The nuclear arms race and Cold War, begun during the closing stages of World War II, gradually petered down with SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) I and II agreements of 1972 and 1979 between the US and USSR. These were preceded/followed by a host of treaties; Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) 1968, Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty 1972, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) 1987, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) 1991, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II) 1993, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 1996 and New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) 2010.
Newly found pragmatism in world leaders ended the threat of nuclear war; multilateral agencies generously funded by the US and other affluent countries provided aid to poor countries, and ensured free trade. Consequently, for the last four decades, the entire world enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. This Utopia was forcefully disturbed by three autocrats, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, ruling over the three most powerful countries, who let loose their territorial ambitions, pushing the world into turmoil, and negating the social and economic gains of the last many years.
Suddenly, trade was no longer free, with the world’s richest country, USA, opting out of multilateral agencies and imposing mindless tariffs on imports, and other countries regressing into protectionism. The United Nations, created to maintain international peace, security, and cooperation was rendered defunct by open defiance, by the US and Russia. Israel, a US protege, blatantly ignored decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that directed it (Israel) to halt its genocide in Gaza.
Instead, Israel took out warrants against judges of ICJ, and in its latest affront to the United Nations, Israel demolished buildings in the compound of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, flagrantly violating international law, including the privileges and immunities of the United Nations. Addressing a high-level open debate of the UN Security Council António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, warned that commitments to international law are increasingly being ignored. “Around the world, the rule of law is being replaced by the law of the jungle,” he said, pointing to what he described as manifest breach of the UN Charter and international law, including the illegal use of force, attacks on civilian infrastructure, human rights abuses and the denial of life-saving humanitarian aid.
From Gaza to Ukraine and beyond, the Secretary-General said, the rule of law is being treated as “an à la carte menu,” with States choosing which rules to follow. Such violations, he warned, set dangerous precedents, encourage impunity and erode trust among nations. Elaborating further, on 30 January, the UN Secretary-General, said: “Global problems will not be solved by one power calling the shots”, later adding it was a reference to the United States. “Nor will they be solved by two powers carving the world into rival spheres of influence.”
When asked to clarify, he said: “We see, and many see, in relation to the future, the idea that there are two poles, one centred in the U.S. and one centred in China … If we want a stable world, if we want a world in which peace can be sustained, in which development can be generalized, and in which ~ in the end ~ our values will prevail, we need to support multipolarity.” A few days ago, at the World Economic Forum 2026 at Davos, where a record number of attendees, including 850 CEOs, 80 tech billionaires, hundreds of ministers and 65 heads of Government congregated for a week, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, echoed the Secretary-General’s views.
Firstly, Carney called out the rules-based international order, a favourite phrase of Western powers to justify their doubtful actions as a “pleasant fiction” from which “the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient.” He rightly pointed out that the concept of a rules-based international order had mostly rested upon the arbitrary exercise of U.S. power. Carney was absolutely correct when he pointed out that “great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.”
Apart from the usual US targets ~ Iran, Venezuela, and Russia ~ even long-standing allies like NATO countries, and non-aligned countries like India, all are increasingly affected by hostile US economic policies. Perhaps Carney’s most prescient observation was that the US-centric global trade and political system had broken apart: “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.” Carney’s prescription for Davos attendees was simple: “middle powers,” like Canada, India, and Australia, should assert themselves and act together. Evaluated holistically, Trump’s tantrums have rattled US allies the most.
For example, Trump has imposed tariffs of 35 per cent on Canada, insulted it by threatening to make it the fifty-first state of the US, and encouraged separatists in its Alberta province. Europe was also marked out for special treatment; its leaders were publicly insulted when they called upon Trump, the EU has had a major trade spat with the US, and Denmark ~ an EU and NATO member ~ has been threatened with the annexation of Greenland. EU countries, historically allied to the US by trade and defence, are being arm-twisted precisely because of this reason – in addition to economic factors, they are dependent on America for their weapons and security.
Emerging Market Economies (EMEs), particularly BRICS countries, not having put all their eggs in the US basket, have fared much better ~ outstanding examples being India and Brazil. As pointed out by Carney, the US had contributed to global prosperity by ensuring “open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes” but that phase was over, with the US pulling out of 66 multilateral organisations. Carney’s call for collective resilience, suggesting different coalitions of nations for defence, trade, critical minerals, technology and climate policy, makes eminent sense. In fact, ‘middle power’ countries have already embarked on this path;
India has signed FTAs with UK, Singapore and New Zealand in 2025, and with the EU in 2026. Risking US disapproval, Britain, France and Canada all hot-footed to Beijing and signed trade deals with China. Additionally, Canada is in negotiations with ASEAN countries, Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia), Thailand and the Philippines. Climate resilience, economic equality, shared progress, and multilateralism are taboo topics for Trump. Countries sharing these goals have to come together to make sure that the world does not mimic the mythical scenario of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, where hegemons carved up the earth in the three fictional nations of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.
A non-aligned movement of middle powers may prevent this catastrophe; the powerful can pursue their quarrels, while the others would progress quietly. Instead of hanging on the coat-tails of super-powers, middle powers should work together to create worthwhile and effective institutions for themselves, which should be more principled, and more tailored to the specific geopolitics of the region in which they operate.
Short-term goals would have to be jettisoned in favour of principled long-term strategic planning with an emphasis on ways to be self-dependent ~ without US, Chinese or Russian crutches. The current world-wide debate shows that non-alignment, envisioned by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1954, is still relevant, and shows a way out of the present great power rivalry. Finally, Trump, by his perfidious actions and immoderate speech, has probably set in motion a process of emancipation for many nations,
(The writer is a retired Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax)