The global order is crumbling rapidly. It appears nowhere near the Schumpeterian idea of creative destruction; Jacques Derrida's deconstruction theory, therefore, barely posits the optimism of legendary phoenix-like revival. The global playground of powers is now without a custodian or a referee to stop the ratchet. It is almost axiomatic that the global order is critical to global governance, which is inevitable for global peace and prosperity. In this increasingly interconnected world, societal and national orders are also largely contingent on the global order and the outcome of the geopolitics of the governance, whether good or bad.

The imperative of global governance was desperately realised in the 1940s after the two devastating Great Wars. As a result, essentially, the United Nations (UN), World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, now WTO) and similar other multilateral institutions were established. So far, hundreds of international treaties, conventions and covenants have been drafted and implemented or enforced, at least in theory. However, due to the rapidly widening gap between expectation and (in)effectiveness (or helplessness?), these institutions and instruments, mainly the UN and its agencies, are now being questioned regarding the rationale of their very existence.

Without a referee

The end of the Russia-Ukraine war is nowhere on the horizon. Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be consolidating his legitimacy through forums like Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS). Economic sanctions on Russia by Western countries have had little impact due to the unhindered revenue flow from oil and gas supplied to Europe and Asia. The Gaza crisis is spreading to the entire Arab world and, perhaps, beyond. The foreign policy of the United States on Gaza and Israel seems pressed between its interest in protecting the Israeli state and saving its democratic credentials by stopping inhuman excesses at the Israeli war targets.

Digital, communication and transportation technologies, such as artificial intelligence, the Internet and drones, are being used more for destructive purposes, such as starting wars, rather than serve humanity. Trade wars have intensified. The global debt balloon has spiralled out of control, and so has the climate crisis. So, apprehensions abound that we may be on the verge of World War III.

Personalities like UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres often cry foul from the fringes, but there are no takers of it. The UN is unable to safeguard its agency, UNWRA (The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East), against the formal Israeli allegations of colluding with the groups that Israel has labelled as 'terrorists'. They are even incapable of admonishing the countries that are blatantly engaged in arms sales and doing nothing tangible to mitigate the potential threat of nuclear war. The leaders of powerful nations on the frontline continue to disregard international laws, rules or norms, sine qua non for maintaining global order and, thereby, ensuring fair global governance.

Of course, there is a broader age-old unanswered question surrounding the very design of these institutions, choice of location for their headquarters, personnel selection processes, modus operandi and funding mechanisms. All these aspects were ab initio at the control and mercy of the same group of powerful nations that often choose to flout the so-called international rules and norms. The current international governance mayhem is akin to a game without a referee capable of flagging a foul to powerful global players who are quarrelling rather than respecting the game of rules.

Throb of repolarisation

The debate over the shift of the global power poles and the emergence of multipolarity is gaining currency. However, the throb and thong of creating, recognising and sustaining multiple such poles have fiercely gripped the world. The emerging potential poles are keen to build new alliances, while the existing ones exert all efforts not to lose their grip. This has resulted in multifaceted tit-for-tat actions and reactions among the countries through diplomatic rows, strategic bans and fresh trade barriers.

Within days after Putin appeared in a triumphant mood regarding his ability to invite leaders from 36 countries for the 16th BRICS Summit in Russia on 22-24 October, the US government on October 30 imposed ‘sanctions on nearly four hundred entities and individuals for enabling Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine.’ This action targets multiple sectors essential to Russia’s war effort.’ This includes the ‘entities and individuals’ from China, India, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Türkiye, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who continue to sell ‘important dual-use goods to Russia, including critical components that the country relies on for its weapons systems to wage war against Ukraine.’

Extracting allegiance

This United States’ move is critical since it involves putative allies and big trade partners like India, Switzerland and the UAE. India is part of ‘the Quad’, the group of four countries (the other three being Australia, Japan and Australia) created out of large ‘democracies’ in the Indo-Pacific region. They had a summit in the last week of September in Washington, DC. The US sanction to 19 Indian entities and two Indian nationals comes at a time when its diplomatic row with Canada, one of the closest US allies, is at its height. Its trade deficit with Russia was $57.14 billion last year against the export of only $4.26 billion. India is among the countries which continued to import Russian oil during the Western sanctions. Nepal is one of the beneficiaries of stable oil prices that are maintained due to this supply. The American move appears to extract unconditional allegiance from India, moving away from Russian engagement. The tug-of-war of creating or breaking alliances is poised to only be nastier in the future.

The most alarming and dangerous trait is that the war, financing billions from these rich countries, has been forthcoming and instant. However, humanitarian and development assistance to the developing world has been asymptotic to zero for decades.

What’s more, the governments and parliaments of these countries are approving these finances to the parties of their interest at the cost of astronomical debt burden to their treasuries. The IMF estimates that the global public debt will exceed $100 trillion, or about 93 percent of the global gross domestic product, by the end of this year. Only two countries, the US and China, account for 50 percent of it—$36 trillion and 16 trillion, respectively. There is no mechanism to tame them.