Oligarchs rule the world. Multinational corporations (MNCs) function as virtual states, while educational institutions, particularly business schools, supply them with servants. These very individuals make “independent choices” to build their lives in a free world, advocating democracy.
There is bad news for those on the margins—they are being pushed further into the periphery, perhaps into oblivion, where they shall remain for the foreseeable future. Upon assuming office, President Trump declared that only two genders would be officially recognised in America: male and female. Likewise, China’s government banned effeminate men from television and instructed broadcasters to promote "revolutionary culture," broadening its campaign to tighten control over business and society while enforcing official morality.
It is astounding how the US and China appear to align on a matter that, until recently, was considered highly politically incorrect.
This piece follows my previous three articles published in The Friday Times during February this year, https://thefridaytimes.com/21-Feb-2025/farewell-to-the-eu-and-nato-a-new-global-order-unfolds in which I have attempted to make sense of the changing world—the emerging global order. I have summarised my perspective in the opening lines, which may come across as a cynical view of the world as we know it. No matter how it may sound, I will endeavour to provide a context in which these observations make some sense.
In my live show, Political Zone, on 22nd February 2025 , the discussion focused on President Trump’s strong message to BRICS nations regarding their plans to introduce a currency to rival the US dollar. The panel agreed that such an endeavour seems unlikely to materialise in the foreseeable future. India has withdrawn from the idea following Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington, while other key players remain silent. In a previous article, I also discussed the significance of Riyadh as a venue for decision-making about Europe—where discussions were not negotiations but rather conversations about how to achieve predetermined objectives.
Connecting these dots reveals a striking reality: the world is now bereft of ideology, whereas religion remains a political weapon.
This new world order, where relationships are being redefined—not based on ideologies or historical grievances, but on the shared interests of oligarchs, who may belong to any nation, religion, or region.
Modi’s India does not tolerate Muslims eating beef, yet he has no qualms about embracing Donald Trump, an unabashed beef-eater, as Arundhati Roy pointed out in a recent interview with Mehdi Hasan. Similarly, the Afghan Taliban, who once destroyed Buddha statues as symbols of anti-Islamic idolatry, are now entirely at ease with the idol-worshipping Hindus of India. Meanwhile, Arab Muslim nations are eager to foster ties with Zionist Israel—suggesting that the historically bloody borders of Islam may now be blurring. In the same vein, the communist-socialist regimes of Russia and China, once vehemently detested by the Americans, are now considered respectable trade partners. It is no longer a question of ideology; rather, it is purely a matter of trade and profit.
This moment in history may well be regarded as the culmination of capitalism.
It aligns with Dr Hasnain Javed’s thesis of an emerging elite club that constitutes this new world order, where relationships are being redefined—not based on ideologies or historical grievances, but on the shared interests of oligarchs, who may belong to any nation, religion, or region. In a discussion on DW News, former US General Ben Hodges spoke with Bureau Chief Ines Pohl about the current geopolitical landscape under the new Trump administration. Pohl remarked: "Some people say we are at the beginning of a new world order. There’s Russia, there’s China, there’s the United States—and they appear to be acknowledging each other’s spheres of influence and territories. They also seem to accept that larger nations can absorb smaller ones. Russia can occupy Ukraine, China can take Taiwan, and Trump can lay claim to Greenland."
Viewing the world through this lens presents a more realistic picture.
In geopolitical terms, international norms and institutions appear to have lost their credibility—if not their legitimacy. National borders and territorial sovereignty no longer seem to carry much weight. Israel may expand as far as it deems necessary for its security, the United States may assert a claim over Greenland in pursuit of its national interests, and Russia may annex Crimea and other Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine if it feels this will ensure its safety. Similarly, China may raise its flag over Taiwan while the Americans turn a blind eye—no problem.
President Trump has succeeded in effecting these changes within his first two months in office. On 2nd April, standing proudly in the Rose Garden of the White House, he confidently defended his tariffs policy, declaring that both friends and foes had taken advantage of the United States. Pointing repeatedly towards the Oval Office, he blamed previous administrations for allowing this situation to arise over the past four decades. His tariffs—though formidable—are roughly half the rate imposed by other nations on American goods, leaving much of Europe in distress.
And Europe, of course, is free to feel whatever it likes.
According to the UBS Global Wealth Report, as of 2023, the world's economic elite controlled approximately 47.5% of global wealth, amounting to roughly $214 trillion
These tariffs may be harsh on European and other economies, but it remains to be seen why reciprocal tariffs on their exports are deemed unfair. Those criticising Trump for insisting on reciprocity appear to suffer from a deeply ingrained sense of entitlement: we may impose tariffs on you, but if you do the same, it is unjust. That, in essence, is the European rationale. China, however, remains silent on the matter, as do Japan and India. President Trump specifically mentioned Indian Prime Minister Modi in his speech, stating that he had explained to him the necessity of imposing tariffs on Indian goods. Trump even praised China’s President Xi for his leadership, remarking that, regardless of how Xi formulated his trade policy, it had served his nation well, and he, too, would understand America’s position. After all, as President of the United States, Trump has a duty to safeguard his nation’s interests. Shinzo Abe, the former Prime Minister of Japan, who was assassinated in 2022, understood this stance well, according to President Trump.
But, more than positions taken by these world leaders and the interests of the nations they represent, what is truly remarkable is identifying who benefits from the trade war initiated by President Trump. This becomes increasingly evident when analysing who has reacted to his tariffs and who has remained silent. While it may be an oversimplification, most economists agree that the emerging world order is fundamentally shaped by trade relations, where trade routes hold greater significance than national borders. The world’s oligarchs prioritise the unrestricted movement of goods over the sentiments attached to national territories and sovereignty.
Some statistics may help elucidate the nature of the elite club.
According to the UBS Global Wealth Report, as of 2023, the world's economic elite controlled approximately 47.5% of global wealth, amounting to roughly $214 trillion. Similarly, a 2021 report indicated that the top 1% held nearly 46% of the world’s wealth. This trend suggests that wealth concentration in the hands of the elite is on the rise. Among individual countries, Russia exhibits the highest concentration, with the top 1% possessing 58.6% of the nation's wealth, followed by Brazil at 49.3% and India at 40.6%. Saudi Arabia closely follows with 39.57%, while the United States stands at 35.1% and China at 30.5%. In Germany, the wealthiest 1% hold 29.2%, whereas in the United Kingdom and Italy, the figure is 23.1%. Japan records one of the lowest concentrations among major economies, with the top 1% controlling 18.7% of the country's wealth. These figures underscore stark disparities in wealth distribution worldwide, reflecting the impact of economic structures, policies, and historical inequalities.
From this data, one may discern the natural convergence and growing alignment among nations where a significant portion of national wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. This pattern perhaps offers a more coherent understanding of the world—or the emerging world order—into which we are steadily advancing. It also elucidates why Europe has fallen out of favour with the United States.