Beyond a Balance of Power

By Nabil Fahmy, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt and Dean Emiritius of the School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the American University of Cairo

The post-Second World War order was premised on two things: first, that the victors would share the spoils and prevent another global conflict by managing their competition in a balance of power between them; and second, a reciprocal respect for their spheres of influence. In the minds of the Second World War victors, the rest of the world – mostly developing countries slowly emerging from colonialism – was initially considered part of this scheme, until their growing number gradually expanded their footprint on the global landscape.

Balances of power are however never static; the spheres of influence were violated and the number of countries outside these two blocs increased dramatically. As a result, the world order became inherently unstable and the norms promoted by the Second World War victors and later championed by what is now the Global South were undermined. This has disrupted multilateralism and the concept of universality.

The United States believes it bears the greatest burden in terms of the world’s security, politics and economy. China and Russia are wary that the West seeks to impose a liberal orientation on everyone. Developing countries assert that industrialised ones have accelerated development and exploited natural resources, harming the environment, and unjustifiably impose measures on them at the expense of their aspirations.

An international paradigm that reflects contemporary realities, along with reforms to international procedures that create more equitable conditions, is essential for ensuring stability, security and peace in today’s complex, fast-paced and multifaceted international system.

Reform is challenging but not impossible. The international system has undergone significant changes in the past, often with the support of a broad swathe of the international community. The most important examples are the establishment of the League of Nations following the First World War and the founding of the United Nations in 1945. These milestones paved the way for numerous important agreements: among great powers on strategic arms control, at the global level on weapons of mass destruction and across various areas of international economics. The common element and decisive factor behind these successes was a shared concept of a balance of interests that resonated with and united the vast majority of the international community.

Achieving such a balance today can seem daunting, especially given the diverse interests within the Global South. However, this is not an insurmountable obstacle. The countries of the Global South will inevitably have varied immediate interests, which cannot and should not be ignored. Yet, just as the leaders at the Bandung Conference in 1955, despite their diverse interests and priorities, found wideranging common interests on strategic goals such as equitable relations, sovereign equality and independence, a strategic, long-sighted approach is essential today.

In this context, Bandung stands as a pivotal example of how unity can emerge from diversity. From it emerged a powerful vision: a world where former colonies could assert their political and economic independence without becoming entangled in the ideological and military rivalries of the Cold War. The ten principles of Bandung – emphasizing sovereignty, mutual respect, non-aggression and peaceful coexistence – formed the guiding philosophy for what would later evolve into the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

The Bandung spirit found its most formal expression in 1961 when the NAM was officially established. Under the leadership of figures such as Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito, India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah and Indonesia’s Sukarno, it sought to provide a third path between the two Cold War superpowers. In the 1960s and 1970s, the NAM expanded rapidly as many newly independent countries joined its ranks.

Over the decades, the NAM has had significant achievements:

• It was instrumental in championing decolonisation and supporting independence movements in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, ensuring that colonialism was delegitimised on the world stage.
• It highlighted the inequalities in global trade and finance, and it advocated a just economic order through platforms like the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the demand for a New International Economic Order.
• It played a pivotal role in rallying international support against the apartheid regime in South Africa, leading to sanctions and diplomatic pressure that ultimately contributed to its downfall.
• It strengthened and facilitated closer cooperation between developing nations, leading to initiatives like BRICS, the G77 and regional groupings aimed at reducing dependence on Western economies.
• It resisted imperialism and consistently opposed foreign military interventions and unilateral actions that threatened the sovereignty of states, from Africa to Latin America and the Middle East.

Yet, challenges persist. The world today is marked by deep inequalities: economic disparities, climate injustice and geopolitical tensions and active conflicts that disproportionately affect the developing world. Many countries remain on the margins of global decision-making while many of the institutions established in the 20th century have failed to adapt to the evolving realities of the 21st century. Many countries, particularly developing ones, have frequently called for the reform of intergovernmental institutions to align them with contemporary international realities in a just and more equitable manner.

One of the challenges is that reform will not be credible unless it addresses the privileged position of developed countries in international forums. This includes the over-representation of Europe among the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and other bodies, and the fact that, in the absence of accountability, the positions of almost all such members are fraught with duplicity in the application of standards.

Realistically, the onus for creative initiative and resolute determination falls on the Global South and medium size or medium power countries. They could address these challenges in the format of an inclusive steering group, comprising two countries from each continent of the South from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The first step of the steering group would be to agree on the foundations, mechanisms and priorities before opening the door to other countries’ participation.

The second step would be to clarify the goals and priorities, including creating a multilateral system with better representation and performance. This effort would aim to reform and to restructure, rather than to dismantle, the international system, especially the United Nations and its institutions. These organisations should remain the foundation of any reformed system.

The priority should be to restructure intergovernmental organisations to ensure more equitable decision-making in them, notably by:

• Developing further the UN Security Council and international organisation council membership.
• Representing the international community better in terms of the permanent and non-permanent members of governing bodies of international organisations.
• Curtailing the misuse of veto or blocking powers by specifying how many times states can use these each year and/or the issues or circumstances in which they can be used.

The third step would be to consult with countries that support multilateralism in the Global East, West, North and South regarding the principles and objectives, in order to expand the international consensus and support for a proposal to be submitted to the UN Security Council and other international organisations.

It is time for a new world order that is just, inclusive and reflective of all voices. In this pursuit, the middle powers and the Global South must take the lead within the format of the steering group. Global South countries at the Bandung Conference already affirmed that they aspire to a world where no country is treated as a mere spectator in global governance, and where development is not dictated by a few but driven by the collective aspirations of all. We call for reforms in international financial institutions to serve the needs of developing countries and to end cycles of dependency. We demand a multilateral system that prioritises equity and inclusivity, in which trade agreements, climate policies and technological advances benefit the many, not just the few. The Global South must expand to include like-minded partners for international cooperation while renewing its commitment to the Bandung Spirit and pushing for a new, more equitable world order. Urgent reform of the international institutions established after the Second World War – such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank – is required to reflect today’s global realities.

An invigorated Global South must unite in advocating:

• Fairer trade policies that do not disadvantage developing countries.
• Debt restructuring and financial sovereignty to ensure that countries are not trapped in cycles of debt dependence.
• Having a stronger voice in global governance, including permanent representation for Africa and Latin America in the UN Security Council.
• Climate justice with industrialised countries taking responsibility for their historical emissions and providing financial and technological support for sustainable development in the Global South.

Seven decades ago, the leaders meeting in Bandung dared to dream of a world free from colonial domination and external control. Today, the Global South countries must once again bring forward that dream, based on balancing the interests of states as well as the interdependence of the global and national levels. We should pursue this vision, which is within our grasp, where justice, equality and true independence define the global order. We can deepen our partnerships, strengthen our regional alliances and global cooperation by investing in our own capacities. We can collaborate on technological progress, build resilient economies and promote peace and diplomacy.

Turning this vision into reality will require more than aspiration; it demands strategic collective action by the Global South. Its leverage to compel great powers to accept these reforms is in its collective weight, be that in critical resources, market share and consequently political weight.

The widest coalitions of the Global South and middle power countries will be useful. Their strength is in inclusivity and coalition building at the widest possible level, even of ad hoc arrangements of the willing and beyond formal groupings, and their strongest leverage is proactive engagement.

The Global South is not just a bloc of emerging countries but rather a force for change, a collective that can shape the course of history. Let us build a world where sovereignty is respected, where economies grow without exploitation and where peace is not dictated by the powerful but co-created by all countries. The future belongs to those who dare to shape it. Let us embrace this challenge together.