The future world order must be based on tolerance and diversity
American academic Ali Mazrui said that the US, Secretary of State Marco Rubio in particular, should be saying 'what is good for the world is good for my country'.
American political scientist Joseph S Nye Jr, who died last month, recently wrote in an
The Future of World Order
that we may not know until 2029 whether we are entering a totally new period of American decline or whether the second Trump administration's attacks on the American Century's institutions and alliances will prove to be another cyclical dip. One thing is certain. Nye will be proved correct, regardless of what happens.
But we do not know what the post-American world order will look like, should we indeed be 'entering a totally new period'. Will it be a multipolar world order of the same Westphalian states with reformed global institutions or one of civilisations and cultures?
Will democracies and non-democracies constitute each of the multiple poles or will it be one that is composed of poles formed around key states in each major world region? Will it be a Sino-centric, unipolar international system or more balanced?
All we can say for now is that the future world order will be a product of the interplay between cultural processes and existing global structures. Beyond that, nothing is certain. A discourse on the future world order is, therefore, appropriate and timely.
Ideally, the future world order will be based on at least two interrelated normative principles.
The first principle is a steadfast commitment to respecting diversity, encompassing cultural, ethnic, racial, religious and ideological differences. We recognise that diversity is not a popular notion in some circles today.
Indeed, globalisation has significantly contributed to greater global homogeneity, as lifestyles have become increasingly similar across vast distances. But let us not forget that the lifestyle that has become globalised is predominantly Western. At the same time, we also have a rich intermingling of racial, cultural, ethnic and linguistic groups at the local level. The primary drivers of this local heterogeneity have been the forces of migration and colonialism.
In other words, the local landscape has evolved into a microcosm of the world. On the global level, the world has become an approximation of a village, without the empathy of the village. This creates a compelling paradox — as we experience local heterogenisation, we simultaneously witness a vibrant explosion of global homogenisation. The future world order must rise to the challenge of embracing both emerging trends as its normative foundation.
We must embrace a creative synthesis incorporating the finest aspects of the world's major cultures and traditions. Consider, for instance, what is known as Africa's triple heritage: indigenous values, Islam and Western culture.
An aspect of Africa's indigenous values is the remarkable ability of Africans to forgive. While Africans have endured more than their fair share of violence, they often embrace moments of reconciliation with an inspiring quickness. This short memory of hate can serve as a powerful antidote to endless division and hatred and it can also become the continent's contribution to a global ethic of tolerance.
From the West, we can take the wealth of knowledge and innovative spirit that drives educational advancements and capitalistic growth — if they survive until 2029.
Let us be inspired by Islam's profound emphasis on modesty and humility in character and appearance.
By incorporating lessons from other civilisations and traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Sikhism etc) such an approach can provide a solid basis for a harmonious world order. It would be a great opportunity for a grand synthesis based on the word's rich diversity.
The second principle is tolerance. If diversity can be measured through the objective lens of heterogeneity, true tolerance can be assessed by the degree of our willingness to accept and even embrace differences. This acceptance is not just a moral obligation. It is essential for a harmonious and sustainable world order.
However, it is worth noting that being a victim of intolerance in the past does not always lead to an understanding of its importance. The very faith that endured persecution by Roman gladiators in the West eventually became the instrument of severe repression through the Inquisition.
In Africa, as well, there has been, for example, a conflictual relationship between the majority Hutu and the minority Tutsi of Rwanda. At times, the Hutu have perpetrated violence against the Tutsi and at other times, it was the Tutsi who were the culprits. The conflict culminated in genocide in 1994.
It is essential to acknowledge that Islam too, has, at various times and to different degrees, exhibited characteristics of heightened political militancy and religious bigotry. It may be that Islam in the pre-Ottoman empire was more tolerant and ecumenical.
Sustainable tolerance needs unwavering attention and effort. Tolerance is not a one-time achievement. It is a vital practice that must be actively nurtured and systematically reinforced through institutional measures.
Diversity, tolerance and a creative synthesis of global pools of shared values and distinctive traditions should form the basis of the future world order.
This may be the most promising pathway towards building a constructively pluralistic world order and resolving the tension between the increasingly diverse global actors and the originally Western international system. The alternative is divisive pluralism.
In short, tolerance and accepting diversity is good for the world and, therefore, good for the future world order. Unfortunately, however, the logic of the current US administration appears different. In the
In what can be regarded as a word-for-word 'response' to Rubio, a wise man once said: 'Today, in the United States, there are many Americans who believe that what is good for America is good for the world, that my country is the world. We need to change the logic of global expectations … Instead of arguing, like the Americans, my country is the world, we should move to the proposition that what is good for the world is good for my country.'
That wise man is Joseph Nye's contemporary and a pan-African political scientist. His name is Ali Mazrui.
Mazrui
Dr Seifudein Adem is a research fellow at JICA Ogata Research Institute for Peace and Development in Tokyo, Japan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald
3 days ago
- The Herald
Trump to extend TikTok sale deadline for third time, says White House
Earlier on Tuesday, he had told reporters on Air Force One he expected to again extend the deadline. "Probably, yeah," Trump said when asked about extending the deadline. "Probably have to get China approval but I think we'll get it. I think President Xi will ultimately approve it." The law required TikTok to stop operating by January 19 unless ByteDance had completed divesting the app's US assets or demonstrated significant progress toward a sale. Trump began his second term as president on January 20 and opted not to enforce it. He first extended the deadline to early April, and then again last month to June 19. In March, Trump said he would be willing to reduce tariffs on China to get a deal done with TikTok's Chinese parent ByteDance to sell the short video app used by 170-million Americans. A deal had been in the works this spring that would spin off TikTok's US operations into a new US-based firm and majority-owned and operated by US investors, but it was put on hold after China indicated it would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. Democratic senators argue that Trump has no legal authority to extend the deadline, and suggest that the deal under consideration would not meet legal requirements. Reuters
The South African
4 days ago
- The South African
Zimbabwe among African nations at risk of US travel ban
Zimbabwe may soon face new travel restrictions from the United States. According to a leaked memo, the US government is reviewing countries that it says have security weaknesses, like poor ID systems, government fraud, and too many visa overstays. 60 Days to Comply or Face Entry Bans A memo from the US State Department, reportedly seen by The Washington Post , reveals that these countries have been given a 60-day deadline to improve their security protocols or risk being added to the list of nations barred from entering the US. The document, signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, accuses several governments of failing to meet key security standards. These failures include poor civil documentation systems, high rates of visa overstays, and widespread fraud in official processes. Zimbabwe, along with 24 other African nations such as Nigeria, Egypt, and Cameroon, appears on the draft list. Some countries were also flagged for offering citizenship-for-investment schemes or for having nationals accused of anti-American or antisemitic behavior. Others named in the memo include countries from Central Asia, the Caribbean, and the Pacific region, such as Cambodia, Bhutan, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. The countries that could face a full or a partial ban if they do not address these concerns within the next 60 days are: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote D'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Mail & Guardian
4 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
From tariffs to talks: Can Washington and Beijing sustain this fragile truce?
China's Presdent Xi Jinping. 'We made a great deal with China. We're very happy with it.' So declared President Donald Trump in his familiar tone of triumphant ambiguity on 11 June, fresh off what was touted as a breakthrough agreement to restore a trade truce between the US and China. But if history has taught us anything, it is that 'done deals' in the Trumpian lexicon tend to be either dangerously fragile or conveniently fungible. The latest accord, emerging from two days of intense talks in London, follows an alarming spiral in trade tensions that had once again threatened to upend global markets and rekindle the tit-for-tat tariff warfare that haunted the latter years of Trump's first term. According to Trump, China has committed to lifting its restrictions on the export of rare earths — materials critical to the global technology and defence sectors — while the US has agreed to a calibrated rollback of punitive measures, including the threatened revocation of visas for Chinese students. As ever, the devil is not just in the details, but in their implementation. Much like the May Geneva agreement that this deal purports to reinforce, the London framework is conditional, tentative and, crucially, subject to 'final approval' by both Trump and President Xi Jinping. That qualifier alone renders the euphoria premature. Still, to be charitable, the very fact that Washington and Beijing are speaking the language of dialogue rather than confrontation is an encouraging sign. After a phone call between the two leaders earlier this month, there appears to be a renewed willingness — albeit under duress — to keep diplomacy afloat. For a world economy battered by uncertainty, this resumption of talks is, if nothing else, a stabilising force. Yet, Trump's boastful framing — that the US walks away with a 55% tariff shield while China gets 10% — betrays a zero-sum worldview that continues to inform his trade doctrine. The truth is far less tidy. Tariffs have proved to be a double-edged sword, inflicting damage on American consumers, industries and allies as much as they have squeezed Chinese exports. The World Bank's recent downward revision of global growth forecasts points to tariffs and unpredictability as 'significant headwinds', underlining the global costs of such brinkmanship. Beijing, for its part, has projected a more measured tone. Chinese Vice-premier He Lifeng, in remarks following the London consultations, emphasised mutual benefit, calling on the US to 'honour their words with actions'. The Chinese side welcomed the 'principled consensus' as a foundation for predictability and stability in bilateral economic relations. While Beijing's rhetoric may be couched in diplomatic platitudes, it signals a strategic patience that stands in stark contrast to Trump's performative deal-making. Indeed, despite facing considerable pressure — both domestic and international — China has remained consistent in its emphasis on dialogue, reciprocity and multilateralism. It is no secret that Beijing is playing a longer game. From its support for a multilateral trading system to its efforts in promoting South-South cooperation, China has positioned itself as a steady hand amid a turbulent global order. In this light, the reestablishment of a US-China economic and trade consultation mechanism should be viewed as more than a temporary fix. It offers a framework through which recurring disputes can be ironed out, interests aligned and trust slowly rebuilt. Importantly, it provides a venue for strategic communication — something sorely missing during the height of tariff wars in 2018-19. However, for this framework to bear fruit, both sides must resist the urge to revert to maximalist posturing. The US must accept that unilateralism — whether in tariffs or technology controls — cannot substitute for a sustainable policy. Likewise, China must be prepared to meet the US halfway, especially on issues of market access, intellectual property and transparency. The elephant in the room, of course, is the technological cold war that continues to simmer beneath the surface. While rare earths and tariff percentages dominate headlines, it is the battle over semiconductors and AI supremacy that threatens to define the next phase of US-China relations. Washington's decision to maintain restrictions on high-end AI chips — particularly those from Nvidia — while easing others, reveals both the complexity and the stakes involved. Beijing, not surprisingly, has responded with innovation. The resurgence of Huawei, once a poster child of American sanctions, stands as testament to China's determination to chart its own technological path. As Huawei's founder Ren Zhenfei put it bluntly last week, China may still be a step behind, but it is catching up — by stacking and clustering if necessary. In the short term, these dynamics will continue to fuel friction. But in the long term, they offer a compelling reason for structured cooperation. For neither side can afford the costs of sustained decoupling. The global economy — still reeling from inflationary shocks, supply-chain disruptions and climate-induced volatility — desperately needs the world's two largest economies to find common ground. To that end, the inclusion of Chinese students in American universities, affirmed in this deal, is more than a diplomatic gesture. It is a recognition that people-to-people ties remain a cornerstone of bilateral engagement. Academic exchanges, research collaboration and cross-cultural education build bridges that tariffs and bans cannot destroy. They plant the seeds of mutual understanding in a landscape too often scorched by suspicion. The road ahead remains bumpy. Structural trade conflicts persist, strategic mistrust abounds and electoral politics — particularly in the US — can derail even the most promising of frameworks. But the London agreement offers a glimpse of what is possible when mutual interest outweighs mutual animosity. This development not only helps stabilise US-China relations but also injects much-needed momentum into the global economy. It serves as a reminder that even amid intensifying geopolitical rivalry, there is still space — indeed, an urgent need — for pragmatic cooperation. Trump may brand it a win, but real victory lies not in tariffs or trophies, but in the hard, unglamorous work of sustained diplomacy. For now, both sides have stepped back from the precipice. The challenge will be to keep walking forward — together. Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan.
