Varsities shape the future

THE old order is dead. We just don’t know what will replace it.

As Henry Kissinger reminded us in his 2014 book World Order, “no truly global ‘order’ has ever existed”.

After Trump’s erratic actions, all gloves are off. American comedians and Iranian Lego cartoons tell us all we need to know about the demise of the old order.

If the unipolar order is not viable, and the US is abandoning the multilateral order and rules of the game it created since World War Two, what are the alternatives?

Given America’s perfidy as a trusted ally, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is pushing for a “coalition of middle powers”, what I call “midi-lateralism”, whereby nations, such as Canada, Australia, and the EU, with significant economic clout but not superpower status, should unite to find a “third path” of autonomy, pushing back against Great Power bullying by might as right.

There is another alternative of “mini-lateralism” emerging – the variable geometry of small countries that work together quietly to become more self-reliant and minimise great power disruptions.

The current UN membership reflects a pyramid structure of 193 members, mostly small countries, dominated by the great powers who can veto what they do not like.

The top two – the USA and China – with more than 10% share of world GDP in purchasing power parity terms account for 23.8% of world GDP as of end-2025.

The next 16 largest UN members, with roughly 1% to 5% of GDP (except for India), account for another 40.2% of world GDP. The “Many” number 175 and account for 36% of world GDP.

Since China has traditionally considered herself a developing country, it is a partner in the UN group of 134 members, curiously called the Group of 77 (G77), which coordinate on United Nations’ (UN) policies.

Unlike the UN’s one-member, one-vote system, the voting arrangement in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank is “weighted” according to economic clout.

The G77 operates as the Group of 24 (G-24) in the IMF and World Bank to push for global economic and financial reforms. These measures include the IMF quota or voting arrangement for more equitable power sharing, pushing for greater help for smaller countries to avoid debt distress; and finding innovative ways to use IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDR) to help poorer nations access more funding.

Until recently, the United States and Europe have voted in unison to push back G-24 demands for quota and SDR reforms.

However, if the Europeans are willing to vote with G-24, the United States may be pushed into a minority position, even though, with more than 15% voting power, it can still veto IMF reforms.

The painful reality, therefore, is meaningful reform will only happen if advanced countries get into recession or financial crisis, like the 2008 global financial crisis.

The next crisis may be about debt distress. The IMF, as of end-March 2026, classifies nine countries in the debt distress category and 23 countries under “high risk”.

No one wants to say outright that the US may be the next to face debt distress. Since the US economy survives on continued borrowing from the rest of the world to finance its fiscal and trade deficits, the price of losing moral leadership is the loss of more and more creditors.

The irony is that while Trump is defending Maga (Make America Great Again) through rupturing the status quo, the rest of the world is trying to defend what they like about the old order and yet, reduce over-reliance on an unreliable hegemon.

So if the big incumbent institutions are simultaneously disruptors and barriers to change, change is more likely to occur at the mini- and micro-lateral levels. Such reforms can only have global impact if they can scale.

In short, we need global platforms to network for meaningful innovation at the mini-country and micro-local levels.

The global future is a future created by the parts. We cannot have One Order, because there is no consensus on what the future model is all about.

There is only “unity in diversity”, as different stakeholders compete and cooperate to find ways to defend their own sovereignty and stable development.

The only universal institution across all nations is the university, because universities straddle the important functions of teaching the new generation as well as undertaking research and development for the future.

They also enable the older generation to empower the young. Universities, therefore, are both the actors and diffusers of knowledge for change.

Complex theory tells us that order descends into chaos, from which a new order will emerge. History confirms that cycle.

Nations that have inclusive and innovative education systems perform best over time. If artificial intelligence is both a saviour and a curse, then let the universities diffuse its usage through diverse experimentation to see what, where, and who becomes more efficient, resilient, and impactful on human and planetary wellbeing.

In short, the contest between the Global South and the great powers can either break into outright war or there will be simultaneous competition and cooperation at the lower levels of universities and communities who strive to create their own futures, including avoiding being dominated by great power plays.

We cannot predict the future exactly, but if we want to know who are likely to survive, look at quality of the institutes of learning.

Those that defend the status quo may not survive. Those who engage locally and globally will.