Forget the end of history, as predicted by Francis Fukuyama. Or the clash of civilisations, as theorised by Samuel Huntington. Today, let us talk about the temporary abandonment of ideology, and a short-term embracement of trade and investments. Trade will trump calculated convictions. The future will negate history. Civilisations have turned a full circle: From the dominance of the East against a puny and uncultured West until the seventeenth century, to a reversal until the twentieth, it is time for the re-rise of the East.
This time, unlike the Cold War, when the world was randomly and chaotically divided between the Capitalist and Communist blocs, a new dual-power world is emerging, East versus West. The trade war may be leading to a thaw in the frozen relations between the Elephant and the Dragon, with a Bear hug thrown in. The snapshots from Tianjin (China), the venue of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit reflect this.
US President Donald Trump is severely critical of the Russia-India-China (RIC) axis. He maintains that the trio, with Brazil and South Africa, set up BRICS to “degenerate” the dollar and take the greenbacks off as the standard currency of trade. The new bonhomie between India and China at SCO may be another point of his ire.
The Dragon is no longer breathing fire, and the Elephant underscored “the importance of peace and tranquility on the border areas for continued development of bilateral relations.” Both reaffirmed that they were “development partners and not rivals, and that their differences should not turn into disputes.” This cannot sound like music to the White House.
Washington’s revised tariff rates seem to have strengthened RIC ties. Meanwhile, Japan cancelled a scheduled trade visit to the US, delaying a $550 billion mutual investment deal amid disputes over profit sharing and tariffs. Modi’s recent trip to Japan was deemed to be a success. Is there a new ‘Quad’ in the offing, minus the US and Australia, which will be replaced by Russia and China?
Wars tend to create alliances, dividing the world and creating blocs of nations that share common interests. An enemy’s enemy, as goes the cliché, can be a friend in times of need. The two World Wars created two separate powers, the Allies and Central Axis. Despite being among the victors, the sun set on the British Empire. While WW II neared its end, the Crown ceased to enjoy authority in most colonies. Its administrators and the army withdrew, handing over power to the natives, usually after dividing the colonised nation and its people.
The British thinker, Bertrand Russell, once observed, “War does not determine who is right, only who is left.” However, those who are “left” in the aftermath are the victors. They make alliances as they deem right. Through the vicissitudes of time, alliances and shifts of the past create the scaffolding for today’s world. But the modern blocs are more fluid, though the shadows of the old ones loom large. Now, it is more about fighting trade wars, as was the case during the imperialistic days when European nations battled each other.
The GOAT among physicists, Albert Einstein, is attributed with a quote, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” About three quarters of a century later, it seems that the weapon he did not perceive for the next world war is trade. Trump has warned Russia, not of a World War, but an “economic war,” if President Vladimir Putin did not agree for talks to cease the war in Ukraine.
As nations realign, even as they disengage with old allies, the transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar one is going through an interim dual-power world. It has similarities with the Cold War, yet there are differences. For more than four decades after WWII (1945–1989), the global order was defined by two superpowers, the US and USSR. Each bloc organised its own military alliances (NATO and the Warsaw Pact) and ideological camps, creating a relatively stable yet adversarial international structure. Trade and investments were largely confined within these regional groupings.
After the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, the US emerged as the sole superpower. Its military in several countries retained their bases. The dollar reigned supreme. This era is often called the “unipolar moment,” which allowed Washington to set the global norms with minimal counterbalancing challengers.
But by the turn of the twenty-first century, shifts in economic weight and State capabilities triggered a gradual transition away from the US. The rise of China, India, Japan and a resurgent Russia redistributed influence across multiple centres, giving way to a genuinely multipolar configuration. Meanwhile, the European Union (EU), created in 1993, expanded from six member states to 27, turning into a major power axis. But, on crucial global issues, the EU was aligned with the US, despite the frictions.
Now, there is a change, albeit temporary. Nations that seemed to pursue their national, regional and international destinies are being forced to cuddle together. India and China were adversaries in the multipolar world, with the former wavering towards the US. Not any longer. China and Russia were at odds. No longer. Japan was friends with the US, and against China and Russia. Not anymore.
Nations have often sought to protect their markets from external influences. The powerful sought control of lucrative trade routes to acquire market access, and control critical resources. Alliances and alignments happen when a polity’s economic lifeline is threatened or challenged. This is the essence of the realigned world order. The ongoing trade wars and tariff traumas are bringing some nations together in strange and obscure ways.
A cohesive grouping of the RIC with Japan will encompass roughly one-third of the global GDP, and nearly 40 per cent of the world’s population. China and Japan alone account for a bulk of the bloc’s total output, while India’s rapid growth and Russia’s energy exports bolster collective resources. Economically, such a coalition can reshape trade routes, investment patterns, and technology standards across Eurasia. But ideologically and geopolitically, it is an unstable partnership. No one is sure if it can last, and for how long.
This is why, amidst this transformation, there is a belief that there can be a settlement between present enemies, and animosity among existing friends, who are being forced to shake hands. Remember, all wars do end in the end! We may be back to a rearranged multipolar world.