What International Environment Do We Have

Dr Yousif Goran, head of the PUK General Studies Centre.

Written by Dr Yousif Goran, head of the PUK General Studies Centre.

Since the end of World War II, the international order has not experienced a level of turmoil and uncertainty comparable to what the world is witnessing today. The system established by the victorious Allies—built on international institutions, shared human values, and agreements governing relations between states—has been subject to accelerated erosion in recent years that threatens its very existence. While criticism is currently directed primarily toward the United States as the world’s foremost superpower, the current state of chaos is the result of multiple accumulated factors, not the product of any single cause.

Over approximately the past two decades, fundamental transformations have occurred in the structure of the international order, manifested in the rise of major new economic powers, foremost among them China and India. This has created a clear imbalance in global power dynamics. The impact of this rise has not been limited to the economic sphere alone but has extended to encompass political, military, and technological dimensions, causing a relative decline in the status of traditional Western powers, led by the United States and the European Union. This has been accompanied by growing rejection among rising powers of Western hegemony, values, and historical influence.

These transformations have produced a turbulent transitional phase in international relations, opening the door wide to a state of chaos and instability in various regions of the world. States are no longer the sole principal actors; regional powers and non-governmental entities have emerged to play influential roles in the trajectories of conflict and balance of power.

Alongside the changing map of global power, another factor has contributed to deepening international chaos: the escalating role of non-state actors, such as transnational corporations, organised groups, non-governmental organisations, and even unofficial political entities. These actors now have tangible influence on international decisions, whereas they were previously marginal.

The Trump’s administration came to embody, more clearly, this shift toward a more tense and complex world. The “America First” policy represented an American attempt to reassert its global position in the face of rising powers. However, this approach carried a major problem: it encouraged numerous countries to disregard international rules and escape legal and moral obligations in pursuit of their narrow interests.

Under this trajectory, conflicts have become a central feature of international relations, and the world has moved closer to the picture described by philosopher Hobbes as a state of “all against all,” where the law of force prevails and the logic of law weakens. In this context, international organisations, led by the United Nations, lose much of their effectiveness and their associated values of human rights, justice, and democracy, gradually transforming into formal frameworks with limited impact.

The first victims of this global chaos are weak and poor states and entities, which find themselves vulnerable to exploitation and marginalisation within the deals and understandings of major powers. Hence, it becomes essential for these states to focus internally on strengthening national cohesion, building strong democratic institutions, and developing their economies in ways that reduce their fragility.

At the external level, it becomes necessary to pursue a multidirectional policy and relations based on diversifying partnerships and avoiding subservience to specific axes or blocs. This requires reliance on dynamic, continuously updated readings of international variables, making national interest the dominant criterion in formulating foreign policies.