Malaysia in a shifting world order
Today, that dominance is increasingly challenged by emerging powers and shifting global alignments. The rise of competing powers, growing distrust of US intentions, and the resurgence of nationalist economic policies, particularly under Donald Trump's second term, are accelerating the fragmentation of global power.
In place of a US-led unipolar order, a multipolar world is emerging, one increasingly defined by the rivalry between the United States, an emerging axis of Russia-China-India (RCI), and a recalibrated European Union.
Trump's recent moves to impose tariffs on a wide swath of countries, including traditional allies like the European Union, Canada, South Korea, and India, mark a decisive...
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
Brexit's parallels with Trump tariffs tell a tale
In figuring out why the United States tariff shock hasn't sent the economy or financial world into a tailspin, Britain's exit from the European Union trade bloc provides something of a playbook — and without a particularly happy ending. Aside from vast differences in economic scale and global reach, the two episodes bear some comparison in how they upended years of deeply integrated free trade and possibly in how business, the economy at large and financial markets reacted. The 2016 Brexit referendum and Trump's tariffs this year were each widely billed as economic shocks that would send the financial world into paroxysms. They didn't, at least not at the outset. To be sure, both were followed by dramatic downward lurches in the two countries' currencies. But, to some extent, the steep drop in sterling after the referendum vote and the dollar's plunge on President Donald Trump's tariff plan this year helped offset some of the wider impact, at least on stock markets that are loaded with global firms with outsized foreign revenue. More broadly, however, the difficulty in isolating their immediate net impact means no "big bang" economic crisis unfolds to prove critics right, even if their enduring legacy turns out to be a slow burn of economic potential and lost output, often obscured by multiple other crosswinds. In Britain's case, the seismic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic distorted any attempt to easily assess Brexit when it actually happened. Tortuous negotiations with the EU meant the UK's departure eventually occurred on the eve of the health crisis in 2020 and the new trade rules did not come into force until a year later. But in the four years between the referendum surprise and the pandemic, the UK economy never entered a recession nor recorded a negative quarterly GDP print — confounding pro-EU supporters at the time and bolstering the Brexit lobby. Emerging from the twin hits, however, the economy has almost flatlined since. What's more, it's taken more than eight years for the pound's effective exchange rate to recover its pre-referendum levels. Few mainstream economists now doubt that Brexit has taken a serious toll on the UK economy. One academic study by a number of Bank of England economists earlier this year concluded that uncertainty following the referendum resulted in little change in goods exports and imports before the exit was finalised. But after the new rules hit, UK imports fell three per cent and overall exports fell 6.4 per cent, largely because of the 13 per cent hit in exports to the EU. While this slump seems relatively modest compared with the official forecasts of the longer-term hit, the pain has been borne disproportionately by small businesses. And the cumulative damage to London and the service sector over the next 10 years continues to worry the City. The US tariff story is of a completely different order, of course, as it will reverberate across the world economy. But there are some parallels, not least in certain aspects of the market reactions and the initial resilience. Economists estimate that the tariffs could lop anywhere from 0.5 per cent to one per cent off US gross domestic product over time. That's a US$150 billion to US$300 billion hit, which, though painful, would not be an instant crisis for an economy that's growing at a roughly two per cent annualised rate, where imported goods represent just 11 per cent of GDP and where tech and AI trends are generating considerable tailwinds. But as former White House economic adviser Jason Furman said in a New York Times essay last week, the tariff damage is likely not a one-off hit. The loss of 0.5 per cent of GDP, he argued, is "the equivalent of every household in America taking around US$1,000 and lighting it on fire, then doing it again every year. Forever." In the end, the main point of the British comparison is to show how extreme partisan arguments on the pros or cons of such giant economic policy changes don't necessarily get resolved cleanly in adaptive, hardy and hyper-complex economies. The latest YouGov opinion poll shows 56 per cent of Britons now think it was wrong to leave the EU, some nine years after their narrow vote to leave. The jury on Trump's tariffs is still out.
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Zelenskiy says he discussed Russia sanctions, drone deal with Trump
U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 28, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
NST Leader: Of Gaza genocide and EU inaction
A sizable number of countries are beginning to respond to Israel's slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza and settler atrocities in the West Bank by taking concrete actions. But notably missing is a meaningful response from the European Union, a bloc proud of its human rights history. The deafening silence has forced 58 former ambassadors of the bloc to issue an open letter to the heads of the EU and member states, warning them that the lack of meaningful response is making it complicit in Israel's "genocide". "Silence and neutrality in the face of genocide constitute complicity. Inaction emboldens perpetrators and betrays every principle the Union and members claim to uphold." Something has stirred in this rare breed of souls and we think it is the daily genocide livestreamed to their smartphones. Rare breed given the West's habit of denying Israel's genocide. The open letter published by Al Jazeera on July 31 has been a global media story since an earlier version, signed by 34 former ambassadors, was published on July 23 by EUobserver, a news portal. The plea for the EU to do the right thing now is a developing story, as the growing number of signatories suggests. We are not surprised that so many ex-diplomats feel let down by the EU. As the 58 make it clear in the letter, "as former ambassadors of the EU, we dedicated our professional lives to upholding and promoting core European values and international law, building the reputation of the European Union and defending the rights of its peoples". Those interests and reputation, they go on to say, "are now in serious jeopardy as a consequence of EU inaction". Washington's position is clear: Israel can do no wrong, even when its military commits the crime of crimes. Its iron-clad support for the Zionist regime means it has given Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, and his extremist ministers, a free hand in committing all the genocide they want. When the United Nations Security Council members agree to a ceasefire — a rare feat indeed — Washington vetoes the resolution. Countries are condemned for criticising Israel. The International Court of Justice, the world's highest court, didn't fare any better. When it ruled that there was "a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza" and countries should stop supplying weapons to Israel, Washington dismissed the court's determination as not binding. The fate of the International Criminal Court was even worse; its officials were sanctioned for issuing arrest warrants against alleged war criminals Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, a former defence minister. But Brussels? Why the inaction, when it occasionally condemns Israel? Pretext for inaction? Some EU leaders seem to suggest a lack of consensus among the 27 member states as a reason for inaction. Even if this is true, why can't they act as individual states? The recent condemnation of Israel by 20 EU foreign ministers shows member states can, if they have the political will. The ex-diplomats have recommended a nine-point action plan, two of which are for the EU to immediately stop the supply of arms to Israel and recognise Palestinian statehood. If Brussels wants to stand on the right side of history, it must act now on the nine recommendations.
