In the shadow of escalating global strife, Jamie Dimon’s recent pronouncement rings with unsettling gravity: “World War III has already begun.” His words pierce through the financial pragmatism one might expect from a CEO, instead casting a sobering gaze upon a world veering toward conflagration. The Ukraine and Middle East conflicts, Dimon warns, are mere fault lines in a coordinated contest of influence by powers like Russia, China, and Iran.

Against this tabeau, Dimon’s rallying call for a renewed U.S. leadership ~ one devoted to reclaiming its “special role in the world” ~ is both prophetic and patriotic. Yet, it’s also an urgent critique, issued from the helm of the largest U.S. lender, now trailing Chinese giants in asset clout. With these potent observations, Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, illuminates a stark reality: U.S. power is not just a privilege to wield but a duty to reaffirm in a fractured, perilous global landscape. The world stands, yet again, at the precipice of transformation. History tells us that a new global order rarely arises without the ashes of the old, as seen in the legacies of 1814, 1918, 1945, and the Cold War’s end. Yet, our urgent challenge now is unprecedented: to forge a “fifth world order” without enduring a cataclysmic collapse.

Advertisement

The US yearns to reclaim its lost crown, yet shadows linger ~ who holds it now, and by what daring alchemy can it be restored? The world’s fault lines are sharpening into two clear blocs: G7 and BRICS+. In the optimistic aftermath of World War II, institutions like NATO, WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank were established to safeguard peace and uplift humanity through rulesbased cooperation. But promises faded as partiality, opacity, and unkept commitments corroded their purpose. Today, this institutional decay not only stains the legacy of global governance but signals a seismic shift: G7’s power dwindles, while BRICS+ rises, challenging the fading dreams of a unified world order. The world economy is now multipolar, rendering the notion that the US economy can singularly manage a multitude of global corporations increasingly obsolete.

The G7 nations, which once benefited the most from these corporations, now find themselves in weakened economic positions, unable to inject the capital necessary for sustained influence. Conversely, the economies of the countries they have dominated for so long are growing robustly. Advanced and developing nations are uniting in a clear statement: if they are to contri bute their citizens’ resources to global organizations, they demand maximum representation, rights, and privileges, i.e., powerful countries will no longer commit taxpayer money to these fun ds without the assurance of full control over its use. For instance, even today, a staggering 59.1 per cent of voting shares in the IMF are concentrated in the hands of nations that comprise merely 13.7 per cent of the global population. Notably, India and China, the two most significant emerging economies, combine for a mere 9 per cent of shares.

Despite accounting for an estimated 19 per cent of world GDP in purchasing power parity for 2024, China’s voting power remains frozen at 6.4 per cent since the 2010 quota review. Meanwhile, the European Union, with 27 member states producing 15 per cent of global GDP, wields almost 30 per cent of quotas. Furthermore, they dominate the IMF’s leadership positions, with the managing director and first deputy managing director roles effectively reserved for Europeans and Americans. To remedy this, a comprehensive overhaul of the IMF’s governance structure is imperative, heralding a new era of equitable representation in global economic decision-making.

In this unfolding global narrative, Dimon subtly signals that a new war is on the horizon ~ one of economic and ideological dominance. The leading economies formed the BRICS alliance years ago, a move met with scepticism from the G7. However, BRICS countered that if the G7 could maintain its influence despite the G20, it too would remain resolute. Recently, nations like Egypt, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates have joined BRICS, with 40 more countries expressing interest., signalling a collective stance against G7 dominance. South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice underscores a desire to break free from Western norms.

Currently, BRICS controls 32 per cent of world GDP, with projections from Goldman Sachs suggesting it will surpass the G6 by 2050. Its power is bolstered by control over 50 per cent of the world’s known oil reserves and 43 per cent of global oil production. Moreover, BRICS is forging ahead with initiatives like the New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, along with a new currency system. These efforts enhance cooperation on innovation, digitalization, and counter-terrorism strategies, addressing the complexities of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and signalling a significant shift in global economic dynamics. The G7 now faces a precarious choice: to grant BRICS+ a legitimate voice within international institutions, risking its own authority, or to remain obstinate, inviting potential collapse against BRICS’s strategic oil and gas manoeuvres.

The ramifications are stark, cutting off Russian oil and selling it by India at premium prices has already rattled Europe. Thus, the path forward lies in a fragile negotiation where the G7 must abandon fossil fuel reliance while also making no compromises within international institutions, thereby creating a framework that allows for BRICS to operate within a disciplined system. The greatest struggle of the 21st century is the climate crisis, with the Arctic Ocean inching closer to an ice-free future ~ a tantalizing prospect for oil and gas companies.

Under the guise of demand, the G7 is tightening its grip, aiming to inflate the carbon footprint of developing nations, a strategy that has already strained relations with India, particularly with the impending 25- 30 per cent tariff on imports from carbon-dioxide-emitting nations, dubbed the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. In stark contrast, Silicon Valley is investing heavily in nuclear energy, positioning itself as a potential game-changer. As tech giants like Google and Microsoft join the fray, the world economy stands at the altar of artificial intelligence, demanding vast energy resources. Once breakthroughs in nuclear energy occur, the G7’s fossil fuel encirclement may falter, leading to a delicate balancing act ~ disciplining BRICS+ economies dependent on fossil fuels while avoiding a catastrophic fallout.

BRICS+ boldly asserts that Western nations, having emitted the most carbon during the industrial revolution, now masquerade as environmental saints, obstructing the development of other countries. The Paris Agreement promised substantial financial grants for net-zero emissions, yet those commitments are being broken. Instead, the West proposes costly measures, such as dispersing diamond dust in the stratosphere to combat global warming, all the while burdening developing nations with the financial weight. As tensions escalate, BRICS+ positions itself as a formidable opponent to the G7 ahead of the upcoming United Nations Climate Conference, where climate finance will dominate discussions. With alarming warnings from scientists about the Gulf Stream’s potential collapse, BRICS+ stands resolute against being trapped by Western schemes, illuminating a path that could redefine global power dynamics and confront the climate crisis.

At the end, we must admit that, amidst the clouds of conflict, a paradox unfolds: war rages on, yet no one is willing to fight, all yearning for peace. Today, the echoes of Woodrow Wilson’s vision of “Peace without Victory” resonate, offering a fragile hope for resolution. However, this raises a poignant question: what must be sacrificed for such a historic bargain to emerge?

(The writer is on the Faculty of the Department of Statistics, Basanti Devi College,University of Calcutta)