Universities may shape global 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 United States President Donald 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 America is abandoning the multilateral order and rules of the game created by her since World War II, 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 like Canada, Australia, and the European Union with significant economic clout but not superpower status should unite to find a “third path” of autonomy, pushing back against Great Powers’ bullying by might is 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 minimize Great Power disruptions.
The current United Nations 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 with more than 10 percent share of world gross domestic product (GDP) in purchasing power parity terms like US and China account for 23.8 percent of world GDP as of end 2025. The next 16 largest UN members with roughly 1 to 5 percent of GDP (except for India) account for another 40.2 percent of world GDP. The “many” number 175 and account for 36 percent 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 which coordinates on policies on UN issues. Unlike the UN’s one-member, one-vote, the voting arrangement in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank is “weighted“ according to economic clout.
Until recently, the US and Europe have voted in unison to push back G-24 demands for quota and special drawing rights reforms. However, if the Europeans are willing to vote with G-24, the US may be pushed into a minority position, even though with more than 15 percent voting power, she can still veto IMF reforms. The painful reality therefore is that meaningful reform will only happen if the advanced countries get into recession or financial crisis, as in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.
The next crisis may be about debt distress. The IMF, as of end March 2026, classify nine countries in 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 her fiscal and trade deficits, the price of losing moral leadership is loss of more and more creditors.
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 meaningful innovation at the mini-country and micro local levels.
The global future is made up of the 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 they 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 savior and 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 well-being.
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 each 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 the quality of the institutes of learning. Those that defend the status quo may not survive. Those who engage locally and globally will. Asia News Network
—————-
Andrew Sheng is former chair of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission.
—————-
The Philippine Daily Inquirer is a member of the Asia News Network, an alliance of 22 media titles in the region.
