Muscle power and a myopic view, rather than the rule of law based on fairness and equity, are becoming the norm.
The world in a tailspin
2025, the year gone by, will go down in history as an extraordinary one. An unpredictable and somewhat trigger-happy ex-President’s return last January for a second term at the White House marked a transformation in the way world affairs are conducted. A perceptible shift away from the progress made since the last World War, where strides were taken towards greater globalism, peaceful co-existence and observance of the rule of law, is currently under way. The move is being accompanied by impulsive acts and authoritarian decision-making at home and abroad, along with the frequent deployment of military, financial and technological might against immediate neighbours as well as distant, weaker nations. Last fortnight’s midnight raid on Venezuela by US special forces depicts the way global geopolitics is sought to be influenced by the rich and mighty USA. Alongside, in pursuit of its lost Second World War status and standing, Russia has continued with the four-year-old invasion of its neighbour, Ukraine. To influence the finalized terms of a possible settlement, non-military targets across the beleaguered nation are being subjected to incessant bombing from the air and ground. China, to buttress its territorial claims, continues with periodic war-mongering utterances while rubbing in its vast military superiority. Instead of being frightened into submission by such show of force, the plucky Taiwanese continue to burnish their image as purveyors and manufacturers of state-of-the-art semiconductors. In fact, by adopting aggressive postures across the South China Sea, including creating artificial islands within an arbitrarily drawn dotted line, China seeks to establish its suzerainty over the waters of the region. Through the deployment of its forces along the 3,500-km Himalayan border, China has similarly sought to claim rights over several Indian settlements and features.
Despite such continuing incursions and developments, the wider adoption being experienced these days of the “law of the jungle”—where every nation looks out solely for its own survival—is a more recent phenomenon. USA, which was hitherto the global rule-maker, has turned into a nation spearheading the undermining of the post-1945 system that it once championed. The new approach of its foreign policy, as spelt out in its recently released National Defence Strategy, explicitly speaks of major powers holding sway over their respective regions. This marks a tectonic shift with profound implications for global stability. Such a “spheres-of-influence system” resembles the Concert of Europe of the 19th century. It may hold the potential to reduce great-power conflicts by establishing clearer boundaries and mutual recognition of regional interests, but it also, unambiguously, undermines the sovereignty of others. History shows that spheres of influence are inherently unstable; the boundaries between them are difficult to maintain, especially as power dynamics shift and nationalist movements resist foreign domination.
Smaller nations, in particular, are becoming vulnerable, especially when they lack the leverage to stand up against the rich and powerful. Exploiting these weaknesses, countries such as USA, China, Russia and Israel are expanding their areas of influence and, wherever feasible, territorial boundaries. Discreet understandings and coordinated actions among them increasingly appear to emerge from behind-closed-door confabulations, bordering on conspiracies. This includes conscious and deliberate efforts to diminish the role of multilateral institutions such as the UN and its affiliates, including the World Bank, IMF and regional development banks. The consensus-based deliberations of these institutions, a hallmark of which is one vote per member country irrespective of size or standing, have apparently become avoidable thorns in the pursuit of hegemony by major powers. Alongside this, fairness and equity are increasingly sacrificed at the altar of expediency. Exclusion rather than inclusion may become the path ahead.
Already, the first fortnight of 2026 has witnessed several emerging distortions. Soon after midnight on 2nd January, the incumbent President of Venezuela, a sovereign nation, and his wife were whisked out of their home in Caracas in a hi-tech assisted operation and taken to a prison 2,000 km away in Brooklyn, New York. After killing those guarding him and others who came in the way of the meticulously planned operation, the distinctly weaker country was declared to have been taken over, and within three days a puppet regime was installed. Venezuela’s major source of revenue, viz. the crude oil industry, is no longer under its newly installed acting government, and the entire business has been brought under US mandarins. Earlier, for weeks together, without formally declaring war, American aircraft mercilessly bombed several unarmed Venezuelan ships on the high seas on the suspicion of carrying contraband drugs. Since the change of regime, oil tankers plying in international waters have been seized with impunity and boarded by armed US forces for carrying US-sanctioned oil. Supplies of valuable crude are no longer permitted to its largest buyer, China, or to the highly dependent nearby Cuba. Instead, they are diverted to US refineries in Texas and Louisiana.
Neither China nor Russia, the other two reigning powers of consequence, has strongly condemned the legally suspect actions of USA against Venezuela. Nor have they initiated countermeasures that might restrain the US from continuing its aggrandizement against other countries in Latin America or elsewhere within their respective spheres of influence. This has emboldened President Trump, who has consequently intensified his adventurism. He is now threatening military assaults against country after country, including those openly allied with Russia or China, such as Cuba, Syria and Iran. Taking over Greenland and initiating military action against Colombia and next-door Mexico have been added to his list, which already included Panama.
One such territory where President Trump is threatening military action is Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory under Denmark. He has repeatedly proposed making the world’s largest island a US territory, advancing a specious security argument that if the USA does not take it over, China or Russia would. Undoubtedly, China has been assiduously building ties with Arctic nations such as Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden, and has joined the Arctic Council. Such preparatory steps enable it to monitor the High North, another term for the Arctic region, where rapidly melting ice is opening up new navigational routes to the West. Russia, virtually a next-door neighbour, has also been watchful. Reportedly, in 2022, in return for support against Ukraine, President Putin had offered Chinese President Xi Jinping greater access to the Northern Sea Route—the Arctic passage from Europe to Asia along Russia’s coastline. This route significantly shortens transit times and allows China to bypass choke points such as the Malacca Strait and the Suez Canal.
After warning that a military option remains on the table, USA has proposed that Denmark and Greenland “sell” the territory. An initial reported offer places a compensatory value of US$100,000 per person (totalling about US$5.6 billion for its 56,000 residents). In his business-oriented worldview, Trump would have factored in deposits of gold, silver and over 1,200 other minerals, including rare earths, as well as the strategic economic advantages of controlling the new sea routes. Dissatisfied with the assured and virtually unlimited military access Denmark and Greenland are willing to provide, the Americans seek outright US ownership.
Trump officials point out that New York is closer to Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, than Copenhagen. They casually dismiss Denmark’s sovereignty by arguing that it exists merely because “500 years ago, the Danes landed a boat there.” They ignore the fact that Greenland has been under Danish sovereignty since 1916, and that in 1953 it became a semi-autonomous territory with internal self-governance, while Denmark retained control over its foreign and defence matters. Of relevance is also that US President Woodrow Wilson had agreed in 1916, during the First World War, to recognise Danish sovereignty over Greenland in exchange for the Virgin Islands in the Caribbean. This followed Wilson’s earlier invasion and military occupation of Haiti, allegedly to prevent German or Spanish control.
In a manner reminiscent of the Great Powers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, President Trump seeks to acquire Greenland. Any forcible takeover of Danish territory could unravel the 1949 treaty establishing NATO, the alliance formed to jointly defend against the Soviet Union. A core principle of the 77-year-old pact is that an attack on one member is an attack on all. To prevent NATO (of which both Denmark and USA are founding members) from potential collapse, and to ensure Greenland’s defence against possible Chinese or Russian actions, USA needs to abandon the rhetoric of military takeover. At the same time, Greenland, Denmark and other European nations must recognise that without the collective shield of NATO, led by the USA, they would struggle to withstand Chinese or Russian aggression.
Reflecting on such global tendencies, including the superpowers’ urge to control natural resources, a recent joint report by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and IMD Business School observes that “global policy uncertainty is at a two-decade high, driven by a growing poly-crisis, including weakening multilateralism, shifts in trade policy and the weaponization of economic tools.”
Lloyd’s of London, an insurance behemoth, estimates that a major geopolitical conflict could devastate the global economy, triggering losses of US$14.5 trillion over the next five years. Similarly, the Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies warns that with over 80% of global trade (about 11 billion tonnes) moving by sea at any given time, closure of major trade routes due to geopolitical conflict represents one of the greatest threats to economic resilience.
The question remains whether the leadership in the USA, China and Russia are sufficiently enlightened to adopt a much-needed long-term perspective on their power and the potential to do both harm and good. A civilizational outlook demands the preservation of the planet from the adverse consequences of natural and man-made actions be accorded the highest priority. Singular and collective application of resources towards that end is the need of the hour, rather than the continued pursuit of internecine quarrels driven by ephemeral avarice and ambition.
Dr Dua, a development economist, is former Union Secretary, Commerce & Industry.
