Global order at a crossroads: Transformation or disorder

Home > Opinion > Columns

Global order at a crossroads: Transformation or disorder

Published: 17 Apr. 2026, 00:01

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Park Myung-lim

The author is a political professor at Yonsei University.

The world appears increasingly unmoored. The disappearance of shared principles and common purpose has left global standards fragmented. More troubling, the future of the international order seems to have lost a broadly accepted direction, raising questions about whether the current moment represents a transition or a descent into deeper disorder.

U.S. President Donald Trump, UFC CEO Dana White and Hunter Campbell, chief business officer of the UFC, watch a match during the UFC 327 event at Kaseya Center in Miami on April 11. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

The ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran is a central source of instability. Yet its tangible benefits are limited when weighed against mounting global crises in inflation, production, energy and values. The costs are far greater than any potential gains. Longstanding observations about war suggest that conflicts lacking a clear moral or strategic justification rarely deliver meaningful advantages. Hostility between neighboring states cannot reasonably justify a broader escalation that places the entire international system at risk.

The contradiction is particularly stark given that the current global energy security system, which underpinned decades of economic growth, was largely shaped by the United States itself. Washington’s criticism of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine contrasts with its own actions toward Iran, which risk weakening support for Ukraine while indirectly benefiting Russia’s economy. Even these consequences may be secondary. The broader effects on U.S. inflation, economic stability, domestic cohesion, democratic values and international credibility are unlikely to be positive.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt holds up an illustration of the "Triumphal Arch" that U.S. President Trump is submitting plans to build, during a press briefing at the White House in Washington on April 15. [UPI/YONHAP]

Questions of global standing and shared values are even more significant. In this respect, even a military victory could amount to a Pyrrhic one for the United States, yielding losses that outweigh gains in terms of influence and legitimacy. The case of China offers a useful point of comparison.

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, global sympathy for the United States was strong. However, the prolonged war on terror, a form of asymmetric conflict, reshaped the international order. While the United States was deeply engaged in conflicts across the Islamic world, other countries benefited from shifting economic conditions. In the same year as the attacks, Washington supported China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which took place on Dec. 11, 2001.

According to one estimate, the war on terror resulted in around 900,000 deaths and cost roughly $8 trillion. The scale of both human and financial loss was immense. Yet many of the affected regions reverted to their previous political conditions after the conflicts subsided. During this period, the global economy underwent significant changes.

In global trade, China became the world’s largest trading nation within a decade of joining the WTO. In manufacturing, long regarded as a key measure of national strength, the shift was even more pronounced. At the start of the war on terror, China’s share of global manufacturing stood at about one-quarter of that of the United States. By the end, the U.S. share had fallen to roughly half of China’s. China’s output eventually surpassed the combined manufacturing capacity of the United States, Japan, Germany and Korea.

Similar patterns emerged in maritime networks, where China came to dominate major global shipping routes outside the Atlantic. In naval shipbuilding, U.S. and Chinese output shifted dramatically over two decades, with China producing far more vessels in later years. These figures suggest a broader redistribution of power.

It would be an oversimplification to attribute these changes solely to the war on terror. The United States did achieve greater security in some respects. However, an excessive focus on asymmetric conflict appears to have contributed to China’s rise and a relative decline in U.S. influence.

Today, China is steadily moving from a regional to a global power, not only in trade, manufacturing and maritime capacity but also in shaping international perceptions and partnerships. Surveys indicate that global favorability toward China has, in some cases, surpassed that of the United States. Such shifts in reputation can translate into changes in alliances and values.

The once-solid U.S.-Europe alliance is also showing signs of strain, reflecting deeper divisions within what were once shared norms. These fractures may prove more consequential than the direct rivalry between the United States and China.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez shake hands at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing April 14. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

Historical memory offers a final perspective. The Holocaust remains one of humanity’s greatest tragedies and has served as a lasting moral reference point for human rights. Yet the current conflict has prompted a growing separation between universal empathy for that history and contemporary views of Israel as a state.

Universal values cannot be sustained by power alone. Without shared understanding and cooperation, no global standard can endure. Empires lacking such foundations tend to decline more rapidly than they rise. Unless efforts are made to restore common values and international solidarity, both U.S. influence and global stability may erode further. The principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and peace remain essential to any durable global order.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.