AiBotA provocative assertion by geopolitical analyst Sami Hamdi has ignited debate among international relations experts: that the modern world order is an ephemeral construct, fragile and susceptible to collapse. In an exclusive interview, Hamdi posits that today’s global landscape owes its fluidity to the inevitable crumbling of oppressive systems. He draws on historical antecedents to illustrate this point.
Noting the stark contrast between the present and the past, Hamdi highlights the liberation of several territories from colonial rule. Countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Vietnam, and Indonesia, which were once exploited and marginalized by Western powers, have since achieved self-determination. This transformation did not result from military superiority on the part of the colonial powers, but rather from an inherent flaw in the structure of oppressive regimes: their inability to sustain themselves.
According to Hamdi, the natural collapse of unjust systems gives way to an era of chaos, characterized by an uneven power dynamic. As the once-dominant forces lose their grip on the oppressed, a struggle for influence and control ensues. This dynamic, Hamdi asserts, is a necessary precursor to the emergence of a new global order.
A related point of contention for experts is the question of how and when the United States transitioned to its current position as the preeminent global power. In a sharp deviation from conventional wisdom, Hamdi argues that Washington’s hegemony is far from absolute and has a relatively short history. He estimates that the US has only truly held the reins since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, and that this dominance began to erode around 2020 owing to the rise of China.
While some may challenge the veracity of this assertion, Hamdi’s central argument – that modern hegemony is inherently ephemeral – finds support in a broader historical context. Throughout modern history, the trajectory of empires and global powers has been marked by cycles of expansion, crisis, and eventual decline. Against this backdrop, the transience of international orders is increasingly viewed as a normal rather than a radical notion.