order' led by the US following WWII is drawing to a close. The recent '12 Day War' with Iran only laid bare US vulnerabilities, as the former was able to preserve uranium stockpiles, give Tel Aviv a pounding, and launch attacks on Gulf airbases. Domestically, New York City - the capital of the 'American Dream' - recently voted for a staunchly anti-corporate and pro-Palestine candidate as Democratic nominee for mayorship, thus rejecting two central ideological tenets of Western hegemony, i.e. Capitalism and Zionism. In 1992, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, political theorist Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the 'End of History', asserting liberal capitalism's final triumph. Three decades on, his claim sounds laughable. What comes next is difficult to predict, but two possibilities have been proposed. One is nuclear armageddon, where nations blow each other up following tit-for-tat engagements in 'World War 3'. The other is the ushering in of a 'globalist' order, one premised upon total control and subjugation: an Orwellian nightmare. There is a third path: a break from endless war, exploitation, and despotism. Its name is Socialism.
The Wire
06-06-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Silencing the Academy: From Trump's Harvard Offensive to Modi's War on Free Thought
'Every relationship of hegemony is necessarily an educational relationship.' — Antonio Gramsci In both, the United States and India, universities – once bastions of critical inquiry – are increasingly being reimagined as threats to national integrity. In May 2025, US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping crackdown on Harvard University, threatening to revoke over USD 2 billion in federal research funding over allegations of antisemitism and political bias. While framed as a culture war manoeuvre, this move serves as political discipline – punishing elite institutions for tolerating student dissent and pro-Palestinian activism. In India, the Narendra Modi government has been charting a parallel course. Since 2014, public universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University have faced repeated assaults – from budget cuts and bureaucratic interference to arrests of student activists and the slashing of scholarships. Notably, in 2022, the government quietly scrapped the Maulana Azad National Fellowship, a crucial program supporting minority scholars pursuing PhD degrees. The message was unambiguous: support for marginalised voices in higher education is no longer a priority. What binds these seemingly disparate actions is a growing consensus among right-wing regimes: dissent within the classroom is a political liability. Students who critique the state, question foreign policy or demand historical justice are increasingly treated not as engaged citizens but as internal adversaries. In both countries, this assault on universities is being waged under the banner of the taxpayer. Trump's administration argues that public funds should not support 'radical leftism' or 'wokeness.' Similarly, Modi's government accuses public universities of squandering resources on 'anti-national' thought and fostering a liberal elite disconnected from 'real' India. This rhetoric constructs a false moral economy: critical thinking is recast as indulgence, the humanities as sedition and student protest as criminality. By claiming to represent the apolitical, hardworking taxpayer, these regimes obscure the essential role of universities in a democracy – to question, to debate, and to envision alternatives. The campaign is not about accountability; it is about control. The university curriculum has become a central front in this ideological war. In the US, efforts to defund universities are part of a broader culture war targeting critical race theory, gender studies, and climate science. In India, the New Education Policy promotes a sanitised, mythological version of Indian history, marginalising critiques of caste and erasing Muslim contributions to the subcontinent's past. A recent and telling example is the recommendation by Delhi University's standing committee for academic affairs to remove Karl Marx and Thomas Malthus from the sociology syllabus. The paper 'Population and Society,' which introduces students to foundational theories of population dynamics, currently examines Malthusian perspectives and Marx's critiques. According to faculty members, Malthus's theory remains essential for understanding population growth, and Marx's critiques provide critical context. The proposed removal of these thinkers reflects an ongoing effort to reshape academic discourse to align with a particular ideological narrative. Such curricular changes are not isolated incidents but part of a systematic attempt to transform universities from spaces of open-ended inquiry into sites of nationalist education. The goal is not to produce informed citizens but compliant subjects. The suppression of dissent within academia cannot be disentangled from broader racial and religious hierarchies. In the US, campus activism around Palestine has become a flashpoint. The Trump administration has intensified immigration enforcement, targeting scholars and students involved in pro-Palestinian activism. Notably, Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student at Columbia University, was detained and faced deportation under a rarely-used provision allowing the Secretary of State to expel individuals deemed adverse to US foreign policy. A federal judge later ruled this action likely unconstitutional, highlighting concerns over free speech violations. Similarly, Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University scholar, recounted his harrowing experience of being detained without due process, allegedly for social media posts critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. These cases underscore a disturbing trend where academic critique and political activism are met with punitive measures, eroding the foundational principles of free expression and academic freedom. In India, the situation is more acute: Muslim scholars like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Dr. Hany Babu have been jailed under sweeping anti-terror laws for exercising their constitutional rights. For Muslim academics, intellectual life is now entangled with existential precarity. They are compelled to demonstrate loyalty to the nation before being permitted to contribute to its scholarly discourse. This systemic repression is not merely about individuals – it aims to silence a worldview that sees power as accountable, citizenship as plural and justice as an ongoing pursuit. Despite these challenges, universities remain potential sites of resistance. Across campuses, students and faculty continue to challenge authoritarian drift. From Harvard's Palestine Solidarity encampments to Jamia's anti-CAA protests, the university persists as one of the few spaces where democratic dissent endures. However, this space is shrinking. Funding is being slashed, fellowships are disappearing, international scholars face deportation and the cost of posing critical questions is escalating. If we allow universities to become echo chambers for state power, we risk losing more than academic freedom. We jeopardise the very notion that public life should be governed by reasoned debate rather than fear. The global assault on universities – from Trump's offensive against Harvard to Modi's dismantling of minority fellowships and curricular purges – is not coincidental. It reflects a political moment wherein the capacity for critical thought is perceived as a threat to national coherence. In place of knowledge, these regimes offer nostalgia; in place of critique, conformity. To defend the university today is to defend the possibility of a freer, more just society tomorrow. This defence must emanate not only from within the academy but from all who value democracy beyond a mere slogan. It must involve public intellectuals, journalists, educators, students, and civil society at large. Because once critical thinking itself is criminalised, we find ourselves already inhabiting a post-democratic world. Ismail Salahuddin is a writer and researcher based in Delhi, focusing on Muslim identity, caste and the politics of knowledge. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Are hegemonies a relic of the past? The role of coercion and consent in global domination
The era of U.S. hegemony has come to an end – or so declare headlines emanating everywhere from Tehran to Washington. But what does that mean? The concept of hegemony has been central to international relations since the advent of the field. In addition to being a measure of state power, hegemony reflects the ability of a single nation to influence both the actions of others and the rules, norms and institutions that govern international politics. It's this dynamic mix of coercion and consent that makes hegemony distinct from mere dominance and highlights the complexities of maintaining leadership in a contested world. The term hegemony originates from the Greek hegemon, meaning leader or guide. It was initially applied to the dominance of one city-state over others. In ancient Greece, Athens exemplified hegemony in its leadership of the Delian League of city-states, where it combined military superiority with political influence to direct the actions of its allies. While this dominance involved coercive power – primarily Athens' naval strength – it also relied on consent, as the league's members benefited from collective security and economic ties. The modern understanding of hegemony emerged during the 19th century as a way to describe Britain's role in the global order. Britain's dominance was underpinned by its unparalleled naval power and economic leadership during the Industrial Revolution. It was not, however, just material capabilities that made Britain a hegemon. The global trade networks it built and the norms of free trade it championed established a system that other nations, mainly in Europe, accepted, often because they too benefited from the stability and prosperity it provided. This era demonstrated how hegemony involves more than coercion. Indeed, it requires a dominant state to shape an international order that aligns the interests of others with that of the dominant nation. Antonio Gramsci, the early 20th-century Italian Marxist theorist, expanded the concept of hegemony beyond international relations into a class analysis. He argued that hegemony involves not only coercive power of the dominant class but also the ability to secure consent by shaping cultural, ideological and institutional norms. Applied back to international politics, this means that a hegemonic nation's dominance is sustained by creating a system that others perceive as legitimate and beneficial, not just through military or economic might. In the 20th century, the United States emerged as the quintessential modern hegemon, particularly after World War II. U.S. hegemony was defined by its material power – unmatched military strength, economic dominance and technological leadership – but also by an ability to construct a liberal international order that aligned with its interests. The Marshall Plan, which facilitated postwar Europe's economic recovery, exemplified the combination of coercion and consent: The U.S. provided resources and security guarantees but also set the terms for participation, embedding its leadership within the system. Into this mix, the Soviet Union emerged as a secondary hegemon, establishing its own equivalents to the U.S. aid program through the Molotov Plan and an alternative order to exert influence among the world's socialist countries. Defenders of hegemonies argue that a dominant power is necessary to provide public goods such as security, economic stability and rule enforcement. And thus the decline of a hegemon can often lead to instability. Yet critics argue that hegemonic systems often mask the self-interest of the dominant state, using consent to obscure coercion. For instance, while the U.S.-led order promoted free trade and democracy, it also advanced American strategic priorities, sometimes at the expense of weaker states. And hegemony is difficult to maintain in the long run. Those that rely too heavily on coercion risk losing legitimacy, but excessive reliance on consent without the backing of power can undermine the hegemon's ability to enforce rules and protect core interests. In today's multipolar world, the concept of hegemony faces new challenges. The rise of China, along with regional powers such as Turkey, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, has disrupted the unipolar dominance of the U.S. These would-be regional hegemons bring with them their own means of imposing influence through economic incentives and coercion. In China's case, infrastructure and trade development through the Belt and Road Initiative is counterbalanced with shows of military strength in the South China Sea. As the global order becomes increasingly fragmented, the future of global hegemony is uncertain. While no single power currently has the capacity to dominate the international system, the need for leadership remains critical. Many observers would argue that issues such as climate change, technological regulation and pandemic responses require coordination that only a hegemonic or collective leadership framework can provide. Whether hegemony evolves into a more shared model of leadership or gives way to a more anarchic system could shape the trajectory of international relations in the 21st century. This article is part of a series explaining foreign policy terms commonly used but rarely explained. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Andrew Latham, Macalester College Read more: The Thucydides Trap: Vital lessons from ancient Greece for China and the US … or a load of old claptrap? What is the rules-based order? How this global system has shifted from 'liberal' origins − and where it could be heading next Disinformation and other forms of 'sharp power' now sit alongside the 'hard power' of tanks and 'soft power' of ideas in policy handbook Andrew Latham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Star
27-04-2025
- Politics
- The Star
Giving birth to a new international order
The multipolar world will be born when the geopolitical weight of Asia, Africa, and Latin America matches their rising economic weight. WRITING in his cell as political prisoner in fascist Italy after World War I, the philosopher Antonio Gramsci famously declared: 'The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.' A century later, we are in another interregnum, and the morbid symptoms are everywhere. The US-led order has ended, but the multipolar world is not yet born. The urgent priority is to give birth to a new multilateral order that can keep the peace and the path to sustainable development. We are at the end of a long wave of human history that commenced with the voyages of Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama more than 500 years ago. Those voyages initiated more than four centuries of European imperialism that peaked with Britain's global dominance from the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) to the outbreak of World War I (1914). Following World War II, the United States claimed the mantle as the world's new hegemon. Asia was pushed aside during this long period. According to widely used macroeconomic estimates, Asia produced 65% of world output in 1500, but by 1950, that share had declined to just 19% (compared with 55% of the world population). In the 80 years since WWII, Asia recovered its place in the global economy. Japan led the way with rapid growth in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by the four 'Asian tigers' (Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea) beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, and then by China beginning around 1980, and India beginning around 1990. As of today, Asia constitutes around 50% of the world economy, according to IMF estimates. The multipolar world will be born when the geopolitical weight of Asia, Africa, and Latin America matches their rising economic weight. This needed shift in geopolitics has been delayed as the US and Europe cling to outdated prerogatives built into international institutions and to their outdated mindsets. Even today, the US bullies Canada, Greenland, Panama and others in the Western Hemisphere and threatens the rest of the world with unilateral tariffs and sanctions that are blatantly in violation of international rules. Asia, Africa and Latin America need to stick together to raise their collective voice and their UN votes to usher in a new and fair international system. A crucial institution in need of reform is the UN Security Council, given its unique responsibility under the UN Charter to keep the peace. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the P5) – Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States – reflect the world of 1945, not of 2025. There are no permanent Latin American or African seats, and Asia holds only one permanent seat of the five, despite being home to almost 60% of the world population. Over the years, many new potential UN Security Council permanent members have been proposed, but the existing P5 have held firmly to their privileged position. The proper restructuring of the UN Security Council will be frustrated for years to come. Yet there is one crucial change that is within immediate reach and that would serve the entire world. By any metric, India indisputably merits a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Given India's outstanding track record in global diplomacy, its admission to the UN Security Council would also elevate a crucial voice for world peace and justice. On all counts, India is a great power. India is the world's most populous country, having overtaken China in 2024. India is the world's third largest economy measured at international prices (purchasing-power parity), at US$17 trillion (RM74.5 trillion), behind China (US$40 trillion) and the United States (US$30 trillion) and ahead of all the rest. India is the fastest growing major economy in the world, with annual growth of around 6% per year. India's GDP is likely to overtake that of the US by mid-century. India is a nuclear-armed nation, a digital technology innovator, and a country with a leading space programme. No other country mentioned as candidate for a permanent UN Security Council member comes close to India's credentials for a seat. The same can be said about India's diplomatic heft. India's skillful diplomacy was displayed by India's superb leadership of the G20 in 2023. India deftly managed a hugely successful G20 despite the bitter divide in 2024 between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) countries. Not only did India achieve a G20 consensus; it made history, by welcoming the African Union to a new permanent membership in the G20. China has dragged its feet on supporting India's permanent seat in the UN Security Council, guarding its own unique position as the only Asian power in the P5. Yet China's vital national interests would be well served and bolstered by India's ascension to a permanent UN Security Council seat. This is especially the case given that the US is carrying out a last-ditch and vicious effort through tariffs and sanctions to block China's hard-earned rise in economic prosperity and technological prowess. By supporting India for the UN Security Council, China would establish decisively that geopolitics are being remade to reflect the true multipolar world. While China would create an Asian peer in the UN Security Council, it would also win a vital partner in overcoming the US and European resistance to geopolitical change. If China calls for India's permanent membership in the UN Security Council, Russia will immediately concur, while the US, UK, and France will vote for India as well. The US geopolitical tantrums of recent weeks – abandoning the fight against climate change, attacking the Sustainable Development Goals, and imposing unilateral tariffs in contravention of core World Trade Organisation rules – reflect the truly 'morbid symptoms' of a dying old order. It's time to make way for a truly multipolar and just international order. Prof Jeffrey D. Sachs is director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. This article was first published in Other News.
