The United States has been a long-standing global superpower, playing a significant role in shaping international relations and influencing global policies. However, recent events have led to the US facing isolation politically, as some of its traditional allies are exploring alternate alliances and partnerships.

As a matter of fact, it was US policies, which turn counterproductive. Although President Trump announce the “America First” policy publically because he was straight forward and bold person. But, in fact, this was American Policy for a long. The term was coined by President Woodrow Wilson in his 1916 campaign that pledged to keep America neutral in World War I. Since then, undeclared policy, all Administrations followed the same policy and Americans protected their interests at the cost of other nations.

Henry Kissinger once said, “To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”. Because the US is not fair or sincere even with its friends. Gradually, people learned American hypocrisy and now are trying to find other alternatives.

For instance, the emergence of BRICS Plus (a grouping of emerging economies that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has presented a challenge to the US-led world order. There are 19 countries who are seeking BRICS membership and many more are shy to announce. Some of them were traditional allies of the US, but, reached the conclusion that the Americans are not sincere friends and they should not trust the US. Similarly, the expansion of SCO is demanded by many nations and will be realized in the very near future. 

These alliances have gained momentum in recent years, with member nations collaborating on various economic, political, and security issues. Because of the mistreatment of the US and lack of trust. It is also known that when you have American Friends, you do not need enemies. Because under the umbrella of friendship, they are harming you all the time. Although it took decades to understand American nature, is never too late, if appropriate measures are taken.

While this trend may seem concerning at first glance, it is essential to recognize that it is part of a broader shift in global power dynamics. As new economies emerge and traditional alliances evolve, it is only natural for nations to explore new partnerships that align with their interests and priorities.

De-dollarization, de-linking Petro-Dollar, will end Dollar hegemony and US influence on the global economy. The US was exploiting the natural resources of the Muslim world, like Oil and Gas, but, betrayed them. Especially, after the engineered dram of 9/aa in 2002, a Crusade was announced by President Bush, and the Muslim world was destroyed systematically. Millions of Muslims were killed, injured, disabled, made homeless, and forced to flee to other countries or take shelter at refugee camps. Arab, spring, Iraq War, Libyan War, Syrian War, Afghan War, Yemen War, Sudan attacks, Egypt unrest, etc., all were part of the Crusade.

Pakistan is the worst victim of American friendship. For Seven decades, Pakistan fought American wars and protected American interests in the entire region. It has sacrificed around 80,000 precious lives of its citizens, including Soldiers and civilians, Economic loss worth Billions of US dollars, and the gift of terrorism and drugs were additional. The current political and economic crisis is a reward for Pakistan in return for its loyalty and sincerity of friendship with the US.

Defense and security alliances with China and Russia will also end the US military hegemony. Politically and diplomatically, the US has already lost its supremacy. In recent voting at the UN General Assembly, it happen many times, the US-raised resolutions were badly defeated and rejected by the vast majority. Like the US-backed resolutions for shifting the Israeli Capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were rejected, even close allies of the US have voted against the resolution or stayed abstained.

Chinese President Xi, while leaving Russia after completing his visit, said that Russia and China will be driving changes that were never witnessed in centuries. It is true, that China and Russia jointly can reshape geopolitics. President Xi has introduced the concept of a “shared Future” for all humankind and proposed Global Security Initiatives, all are right steps in the right direction, and the future of the world order will be determined by China-Russia, not by the US.

Last week, in an unprecedented congressional session without opposition and without even a quorum, the Deputy Chamber approved 20 reforms that cancelled the Welfare and Health Institute (INSABI); the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT); and the Army was given a new airline.

This further increases worrying centralisation trends  in Mexico and paves the way for a more intense and active participation of the military in areas beyond its traditional scope. MORENA and its allies, the Labour Party  (PT), the Green Party (PVEM), and the ultra conservative, evangelist Social Encounter Party (PES) endorsed these changes proposed by AMLO in less than 15 minutes per reform. That is as little as it took for the Congress to fundamentally and permanently change Mexican educational, security and health landscape. Out of those 20 reforms, two are particularly worrying: increased civil powers delegated to the military, and the disappearance of CONACyT and its long-term consequences for Mexican education and research prospects.

The Army has seen a 52% budget increase since Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) became president in 2018. This has led to a rapid rise in militarisation: in 2023, the US Global Firepower Index, that measures the strength of the armies in 145 countries across the world, placed Mexico in the 31^st place. In just one year, Mexico jumped 11 positions. This coincides with the September 2022 reforms when AMLO transferred the National Guard to the Secretary of National Defence.

AMLO continues to bet on increased militarisation to solve the worsening security crisis despite its high human rights costs and proven failure to address violence and organised crime. This stance contrasts sharply with AMLO’s initial pacifist approach  “Hugs not Bullets” and it also goes against his presidential campaign promise to return the army to the barracks. AMLO had been a vocal critic of militarisation of previous administrations. However, he has implemented policies that have surpassed any decision his predecessors Felipe Calderón and Enrique Peña Nieto took: he has successfully  transferred the authority of the National Guard, an initially conceived civilian task force of almost 100,000 members, under the remit of the Ministry of Defence (SEDENA), and has gradually increased presence of the military in other formerly civilian tasks. Levels of military deployment and participation under AMLO have reached record levels in contemporary Mexican history.

Under his administration, he has granted more civilian functions and more power to the Army. The military is now in charge of fighting organised crime, administering customs, operating two civilian airports, and building priority infrastructure such as the Mayan Train and the refinery of Dos Bocas. AMLO has empowered the same military institution that he fiercely criticised years ago and that have been responsible for serious violations of human rights and abuses. The Army in Mexico has traditionally enjoyed a worryingly high level of autonomy, lack of transparency and accountability. AMLO, despite promises of bringing abusers to justice in the military, has not implemented  any effective accountability process, nor the Army has been reformed to guarantee transparency and to build effective control mechanisms to prevent further abuses. AMLO exonerated the Army for its actions in the murder of the 43 students back in 2014.

The ever spiraling cycle of violence will not disappear with more soldiers in the street. It is the wrong path simply because organised crime cannot be defeated by following a war model approach. In doing so, AMLO is blatantly ignoring the real causes of violence. Mexico has not consolidated reliable, well-resourced, and capable legal and criminal frameworks and systems ever since its establishment as an independent state in 1823. Judicial institutions, at the three levels of government, operate with deep-rooted problems, lack of capacity, rampant impunity and corruption: 99% of the crimes committed in the country go unpunished. This is the real problem that requires urgent solution.

If this was not worrying enough, the new set of reforms approved paved the way for the military to now participate further in the decision-making process of educational and research policies in Mexico. The military will not only distribute textbooks across the country, AMLO effectively withdraw researchers from voting on important decisions for the newly created Council, and gave it the Army and the Navy participate in the Science and Technology Council. The reform createdthe National Council of Humanities, Sciences and Technologies (CONAHCTI), a substitute for CONACyT, and the heads of SEDENA and MARINA (Navy) are included in the Governing Board of the new institution, with voice and vote.

The  disappearance of CONACyT  means a serious regression in the educational and research Mexican landscape. Higher quality in education, incentives for university and think tanks to produce research are central for economic development and fostering innovation and critical thinking skills in societies. When equal educational opportunities are available across gender, race, age, and ethnicities a society will gravitate towards higher equality, better income distribution and reduction of gender disparity. Education and research are fundamental drivers of personal, national and global development. Education and research can also contribute to long-lasting solutions in conflict-torn countries like Mexico. Education is a force for good as it is  has the capacity to reduce violence.

Economic development and long-lasting peace are also closely related to the development of new ideas to solve old problems. This is exactly what research facilitates. Since the start of AMLO’s presidency, CONACyT had already stopped paying researchers, terminated them without justification and ended CONACyT professorships aimed at reducing brain drain. This programme was launched in 2014 to make up for the lack of full time positions at universities and research institutes across the country. The goal was to recruit 3000 researchers by 2018.

Since its inception, many Mexican researchers chose to stay and come back from abroad and carry out research in Mexico. As soon as he became president, AMLO  started to refer to academicians and researchers as payroll freeloaders who were draining the economy. He bashed continuously on academicians, researchers and lecturers during his daily press conferences. By May 2019, he cancelled any further openings for new professorship positions and a few weeks later he stopped the programme altogether. This new reform that disappears CONACyT culminates AMLO’s fight against higher education, independent research and critical thinking. It makes knowledge hostage to the whims of the incumbent administration. This is not what Mexico needs.

AMLO is trying to restrict academic freedom of researchers, impose a hierarchical and centralised structure that relegates education, research, to non-essential areas for development. This new reform also eliminates the commitment of the government to allocate a stable budget for research every year. Education, research and critical thinking skills are essential for the betterment of society. They are also key drivers in innovation and progress. Conditioning funding to only those who adhere and support the government’s agenda, will constrain freedom of speech, access to information and subject research to the caprice of authorities rather than to the truth.

AMLO’s lean towards centralisation, and reduced autonomy across all areas highlights that he takes his cues  from the past not the future. The last reforms approved mean a serious step backwards for Mexico’s development, security and independent research. This should be a serious warning for Mexico and what it could mean  for the country to have six more years of MORENA in power, should they win the next presidential elections in 2024.

US President Joe Biden positions the Ukraine war as a battle between autocracy and democracy. That reduces what is at stake in the war. The stakes constitute a fundamental building block of a new 21st-century world order: the nature of the state.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents the sharp end of the rise of a critical mass of world leaders who think in civilizational rather than national terms. They imagine the ideational and/or physical boundaries of their countries as defined by history, ethnicity, culture, and/or religion rather than international law.

Often that assertion involves denial of the existence of the other and authoritarian or autocratic rule.

As a result, Russian President Vladimir Putin is in good company when he justifies his invasion of Ukraine by asserting that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. In other words, Ukrainians as a nation do not exist.

Neither do the Taiwanese or maritime rights of other littoral states in the South China Sea in the mind of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Or Palestinians in the vision of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s coalition partners.

Superiority and exceptionalism are guiding principles for men like Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, India’s Narendra Modi, Hungary’s Victor Orban, and Mr. Netanyahu.

In 2018, the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, adopted a controversial basic law defining Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

“Contrary to Israel’s Declaration of Independence, the nation-state law was seen as enshrining Jewish superiority and Arab inferiority, as bolstering Israel’s Jewish character at the expense of its democratic character, ” said journalist Carolina Landsmann.

Israeli religious Zionist writer Ehud Neor argued that “Israel is not a nation-state in Western terms. It’s a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy that Jewish people were always meant to be in the Holy Land and to follow the Holy Torah, and by doing so, they would be a light unto the world. There is a global mission to Judaism.”

Similarly, Mr. Erdogan describes Turkey as “dünyanın vicdanı,” the world’s conscience, a notion that frames his projection of international cooperation and development assistance.

“Turkey is presented as a generous patriarch following in the steps of (a particularly benevolent reading of) the Ottoman empire, taking care of those in need—including, importantly, those who have allegedly been forgotten by others. In explicit contrast to Western practices described as self-serving, Turkish altruism comes with the civilizational frame of Muslim charity and solidarity reminiscent of Ottoman grandeur,” said scholars Sebastian Haug and Supriya Roychoudhury.

In an academic comparison, Mr. Haug and Ms. Roychoudhury compare Mr. Erdogan’s notion of Turkish exceptionalism with Mr. Modi’s concept of ‘Vishwaguru.’

The concept builds on the philosophy of 19th-century Hindu leader Swami Vivekananda.

“His rendition of Hinduism, like Gandhian Hindu syncretic thought, ostensibly espouses tolerance and pluralism. With this and similar framings, the adoption of an allegedly Gandhi-inspired syncretic Hindu discourse enables Modi to distance himself politically from the secularist civilizational discourse of (Indian nationalist leader Jawaharlal) Nehru,” the two scholars said.

“At the same time, though, Modi’s civilizational discourse, with its indisputable belief in the superiority of Hinduism, has begun to underpin official rhetoric in international forums,” they added.

In a rewrite of history, Mr. Putin, in a 5,000-word article published less than a year before the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, portrayed the former Soviet republic as an anti-Russian creation that grounded its legitimacy in erasing “everything that united us” and projecting “the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation.”

In doing so, Mr. Putin created the justification civilisationalist leaders often apply to either expand or replace the notion of a nation-state defined by hard borders anchored in international law with a more fluid concept of a state with external boundaries demarcated by history, ethnicity, culture, and/or religion, and internal boundaries that differentiate its superior or exceptional civilization from the other.

Civilisationalism serves multiple purposes. Asserting alleged civilizational rights and fending off existential threats help justify authoritarian and autocratic rule.

Dubbed Xivilisation by the Global Times, a flagship newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, Mr. Xi has redefined civilisation to incorporate autocracy.

In March, Mr. Xi unveiled his Global Civilisation Initiative at a Beijing conference of 500 political parties from 150 countries.

Taking a stab at the Western promotion of democracy and human rights, the initiative suggests that civilisations can live in harmony if they refrain from projecting their values globally.

“In other words, quipped The Economist, “the West should learn to live with Chinese communism. It may be based on Marxism, a Western theory, but it is also the fruit of China’s ancient culture.”

Mr. Xi launched his initiative days before Mr. Biden co-hosted a virtual Summit for Democracy.

The assertion by a critical mass of world leaders of notions of a civilisational state contrasts starkly with the promotion by Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s Indonesia-based largest and most moderate Muslim civil society movement, of the nation-state as the replacement in Islamic law of the civilisationalist concept of a caliphate, a unitary state, for the global Muslim community.

Drawing conclusions from their comparison of Mr. Erdogan’s Turkey and Mr. Modi’s India, Mr. Haug and Ms. Roychoudhury concluded that civilisationalist claims serve “two distinct but interrelated political projects: attempts to overcome international marginalization and efforts to reinforce authoritarian rule domestically.”

Like Mr. Biden, Mr. Xi and other civilisationalist leaders are battling for the high ground in a struggle to shape the future world order and its underlying philosophy.

Mr. Biden’s autocracy vs. democracy paradigm is part of that struggle. But so is the question of whether governance systems are purely political or civilizational. Countering that assertion could prove far more decisive.