The World Order After 2025 (By Yuen Yuen Ang)

For mathematicians, 2025 may be notable for the rare symmetry of a “perfect square” (45 multiplied by 45). But its significance goes far beyond numerical elegance—it marks the end of the postwar global order and the imminent birth of a new order.

Eighty years ago, as the world emerged from World War II, victorious Western Allied powers designed a system aimed at preventing another catastrophic conflict. The resulting global order was built on three intertwined commitments: geopolitical stability led by the United States, steady improvements in living standards through industrial progress, and globalized prosperity spread through trade and integration.

This postwar order indeed achieved great success. In the West, a rapidly growing middle class enjoyed political freedom and economic prosperity. Globally, hundreds of millions escaped poverty. For a time, the direction of history seemed clear, especially after the Cold War, even seemingly inevitable.

However, in hindsight, we can see that the postwar order itself planted the seeds of its decline. Power was concentrated in Western-dominated institutions claiming to represent the entire world. American hegemony often led to overreach and arrogance: costly wars in the Middle East lasting a generation, and confidence in the superiority of the American model, masked the reality of domestic decline.

Globalization entrenched an unbalanced form of trade. Low-cost manufacturing in poor countries allowed consumers in wealthy nations to buy in large quantities, but at the expense of environmental degradation worldwide. As Western and Chinese companies shifted production overseas, local communities lost jobs and vitality. Meanwhile, financialization made it easier to accumulate wealth through speculation and stock market bubbles, further enriching the rich while failing to create social value.

The 2008 financial crisis was an early warning. U.S. policymakers stabilized the system but did not repair it. Inequality worsened, and political anger grew. By the time Trump was re-elected as U.S. president, his political rise was no longer an anomaly but the inevitable price to pay.

By 2025, accumulated pressures had become impossible to ignore, especially among former dominant powers. The once-permanent transatlantic alliance was fracturing. Trade wars and protectionist industrial policies signaled the end of frictionless trade. The rise of populism in democratic countries revealed a deeper loss of trust in elites, and immigration easily became a scapegoat.

Coupled with the worsening impacts of climate change, it is no surprise that Western leaders and thinkers feel overwhelmed by a “polycrisis.”

This term accurately describes the complex entanglement of global dangers but fails to diagnose the root causes, fueling fear and obscuring responsibility. It frames Western shocks as a global threat but ignores the agency of other regions (i.e., the majority of countries worldwide).

We should not merely identify the demise of the old order but must ask what might replace it. After all, while profound upheaval brings serious risks, it also offers rare opportunities for deep transformation. That’s why we should not see this moment as a “multiple crisis,” but as a “multiple opportunity” (polytunity)—a generational chance to drive global change from the margins.

Some contours of the new world order are already visible—particularly in three areas. Geopolitically, it will be characterized by multipolarity, with the U.S. and China as two major powers, but neither as a single hegemon. If non-dominant countries take on more responsibility for providing global public goods and find innovative ways to cooperate, this diffusion of power need not lead to chaos.

Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) will transform how humans live and work. Depending on how AI is regulated and used, it could lead to further concentration of power and wealth, but it could also lower barriers to knowledge and productivity—such as through translation, tutoring, and rapid problem-solving—especially for communities long excluded from elite networks.

Finally, globalization will not disappear but will change form. Long, fragile supply chains optimized solely for efficiency are giving way to shorter, more resilient ones. Developing countries can no longer rely solely on exports to wealthy markets for growth; instead, they must also cooperate with neighbors to dismantle regional trade barriers.

Whether the world seizes this “multiple opportunity” or succumbs to the “multiple crisis” ultimately depends on mindset. Even though Western political and economic dominance is waning, the narrative of despair about upheaval still dominates. However, the most urgent mindset shift must occur among the majority of countries, which today possess greater agency than ever before.

This mindset must be adaptive, inclusive, and moral—I call it AIM. Adaptiveness involves discovering and creating possibilities rather than merely controlling risks. Inclusiveness entails abandoning one-size-fits-all models in favor of tailored solutions that leverage local knowledge and capacities. Morality involves questioning how asymmetric power shapes mainstream ideas and voices, while amplifying those historically marginalized.

An earlier “perfect square” year was 1600, heralding the Enlightenment that would transform Europe and the world. The Enlightenment championed reason and freedom but also provided ideological justification for imperialism and hegemony—not only Western domination over other regions but humanity’s control over nature. We have the opportunity to do better: to build a more diverse, more equitable, and ecologically grounded world order.

However, what kind of future emerges after 2025 depends critically on our worldview choices. Lamenting the “multiple crisis” only deepens paralysis, while embracing the “multiple opportunity” can inspire transformation.