For much of the post–Cold War era, the world was told it lived under a rules-based international order, one anchored in international law, multilateral institutions, and shared norms of restraint.

That claim now rings hollow. The question confronting the international community today is no longer whether this order is under strain, but whether it still exists at all. The evidence suggests a threshold has been crossed from global order into global disorder.

This is not an abstract debate. It is being answered daily through military interventions,

diplomatic breakdowns, and the open defiance of international legal frameworks. The fragility of this system was already visible during the Iraq crisis, particularly in efforts at the United Nations to build consensus. Even then, it was evident that the so-called international order lacked an impartial enforcement mechanism. There was law, but no universally binding authority to uphold it.

Fragility, however, is different from collapse. What is unfolding today is something far more profound. Over the past two years, the deterioration of the global system has accelerated dramatically.

What was once obscured by diplomatic language and procedural ambiguity is now openly declared. Major powers, led by the United States, no longer feel compelled to conceal their military, political, financial, or media backing of wars and conflicts. What was once deniable is now asserted openly. 

The human consequences have been catastrophic, including mass civilian suffering and actions that much of the world recognizes as genocide. In this context, the moral claims of those who once portrayed themselves as guardians of law and human rights stand exposed as selective and deeply hypocritical.

Even more striking is the erosion of the legal and normative framework itself. The rulings and proceedings of the International Court of Justice are ignored without embarrassment. The International Criminal Court is defunded, delegitimized, and its arrest warrants dismissed.  A point has been reached where the military abduction of a head of state can be defended publicly, while international law remains entirely impotent. When the President of the United States declares, “My own morality is international law. There is no international law,” it is not merely rhetorical excess. It reflects a worldview in which power supersedes law and force  replaces legitimacy.

This shift carries far-reaching consequences. The state that once claimed to underwrite global order has become a primary driver of disorder, and this confrontation is no longer limited to traditional adversaries. It increasingly encompasses allies, regions of influence, and even domestic society.

Three major shifts illustrate this transformation. First, confrontation has been brought home. For decades, U.S. conflicts were largely externalized in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or East Asia. Today, coercive politics have returned to the Western Hemisphere. Venezuela is openly targeted. Military rhetoric now spans Latin America, and even Mexico is threatened under the language of security cooperation. This represents a revival of domination rather than diplomacy. Second, the treatment of allies has fundamentally changed. Longstanding partners in Europe, North America, and Asia are subjected to public pressure, humiliation, and transactional demands rather than consultation and mutual respect. India is told its leadership must personally satisfy the American president. Ukraine’s president is publicly mocked and instructed to return with mineral concessions. NATO commitments are treated as conditional, Greenland is discussed in military terms, and allies are coerced rather than engaged. This is not alliance management but raw power politics applied indiscriminately.

Third, while Western-led institutions weaken, alternative centers of power are consolidating influence. The G7 no longer reflects global economic realities. By contrast, BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization represent the majority of the world’s population and an increasing share of global growth. China is expanding its influence through technological and energy leadership, from renewable infrastructure to electric vehicles. Russia and China, aware that direct military confrontation would consolidate U.S. domestic unity, are instead allowing structural, economic, and institutional forces to erode American primacy.

The result is a United States facing pressure on multiple fronts: adversaries abroad, strained alliances, weakened global institutions, and an increasingly divided domestic society. Internally, political and economic fault lines are widening. Protests against concentrated executive and corporate power are growing. Courts and state governments are resisting federal overreach, including efforts to deploy military force domestically. This convergence of domestic resistance and global confrontation marks a uniquely vulnerable moment in U.S. history.

History offers a cautionary lesson. Declining empires often resort to coercive force in a final attempt to preserve dominance. Such actions rarely stabilize power; they accelerate decline. The last use of power is seldom a renewal. Today, military threats, legal defiance, and coercion of allies are not extending American hegemony. They are signaling its erosion and hastening the emergence of a multipolar world.

That multipolarity is already taking shape. Power will be distributed unevenly across regions, institutions, and economic networks. Some states will lead, others will form blocs, and many will seek influence through non-military means. The transition will be contested, unstable, and legally unmoored. One conclusion is unavoidable: the age of unilateral hegemony is over.

The challenge now facing the international community is stark. How can a world be navigated where norms are openly violated, alliances are transactional, and domestic fragility intersects with global confrontation? This period of disorder will not last forever, but its outcomes will define the next global system. One lesson stands clear: power without law does not produce order. It produces resistance, fragmentation, and ultimately decline.

by Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal

The state, in its ideal moral conception, resembles a mother—protective yet firm, generous yet disciplined. It provides security, creates opportunities, sets boundaries, and, when required, reprimands those who defy collective order. Authority, when exercised with purpose and balance, is not an intrusion into daily life but a fulfilment of responsibility. Recent developments of celebrating Basant in Lahore offered a timely reminder of this principle, demonstrating that when the state asserts its writ with seriousness and resolve, even long-suspended traditions can be revived without compromising public safety or social harmony.

Lahore—the heart of Pakistan and the city of living hearts—welcomed spring this year with a massive jubilation that had long been confined to memory. After nearly twenty-four years, Basant returned, not as a reckless indulgence but as a regulated cultural expression shaped by law, vigilance, and administrative presence. In the past, the festival had degenerated into chaos, with unskilled practices, criminal negligence, and weak enforcement turning joy into tragedy. This time, however, the state chose not withdrawal but engagement with watchfulness. Rules were framed and enforced, the administration remained visible, and the writ of the government was neither symbolic nor selective. Apart from a few occurrences, the city passed through the season without hefty heartbreaking incidents—a success that deserves acknowledgement.

The colours of Basant, the fluttering kites against a mild sky, the rooftops filled with cautious celebration, and the revival of traditional foods and shared laughter carried a deeper message. Joy, when guided and tailored by responsibility, becomes constructive rather than destructive. The presence of officials on the ground—alert, accountable, and prepared—demonstrated that celebration does not require the absence of law. On the contrary, it flourishes when boundaries are clear.

As the echoes of Basant fade, the nation now stands at the threshold of Ramadan, a month defined not by festivity but by restraint, reflection, compassion, and moral discipline. Ramadan reshapes daily life across the country: from pre-dawn meals and fasting hours to crowded bazaars before iftar and collective worship at night. Unlike Basant, which was confined largely to one city, Ramadan embraces the entire nation for a full month, touching every household regardless of class or geography.

Yet, even before the sacred month arrives, a familiar and troubling pattern has already begun to surface. Prices of vegetables, fruits, and essential food items have started climbing, shifting smoothly into the first gear of inflation, with higher gears expected as Ramadan begins. Quality goods quietly disappear from the market, while inferior substitutes reappear at inflated prices. This phenomenon, repeated annually, stands in stark contradiction to the spirit of Ramadan, which calls for ease, generosity, and sensitivity towards those who struggle.

Over the years, a peculiar and deeply flawed argument has often been offered in response to this problem. It is said that if fruit or other food items become expensive during Ramadan, people should simply stop consuming them and prices will fall on their own. This explanation, frequently presented as economic wisdom, raises a fundamental question: is it the responsibility of citizens to correct market distortions, or the duty of the state to prevent them? Expecting fasting families to abandon basic nutritional needs during a month of spiritual exertion is neither realistic nor just. Such reasoning, rather than reflecting policy insight, exposes administrative helplessness.

In many Western and Gulf countries, Ramadan is marked by special discounts, subsidised essentials, and strict monitoring to ensure affordability for all segments of society. The objective is not merely market stability but social solidarity. In contrast, when prices surge unchecked and the administration responds with advice rather than action, the burden of governance is unfairly shifted onto the public.

Here, the lesson of Basant becomes especially relevant. If the administration could demonstrate coordination, resolve, and presence for a cultural festival, it can and must do the same for a religious obligation that defines the nation’s moral rhythm. Officials who were visibly active during Basant should be equally present in markets and bazaars during Ramadan—monitoring prices, ensuring availability, and preventing exploitation. Authority must not retreat into silence at a time when vigilance is most required.

Accountability, too, must be clearly defined. Local administrations should be bound to their jurisdictions, with responsibility fixed and consequences enforced. If price manipulation occurs in a particular area, those entrusted with oversight must be questioned for their failure. Experience repeatedly shows that when the state intervenes decisively, markets respond. It is also telling that prices often return to pre-Ramadan levels once the month ends, revealing that much of the inflation is artificial rather than inevitable.

Ramadan is not only a spiritual test for individuals; it is also a test of governance. It examines whether leadership can rise above routine indifference and act in harmony with the ethical demands of the moment. Provincial leaderships must play their role, translating intent into visible action.

Between the disciplined joy of Basant and the solemn restraint of Ramadan lies a shared lesson: society flourishes when authority is exercised with sincerity and care. A state that can protect celebration can also protect devotion. A state that safeguarded lives amid flying kites can surely safeguard dignity at the fasting table. The nation now waits to see whether the resolve displayed in spring will endure through the sacred month—strengthening not only markets, but trust itself.

Qamar Bashir

When the U.S. Department of Justice released additional troves of documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein, the reaction was immediate and visceral. The shock was not about Epstein himself. His criminality had already been established in court. What unsettled the public was something else entirely: proximity. From former British royal Prince Andrew to former U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump; from tech billionaire Elon Musk to Virgin Group founder Richard Branson; from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, the newly released files, as summarized by the Associated Press, include correspondence, flight logs and social exchanges linking Epstein to an extraordinary roster of powerful figures.

None of these individuals have been charged with crimes related to Epstein’s trafficking operation, and all have denied wrongdoing. That legal reality is essential. Yet the appearance of such names within official investigative materials has triggered a deeper moral discomfort, one that extends beyond courtroom proceedings. The Associated Press described the files as a “who’s who of powerful men” appearing in emails, invitations, photographs or scheduling records tied to Epstein. Prince Andrew, long scrutinized over his relationship with Epstein, settled a civil lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre while continuing to deny any wrongdoing. Bill Clinton acknowledged flying on Epstein’s plane years before the financier’s final arrest but has denied knowledge of criminal behavior. Donald Trump has similarly acknowledged a past social relationship while denying awareness of abuse. Elon Musk has publicly stated that he declined invitations to Epstein’s island. Richard Branson’s company emphasized that interactions were limited to business or group settings.

Ehud Barak admitted visiting Epstein’s New York residence and flying on his plane, later expressing regret for the association. Larry Summers called his connection “a major error of judgment.” Sergey Brin, Steve Bannon, Steven Tisch, Howard Lutnick, Casey Wasserman and others appear in various correspondences but have not been accused of criminal conduct. Association, in legal terms, is not guilt. Yet the psychological impact of proximity is harder to dismiss.

When a convicted trafficker of minors successfully embedded himself within elite political, financial and academic networks, it forces uncomfortable questions. How did someone with known red flags retain access to such circles even after his 2008 plea agreement in Florida? Why did social contact continue after serious allegations were already public knowledge? The outrage many feel is not about bypassing due process. It is about moral symmetry. In ordinary life, association with a convicted sex offender can destroy reputations overnight. Within elite spaces, however, such association appears cushioned by status and influence. That perceived asymmetry fuels distrust.

The Epstein case has also revived speculation regarding intelligence connections. A 2020 FBI report cited a confidential source claiming that Epstein may have been “trained as a spy” and relayed information through intermediaries to Israeli intelligence. Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have publicly rejected any suggestion that Epstein worked for Mossad. Intelligence experts quoted in reporting have emphasized that no evidence has confirmed such claims. Nonetheless, the presence of these allegations in investigative files has intensified curiosity and suspicion. Epstein’s financial origins remain opaque. His international reach was vast. His access to elite networks was unusual.

Opacity invites speculation, but speculation is not proof. The responsible position is neither blind dismissal nor reckless accusation. It is rigorous transparency. The deeper issue is structural. Epstein’s crimes were not committed in isolation. Trafficking networks require recruitment, logistics, financial channels and silence. The public now asks whether every dimension of that network has been fully exposed and dismantled.

The Associated Press made an essential point: none of the individuals named have been charged in connection with Epstein’s crimes. That fact must anchor any serious discussion. Yet it is legitimate for citizens to ask whether investigations were comprehensive, whether institutional blind spots existed and whether systemic safeguards have been strengthened to prevent future exploitation. Trust in institutions depends on visible equality before the law. If powerful individuals were investigated and cleared, clarity strengthens legitimacy. If investigative gaps remain, transparency must close them. Silence feeds suspicion.

The Epstein scandal represents more than personal depravity. It represents a stress test for institutional credibility. When elites circulate within the orbit of a trafficker, even without criminal liability, the public demands explanation. The United States often positions itself as a defender of human rights globally. That moral posture requires internal consistency. Accountability cannot appear selective.

The solution is neither mob condemnation nor complacency. It is disciplined scrutiny. Congress retains oversight authority. The Department of Justice retains prosecutorial authority. Independent journalism retains investigative authority. Survivors retain the right to justice and protection. If additional wrongdoing is uncovered, it must be prosecuted without regard to status. If no additional crimes are established, the public deserves clear communication explaining investigative findings.

Democracies can survive scandal. They struggle to survive sustained distrust. The Epstein files have reopened old wounds not because they deliver new convictions but because they highlight enduring ambiguity. The presence of global elites in a trafficker’s social universe is enough to unsettle confidence. What follows now will determine whether that unease hardens into cynicism or evolves into reform.

The moral shock many feel reflects a basic human instinct: children must be protected, and power must never shield exploitation. That instinct is not partisan and not ideological. It is foundational. Institutions must demonstrate that the instinct aligns with enforcement. The names that appear in investigative documents may ultimately reflect poor judgment rather than criminal complicity, and that distinction matters. But it does not eliminate the need for vigilance.

The Epstein case has become a symbol of elite access, institutional failure and the fragility of trust. Rebuilding that trust requires sunlight, consistency and courage. Anything less will leave the convulsion unresolved, and a society that cannot resolve its convulsions risks allowing suspicion to replace confidence in the very structures meant to uphold justice.

Qamar Bashir

Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former Press Attaché to Malaysia

Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan