Illustration: Xia Qing/GT

Throughout the long history of evolution, the concept of "harmony" evolved as a core basis of the coexistence of man and nature. Sustainable survival measures are developed, some independently, some in cooperation with interacting societies, by all human communities, resulting in different forms of cultures and civilizations. Adjustments are made in the process of migration, colonization and globalization.

Be it the conflicts that took place in East Asia centuries ago or the centuries-long series of Ottoman wars against neighbors, their end required some sort of understanding among the warring states. The treaties to end the Thirty Years' War in Europe in the 17th century, termed the Peace of Westphalia, laid the principle of international law, according to some scholars. These treaties created a framework for the coexistence of sovereign states that each nation-state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of noninterference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state is equal.

Following the devastating aftermath of World War I, a need for an international body was felt, and the League of Nations was established in 1920, aiming to ensure future peace by envisioning the premise of "collective security." With all its good intentions in place, the league could not prevent World War II, which witnessed war crimes such as the Holocaust and the Nanjing Massacre. These developments called for an unprecedented rules-based world order and peacebuilding.

By the end of WWII in 1945, the US became the sole global leader with a strong economy, nuclear power, advanced technologies and an international network. The US dollar had already become the global primary reserve currency the previous year, following the Bretton Woods Agreement. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the US as the only superpower. Its hunger for domination was insatiable. It continued expanding NATO eastward, absorbing former Soviet states.

The US preaches "liberalism," "democracy" and "rule of law," but what it practices is quite the opposite. 

It first acted unilaterally, and then forced the United Nations and international community to accept the outcome. The US has withdrawn from dozens of UN agencies it had initiated. It has lobbied small nations to drop climate resolutions, prioritizing its sovereignty and strategic interests over multilateral consensus. 

Meanwhile, the world has changed much from what it was at the end of WWII. In terms of nominal GDP, China has become the second-largest economy; India the fourth (arguably). If measured by purchasing power parity, China's GDP has already surpassed that of the US. China also leads in scientific output and holds a military force that even the US dares not underestimate. The US still retains advantages in military technology, patent quality and global influence, but the era of uncontested US supremacy has ended.

As long as it has a competitive advantage, the US prescribes free trade and open policies. When someone takes the lead, the US makes a U-turn and invokes security issues and US interests, leaving aside everything else. 

Countries, including its closest allies, are tired of the double standards of the US. Initiatives, like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS, and de-dollarization, are indirect results of the US policies. 

Emerging powers have openly sought a new world order, ending the US monopoly on global issues. Not only traditional competitors and new powers, but even its allies like the UK, France and Germany, have begun to oppose some of the US' moves. A real turning point in the challenge against the US solo show was the speech by Canadian Premier Mark Carney at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos. In response to an existential threat, Canada, which shares the longest international land border in the world, has stood against the policies of its only neighbor and the only superpower. This indicates the direction the international community is taking. 

Look at how strongly Europe opposed the idea of US "acquisition" of Greenland, and how the continent did not yield to US threats and trade tariffs. Spain has explicitly rejected the ongoing US-Israel strike against Iran as unilateral military action and refused the use of its military bases for the attacks; the French president has termed the move a breakage of the international law; several other European countries, such as Germany, have opposed, or distanced themselves from, the US' move; and the European public sentiment is against the US-Israel war on Iran. 

All of these facts reflect a turning point in the world order. The more the US acts unilaterally, the faster its global domination withers.

The author is a professor of Tribhuvan University in Nepal. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn