{"id":25569,"date":"2026-09-17T07:32:09","date_gmt":"2026-09-17T01:47:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=25569"},"modified":"2026-09-17T07:32:09","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T01:47:09","slug":"the-era-of-power-based-arbitrary-rule-is-fading","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=25569","title":{"rendered":"The Era of Power-Based Arbitrary Rule Is Fading<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Editorial<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chinese President Xi Jinping\u2019s message at the BRICS forum that the world can no longer be governed through the arbitrary use of power reflects a deeper transformation taking place in the international system. It is more than a political statement. It brings questions of power, sovereignty, multilateralism and the role of developing countries back to the centre of global debate.<\/p>\n

For decades, the international order was shaped largely by a limited number of powerful centres. Military strength, economic leverage, control over financial systems, technological dominance and influence over international institutions allowed some countries to exercise disproportionate power in world affairs. That balance, however, is changing. New economic and political centres are emerging across Asia, Africa, Latin America and other parts of the developing world, gradually pushing international relations away from a unipolar mindset toward a more multipolar structure.<\/p>\n

The importance of Xi\u2019s message lies here. No country should be entitled to impose its will on another simply because it is larger, wealthier or militarily stronger. Sovereign equality cannot remain merely a principle written into international documents. In practice, it means listening to smaller states, respecting their political independence and allowing them to pursue development without external coercion.<\/p>\n

Yet multipolarity by itself does not guarantee justice. If one dominant centre is replaced by several competing centres while the underlying behaviour remains unchanged, the international system cannot truly be considered transformed. The balance of power may shift, but changing the arrogance of power is equally important. The real test of a multipolar world will therefore be whether powerful countries are willing to apply to themselves the same rules they expect others to follow.<\/p>\n

Military force is no longer the only instrument of pressure. Economic sanctions, tariffs, technological restrictions, financial access, supply chains, energy, currencies and markets have all become tools of political influence. Ending arbitrary power politics therefore means more than preventing war. It also requires a fairer economic structure, greater access to finance and technology for developing countries, and restraint in using trade as a political weapon.<\/p>\n

For smaller countries such as Nepal, this debate is especially important. Nepal lies between two major neighbours, China and India, while also expanding relations with other global powers. In such circumstances, Nepal\u2019s interest does not lie in binding itself entirely to any single power centre. It lies in maintaining friendly relations with all while preserving national decision-making independence.<\/p>\n

Nepal should not understand multipolarity as the victory of one power over another. From Nepal\u2019s perspective, it should mean a wider range of options. One partner may contribute to infrastructure, another may provide access to energy markets, another may offer technology, while several others can support trade and investment. Such flexibility can serve the national interest, but only if it is guided by clear national priorities, capable diplomacy and long-term strategy.<\/p>\n

Creating a new division between East and West would not solve the problems of the old order. Replacing one form of dominance with another would not produce a fairer system either. What is needed is not control by a different power, but a more balanced distribution of power. Not orders, but consultation. Not intervention, but respect for sovereignty. Competition will remain, but it should take place within agreed rules.<\/p>\n

Xi Jinping\u2019s message should therefore be understood in this broader context. If powerful states consistently uphold international law, sovereignty, mutual respect and peaceful coexistence, multipolarity could become an opportunity for greater global stability. If only the centres of power change while old habits remain intact, the world will simply experience familiar problems under a new label.<\/p>\n

What the world needs today is not another form of domination. Nor does it need another rigid power bloc. It needs meaningful and equitable multilateralism, where the sovereign value of small and large states is treated equally. For countries such as Nepal, such an international order could provide greater security, opportunity and space for independent decision-making.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, global stability depends not on the size of power, but on the equal application of rules. As the era in which the strongest powers could act entirely at their own discretion gradually weakens, the shape of the emerging world order remains an open question. Its answer will not be determined by speeches alone, but by conduct.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t