Tag: history

Debunking Globalisation Dogmas

(By Javed Jiskani @JJ Baloch)

In a moment of unexpected candour, JD Vance, a U.S. Vice President, laid bare the contradictions of globalisation. His remarks, ostensibly aimed at critiquing the global economic order, revealed an uncomfortable truth: the narrative of globalisation as a universally beneficial force might not only be flawed but also deliberately misleading. Vance’s acknowledgement that the intended hierarchy—where wealthier nations cultivated high-value industries while poorer ones were relegated to low-skill manufacturing—has been upended by nations like China, which have dared to seize a greater role in the global economy, strikes at the heart of a long-standing dogma.

This admission resonates profoundly in a world grappling with the unfulfilled promises of globalisation. The reality is stark: the supposed democratisation of trade and industry, which was meant to foster equity and uplift developing nations, has often functioned as a mechanism of control. The West, particularly the U.S., has wielded its influence not to empower but to maintain a status quo that benefits its economic elite. This is a system that, when faced with genuine competition from countries like China, resorts to protectionist measures and strategic containment, demonstrating that the underlying intention was never to create a level playing field but to preserve a global hierarchy.

The irony is palpable. A system founded on the principles of free markets and competition falters not because it failed but because it succeeded too well. As China began to flourish and challenge the established norms, the response was not one of celebration but rather a frantic scramble to reassert dominance through restrictive policies—semiconductor bans and investment restrictions being prime examples. The narrative that portrays this as a matter of national security conveniently obscures a more troubling truth: the real threat stems not from ideological differences or military might but from a nation’s audacity to rise beyond its pre-assigned role.

This shift invites us to critically examine the foundational beliefs underpinning globalisation. Experts like Grant Price, CEO of Yohows.com, suggest that globalisation, at its ethical core, should indeed promote equity and uplift living standards in poorer nations, fostering an environment where economic opportunities are accessible to all. However, the chasm between this ideal and reality is stark, as many developing countries continue to struggle with systemic barriers that inhibit growth and equitable distribution of resources. The rhetoric of leaders, coupled with ongoing global conflicts, indicates that we are a long way from achieving this vision, where promises of progress often remain unfulfilled. As the conversation unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that the ethical aspirations of globalisation have been co-opted by the interests of those in power, who prefer monopoly over genuine competition, effectively sidelining voices advocating for fair trade practices and sustainable development. This growing disparity raises essential questions about the true intent behind globalisation and challenges us to rethink what a more just and equitable global economy would look like.

Ingi Karlsson, CEO at Spot-Nordic, echoes this sentiment. He posits that the capitalist landscape is rife with contradictions; while all players profess to welcome competition, the reality is that they are fiercely protective of their monopolistic advantages. This dynamic is not merely an observation of market behaviours but a critique of the very fabric of governance in capitalist societies. The alarming extent to which corporations can influence government decisions—effectively buying the allegiance of political leaders—raises pressing ethical questions. Governments, in theory, should establish a framework that encourages fair competition while providing social safety nets. Yet, the reality is often a far cry from this ideal.

The historical context of globalisation further complicates the narrative. The post-World War II era, often hailed as the golden age of globalisation, was characterised by the establishment of institutions designed to facilitate international trade and investment. The Bretton Woods system, which established fixed exchange rates and created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, alongside the World Trade Organization and various regional trade agreements, emerged with the promise of shared prosperity and economic interdependence. These frameworks aimed to create a stable environment that would encourage nations to collaborate, leading to unprecedented economic growth and a significant reduction in poverty levels in numerous countries. However, as Ali Ettefagh, Managing Director at Augustus GmbH, notes, the current landscape suggests a retreat from this ideal. The resurgence of regional blocs—such as G7, BRICS, and various free trade zones—indicates a shift towards more isolationist and protectionist policies that prioritise national interests over global cooperation. This trend is exacerbated by political tensions and economic disparities, signalling a potential fracture in the global economic order, which raises concerns about the sustainability of neoliberal economic policies and their ability to foster equitable development in an increasingly fractured world.

This fragmentation poses significant risks, as the interconnectedness fostered by globalisation has been instrumental in driving technological advancement and economic growth across multiple sectors worldwide. Yet, it also reveals the fragility of a system that is predicated on cooperation and mutual benefit among nations. The deep-seated fear among Western nations of losing their competitive edge in the rapidly evolving global marketplace has sparked an era of retrenchment and protectionism, where nations are increasingly wary of engaging with one another on various fronts, including trade and diplomacy. This response not only undermines the foundational principles of globalisation, which have been pivotal for decades in fostering collaboration and collective problem-solving but also threatens to stifle innovation and progress. As countries retreat into isolationism, the potential for groundbreaking ideas and advancements diminishes, leading to a less dynamic world economy that could ultimately hinder the collective ability to address pressing global challenges such as climate change, health crises, and technological disparities.

The implications of these dynamics are profound. As Vance’s remarks suggest, there is a critical need for developing nations to reassess their positions within this global framework, particularly in light of the rapidly changing economic landscape. The message is clear: if true economic advancement is to be achieved, it must come from challenging a system that has historically sought to limit its potential and stifle innovation. This challenge requires not only a reevaluation of existing policies but also a concerted effort to foster collaboration among nations, where shared knowledge and resources can lead to more significant outcomes. The call for a more equitable distribution of power and resources is not merely an academic exercise but a necessary step towards a more just and sustainable global economy. By prioritising inclusive policies that empower marginalised communities, developing nations can carve out a path that leads to sustainable growth, thereby reshaping their futures in a way that promotes both economic stability and social equity for all.

In this context, it is essential to consider the role of technology and innovation in shaping the future of globalisation. The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and other technologies present both opportunities and challenges. As Price highlights, leveraging these technologies could enable companies to enhance operational efficiency and drive down costs, potentially reshaping competitive dynamics. However, the question remains: will these advancements benefit all nations equally, or will they further entrench existing disparities?

Moreover, the ethical considerations surrounding these technologies must not be overlooked. The potential for AI to exacerbate inequalities, particularly in developing nations, poses a significant risk that warrants urgent attention. As corporations increasingly turn to automation and AI-driven solutions, the opportunity for meaningful job creation in poorer regions may diminish, further entrenching the very inequities that globalisation was supposed to address. This trend could lead to a scenario where skilled labour becomes concentrated in affluent areas while less fortunate regions face the brunt of unemployment and economic stagnation. Furthermore, the displacement of traditional jobs not only affects individual livelihoods but also destabilises entire communities, which can lead to social unrest and a lack of trust in institutions. Policymakers and industry leaders must collaborate on frameworks that ensure equitable access to technology and promote inclusive growth, thereby enabling developing nations to reap the benefits of AI without succumbing to its potential downsides.

The historical precedents of economic upheaval and technological disruption lend weight to these concerns, indicating that we should approach the future with caution and critical analysis. The Industrial Revolution, while a catalyst for progress in many respects, also led to significant social upheaval and economic disparity, giving rise to labour movements and calls for reform that aimed to address the imbalances created during that era. Today’s technological landscape, marked by the rapid deployment of AI and automation, has the potential to transform industries and societies in unprecedented ways; however, it could yield similar results if not managed with foresight and equity in mind. As we navigate this period of rapid change, it becomes imperative to implement policies that promote inclusivity and ensure advancements benefit all sectors of society rather than just a privileged few. By drawing lessons from history, we stand a better chance of fostering a future where technological innovation amplifies human potential instead of exacerbating existing inequalities.

As we navigate this complex terrain, it is crucial to foster dialogue that encompasses diverse perspectives from various stakeholders, including policymakers, industry leaders, and grassroots activists. The insights of leaders like Vance, Price, Karlsson, and Ettefagh highlight the multifaceted challenges posed by globalisation and its discontents, revealing how these issues affect different communities in unique ways. Acknowledging the shortcomings of the current system is a necessary first step towards reimagining a more inclusive and equitable economic framework, one that not only addresses the immediate needs of those most affected but also anticipates future challenges and opportunities for growth. By promoting collaborative efforts and open conversations, we can work towards solutions that bridge divides and create pathways for shared prosperity.

In conclusion, the candid revelations regarding globalisation serve as a crucial reminder of the need for critical engagement with prevailing economic dogmas. The ongoing debates around power, equity, and the role of technology in shaping our global future must not be relegated to the sidelines. Grappling with the realities of a shifting economic landscape is inevitable. The challenge lies in crafting a path that is not only sustainable but also equitable. The time has come for a reckoning—one that acknowledges the complexities of globalisation while striving to create a future where prosperity is shared rather than hoarded. The stakes are high, and the road ahead is fraught with challenges, but the potential for a more just and equitable global economy is within reach if we dare to confront the truths that have long been obscured.

The Writer is a PhD Scholar, novelist, poet, and author of numerous books, holding an MSc from the London School of Economics (LSE), UK, and an LLM from the University of Manchester, UK. Additionally, he is an educator, blogger, and a senior law enforcement officer with the Pakistan Police Service.

Minions: A Case Study in Strategic Espionage

(By JJ. Baloch)

Strategic spying has always played a significant role in the intricate web of international relations. In recent years, the rise of technology and evolving geopolitical landscapes have brought forth new challenges and implications for global order. A recent case involving three Bulgarian nationals convicted of espionage for Russia reveals the complexities of modern spying and its far-reaching consequences. Dubbed “the Minions,” these individuals were found guilty of conducting extensive surveillance and plotting attacks against Kremlin opponents across Europe. This case serves as a lens through which we can examine the challenges of strategic spying and its impacts on geopolitics.

The convictions of these three Bulgarians, who were allegedly directed by Russian intelligence, highlight a growing trend of espionage that operates at an “industrial scale.” The group is accused of targeting various individuals and locations across multiple countries, including the UK, Austria, Spain, Germany, and Montenegro, from 2020 to 2023. Their activities were not merely limited to gathering intelligence; they included plotting to kidnap and kill dissidents, journalists, and diplomats, which underscores the lethal potential of state-sponsored espionage.

One of the key challenges in strategic spying is the difficulty of tracking and prosecuting spies who operate across borders. The modern world is increasingly interconnected, and espionage activities often span multiple jurisdictions. In this case, the accused were active in various European nations, making it harder for authorities to pinpoint their actions and intentions. This international dimension complicates law enforcement efforts, as countries must navigate complex legal systems and diplomatic considerations to bring offenders to justice.

Another significant challenge lies in the use of technology in espionage operations. The advent of sophisticated surveillance tools, encrypted communications, and social media has transformed the landscape of intelligence gathering. Spies can now operate more discreetly and effectively, making detection increasingly difficult. Bulgarian spies’ ability to conduct operations without immediate detection illustrates how technology can empower state actors in their espionage efforts. The rise of cyber espionage further complicates traditional intelligence operations as state actors exploit vulnerabilities in digital infrastructure to gather sensitive information.

The geopolitical implications of such espionage activities are profound. The actions of the Bulgarian spies were not isolated incidents; they were part of a broader strategy employed by Russia to exert influence and undermine its adversaries. The targeting of Ukrainian troops and journalists critical of the Kremlin reflects a calculated effort to silence dissent and manipulate narratives in the international arena. This approach threatens individual lives, destabilises regions, and escalates state tensions.

The case also raises important questions about the effectiveness of counter-espionage measures. Intelligence agencies worldwide are tasked with protecting national security but often operate under significant constraints. The need for secrecy and the complexities of international law can hinder their ability to respond effectively to espionage threats. In the case of the Bulgarian spies, the slow and methodical investigation process ultimately led to convictions, but it is unclear how many other espionage operations may have succeeded undetected.

Moreover, the geopolitical fallout from espionage incidents can strain diplomatic relations. Countries targeted by espionage activities may feel compelled to respond, leading to a cycle of retaliation that exacerbates tensions. In this case, the revelation of Russian state-sponsored spying in Europe could prompt other nations to reassess their relations with Moscow, potentially leading to sanctions or diplomatic isolation. The broader implications of such actions can contribute to a fragile global order where mistrust and hostility become the norm.

The role of public perception in espionage activities cannot be overlooked. The exposure of state-sponsored spying often incites public outrage and demands for accountability. In the case of the Bulgarian spies, their convictions may serve as a deterrent to others contemplating similar actions. However, the effectiveness of such deterrents is questionable, particularly when state actors are willing to take significant risks for perceived strategic advantages. The public’s response to espionage activities can also influence government policies, leading to increased funding for intelligence agencies or more stringent regulations on foreign entities.

Additionally, the case of the “Minions” highlights the importance of international cooperation in combating espionage. The transnational nature of modern spying necessitates collaboration among intelligence agencies to share information and coordinate responses. Multilateral efforts, such as joint task forces or intelligence-sharing agreements, can enhance nations’ ability to counter espionage threats. However, achieving consensus on such initiatives can be challenging, particularly when national interests diverge.

As the world grapples with the challenges of strategic spying, it is essential to consider the ethical implications of espionage. While intelligence gathering is often justified in the name of national security, the methods employed can raise moral questions. Targeting individuals for assassination or kidnapping blurs the lines between legitimate statecraft and criminality. The case of the Bulgarian spies serves as a reminder that espionage can have devastating consequences for individuals and communities, and it calls for a critical examination of the ethical boundaries of intelligence operations.

Thus, the recent convictions of three Bulgarian nationals for industrial-scale espionage on behalf of Russia underscore the complex challenges of strategic spying and its impacts on geopolitics and global order. The case illustrates the difficulties of tracking and prosecuting spies operating across borders, the transformative role of technology in espionage, and the far-reaching geopolitical implications of state-sponsored activities. As nations continue to navigate the evolving landscape of international relations, the need for robust counter-espionage measures, ethical considerations, and collaborative efforts will be paramount in addressing the challenges posed by strategic spying. The actions of the “Minions” are a stark reminder of the precarious balance between national security and the protection of individual rights in an increasingly interconnected world.

The Writer is a novelist, Poet, author, blogger, PhD scholar, educator and a senior police officer who has done MSc Criminal Justice Policy from LSE, London, UK and LLM International Law and Security from the University of Manchester, UK. He is the Author of fourteen books, fiction and non-fiction.

Contemporary International Law Beyond State Consent

By JJ. Baloch

This opinion piece posits that international law is no longer what state consent says it is, reflecting a profound transformation in the 21st century. Historically, international law was predominantly characterised by the principle of state sovereignty, where the consent of states was paramount in the creation and application of legal norms. However, recent developments indicate a shift towards a more pluralistic and inclusive legal framework that integrates diverse voices and actors, transcending the traditional confines of state-centric governance. This essay critically evaluates this evolution by examining key developments in international law, jurisprudence, and academic scholarship, ultimately arguing that this transformation is necessary and indicative of a more responsive and adaptable legal system that addresses contemporary global challenges.

One of the most significant developments in international law has been the increasing recognition of non-state actors, including international organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and multinational corporations. These entities have emerged as influential participants in the international legal system, shaping norms and influencing state behaviour. For instance, the rise of NGOs in human rights advocacy has led to the establishment of various international treaties and conventions that reflect the concerns and needs of marginalised groups. The involvement of these actors has challenged the traditional notion that state consent is the only legitimate basis for international legal obligations, paving the way for a more inclusive approach that considers the perspectives of diverse stakeholders.

A critical examination of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) illustrates this shift. Adopted in 1948, the UDHR was a product of a post-World War II consensus among states, reflecting a collective commitment to human dignity. However, non-state actors who advocate for human rights at local, national, and international levels have significantly influenced its implementation. The influence of organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch has pressured states to adhere to international human rights standards, often in the absence of their explicit consent. This dynamic illustrates that the legitimacy of international law increasingly derives from its ability to reflect the values and aspirations of a broader constituency rather than merely from the consent of states.

Moreover, the emergence of international criminal law represents a paradigm shift that challenges the principle of state sovereignty. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the prosecution of individuals for crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity underscore the idea that individuals can be held accountable under international law, regardless of state consent. The principle of universal jurisdiction has further expanded the reach of international law, allowing states to prosecute individuals for heinous crimes committed outside their borders. This evolution signifies a departure from the traditional state-centric model, highlighting the increasing importance of individual accountability and the role of international institutions in enforcing legal norms.

The jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals has also evolved to reflect this pluralistic approach. Decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and regional human rights courts often incorporate perspectives from various stakeholders, including civil society and marginalised communities. The ICJ’s advisory opinions, for instance, have addressed issues such as the legality of the use of nuclear weapons and the consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius, reflecting a broader understanding of international law that encompasses environmental, social, and economic concerns. Such rulings illustrate a shift from a purely state-centric interpretation of international law to one that acknowledges the interconnectedness of global challenges and the need for collective action.

Academic scholarship has played a crucial role in articulating and conceptualising these changes in international law. Scholars have increasingly emphasised the importance of a pluralistic approach that recognises the contributions of various actors in shaping legal norms. The works of theorists such as Anne-Marie Slaughter and Martti Koskenniemi highlight the need to move beyond the traditional state-centric paradigm and embrace a more inclusive understanding of international law. Slaughter’s notion of “transnational networks” exemplifies how non-state actors collaborate across borders to address global issues, challenging the notion that state consent is the sole basis for legal authority. Similarly, Koskenniemi’s critique of the fragmentation of international law underscores the necessity of integrating diverse perspectives to create a more coherent and effective legal framework.

Additionally, the increasing salience of global challenges such as climate change, migration, and pandemics necessitates a reevaluation of international law’s foundations. These issues transcend national borders and require collective action from many actors. For example, the Paris Agreement on climate change represents a collaborative effort that relies on the participation of states, subnational entities, businesses, and civil society. This multilevel governance approach challenges the traditional notion of state consent, as effective responses to global challenges often require flexibility and adaptability in legal frameworks that can accommodate diverse contributions.

The role of technology in shaping international law cannot be overlooked. The digital age has facilitated the emergence of new actors and platforms that influence legal norms and practices. Social media, for instance, has provided a space for advocacy and activism, enabling previously marginalised voices to participate in international discourse. Movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have mobilised global support, leading to calls for legal reforms that reflect the values of diversity and inclusion. This phenomenon illustrates that international law is increasingly shaped by public sentiment and grassroots movements, further diminishing the primacy of state consent in determining legal norms.

In conclusion, the assertion that “international law is no longer what state consent says it is” captures the essence of a transformative evolution in the 21st century. The integration of non-state actors, the emergence of international criminal law, the evolving jurisprudence of international courts, academic scholarship advocating for a pluralistic approach, and the pressing need to address global challenges all contribute to a more inclusive and responsive international legal system. This shift challenges the traditional notion of state sovereignty and consent, reflecting a legal framework that recognises the complexities of our interconnected world. As international law continues to evolve, it must remain adaptable, inclusive, and reflective of the diverse voices and experiences that shape our global community.

About the Author

Mr JJ Baloch is an eminent novelist, humanist poet, scholar, blogger, law enforcement educator and senior police officer. He has an LLM in Security and International Law from the University of Manchester, UK, and an MSc in Criminal Justice Policy from the London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. He also has an MA in international relations and an MA in sociology from the University of Sindh Jamshoro and is presently doing his PhD in crime sciences. Professionally, Mr JJ Baloch is a senior police officer (DIG) at the Police Service of Pakistan with 25 years of experience. He has written 14 fiction and non-fiction books. His famous books include “Reimagining Policing in Pakistan: Problems and Prospects for Reform, Innovation, and Change (2022)”, “Kashmir’s Right to Self-determination: A Legal and Normative Reappraisal (2023)”, “The Kingdom of Indifference: A Philosophical Probe into the Missing Soul of Society (2025)”, and “Raks-e-Kainat: A Timeless Mystic Urdu Poetry Collection (2025).”