With conflicts raging in some 50 countries, tariff wars becoming new (abnormal) norm and global economic growth falling to its slowest pace in generations, there seems to be little to cheer as we enter 2026. Only certainty is that we are living with mounting uncertainty. Sole realistic prediction might be continued unpredictability.
Underlying tensions and turmoil of our times are three unmistakable shifts creating new but still unsettled terrain: from unipolar world to multipolar one; from rules-based order to power-based one; and from politics informed by economic openness to one that insists on protectionism, mercantilism and industrial policies emphasizing domestic security. Politics is now driving economics, rather than vice versa.
World Order Pillars Crumbling
There are different views about how world will change in 2026 and beyond. As we move away from certainties of unipolar world, will we see return to great power competition and to spheres of influence, emergence of “one world, two systems” arrangement dominated by China and US, or simply period of chaotic disorder?
What is clear is that every pillar of world order we have known since Second World War’s end is crumbling. This includes adherence to rule of law, human rights and democracy (there are now 91 autocracies in world but only 88 democracies), as well as multilateral cooperation, humanitarian aid and environmental stewardship.
These seismic shifts have produced aggressive, increasingly authoritarian form of nationalism that has replaced neoliberalism as dominant ideology of our times. Ethnic chauvinism has given rise to increasingly flagrant violations of humanitarian and human rights law, not just in Russia’s war on Ukraine but also in rising number of civil wars (in Sudan and Ethiopia, to name only two) and cross-border conflicts elsewhere.
So, from perspective of end of 2025, it looks as if this decade will be remembered for global pandemic, first war waged by great power in Europe since Second World War, Middle East carnage, deepening climate crisis, and disorder.
Atlantic Charter Precedent
But recall that, in 1941 — when rise of fascism had plunged world into even more widespread war and despair — something unexpected happened. America and Britain set out principles that would guide new postwar world order. More than two dozen other countries soon pledged support for Atlantic Charter, which established framework for birth of UN, creation of Bretton Woods institutions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Marshall Plan. Could something similar happen now?
Public Still Supports Cooperation
In fractured world, it is no surprise that electorates are growing more concerned about their day-to-day survival and security. But what is striking is that, despite this turn, they also understand that broader international dynamics are increasingly impinging on their lives. They are far more aware than ever of connection between what is happening in their local communities and what is happening globally and majority believe that, under right conditions, helping others is reliable way to help oneself.
These and other insights can be found in recent Focaldata survey, which polled about 36,000 adults across 34 countries. Of course, given daily headlines since January, particularly ongoing coverage of trade wars, it is understandable that two-thirds of respondents recognize how their lives are being affected by decisions made elsewhere.
Equally, since it has been only about three years since COVID-19 pandemic ended, some 77 percent are still attuned to what is happening in global health. But clear majorities are also aware of consequences for them of climate change (58 percent, rising to 63 percent among younger respondents) and disruptions to food supplies (55 percent).
Practical Realities Drive Support
These sentiments do not necessarily arise from some starry-eyed cosmopolitan idealism; rather, they reflect practical realities. What matters most to people is whether their fundamental needs are being met. They know that cooperation can offer security, such as in provision of food and water (top priority for 40 percent of respondents) or in mitigating poverty and inequality (selected by 38 percent, with majority support in sub-Saharan Africa).
They also know that it is necessary to protect human rights (37 percent), support employment (36 percent) and promote health and effective responses to climate change (which are top priorities in Global South, especially in Asia).
While some commentators have described today’s world as being divided between localists and globalists, between people attached to “Somewhere” and people attached to “Anywhere,” most of public does not see it this way. Majority favors cooperation on global challenges, even if it means compromising on some strictly national interests.
Support for cooperation in pursuing mutual prosperity, peace and stability is strongest in sub-Saharan Africa (68 percent) and in East and South Asia (64 percent), where these objectives are most at risk. By contrast, in Northern Europe — where populist nationalism has taken far-right parties to top of many opinion polls — only 57 percent report that they are prepared to sacrifice national interests to tap benefits of global cooperation.
Three Types of Multilateralists
But even in President Donald Trump’s America, as in European countries where populist nationalist parties lead opinion polls, more people lean toward working with other countries than toward “going it alone.” Only hard-line nationalists hold zero-sum view that success for them and their country must come at expense of others. This cohort represents just 16 percent of global population, though 25 percent of Americans.
Committed internationalists — 21 percent who are what philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah calls “rooted cosmopolitans” — view cross-border cooperation through open trade as positive-sum game. Vast majority are somewhere in between: neither narrow, inward-looking nationalists nor all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but they do not see themselves as part of never-ending struggle between “us” and “them.”
So, how much support for international cooperation is there? Does majority in middle prefer duty-free world or dutiful one? What kind of obligations beyond their garden gate, city wall or national border are they willing to accept?
One cohort, representing 22 percent, supports humanitarian action to relieve suffering and is prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency aid in disaster zones. They are what we might call “good-cause” multilateralists who do feel others’ pain and believe in something bigger than themselves.
Second group, also representing 22 percent of total, comprises pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid out for international development will be spent well. Leaders must show results; otherwise, cooperation will be deemed failure and rejected.
Third group (representing 21 percent) comprises self-interested multilateralists who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities — whether it be through guaranteeing food or peace and security.
Cooperation Must Deliver Results
Implication is that cooperation must be rooted in everyday life. If political leaders demonstrate that global cooperation delivers for people on ground, people will back multilateral efforts. But process cannot begin at global level and work down to local. Rather, it must begin with people asking what global events mean for their everyday lives.
Day-to-day hardships — unaffordable essentials, at-risk jobs, poor health, food insecurity and threats to personal safety — are defining public agenda everywhere. If international cooperation fails to ameliorate these burdens, support for it will evaporate.
Multilateral cooperation can be revived even without blanket endorsement of multilateral institutions. But contrary to “America First” critique of multilateralism, trust in World Health Organization stands at 60 percent globally (71 percent in Africa) and 58 percent trust UN — higher level than most national governments enjoy.
In our poll, no major power — not US, EU, China or Russia — has earned trust of more than three in 10 people globally. That said, trust in international financial institutions, which have long championed globalization, is far lower, reflecting rise of populist nationalism in Europe, Britain and America that feels strongly that, while globalization has been free-for-all, it has not been fair to all.
Clear Mandate for Action
So, what should we conclude? First, there is clear majority that can be mobilized not just for humanitarian aid (provided money is well spent) but also for global action to address issues like climate change and pandemic prevention. Key is to frame policies in terms of enlightened self-interest — as means of unlocking reciprocal and mutual benefits.
But, as stated above, situation is fragile. Support for multilateral cooperation could fade overnight if people come to see such cooperation as waste of scarce resources. We need visible “wins” that make everyday life better or safer. And if overwhelming majority agree that no single country can tackle our greatest challenges, that should give current leaders mandate to pursue collective action.
Underpinning this is need for new global, values-based order that, in manner of Atlantic Charter, sets out international and domestic goals. Even if “my tribe first” does not resonate with most people when it means isolation rather than cooperation, we still need to offer powerful alternative by delivering on what matters most to people. We can then begin process of rebuilding world order on foundation of rights (political, economic, civil), rule of law, democracy, environmental sustainability and peace.
And as we search for way through today’s turbulence, one signal from latest polling stands out. Despite noise of conflict and rivalry, people are not asking for withdrawal; they are asking for hope. Across 18 of world’s largest economies, clearest marker of effective international cooperation is not strength or self-interest, but vision: nearly four in 10 say cooperation means agreeing on long-term plan for peace and progress. Same proportion wants cooperation to be guided by values based on trust-building and peace. Even in age often identified with zero-sum politics, people still want their leaders to express shared vision of what we can achieve together.
Original analysis by Gordon Brown from Arab News. Republished with additional research and verification by ThinkTanksMonitor.
