Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
In the 21st century, the ancient symbols of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse— rooted in the Book of Revelation—have found unsettling new relevance in our global landscape.
Pestilence, once a specter and of biblical prophecy, now rides on the back of pandemics like COVID-19, which have shown us just how fragile our interconnected world can be.
War, no longer confined to the battlefields of history, manifests in the persistent conflicts and geopolitical tensions that threaten to destabilise entire regions.
Famine, a scourge that should belong to a bygone era, persists due to the stark inequalities in food distribution, climate change, and economic volatility that leave millions hungry in a world of plenty.
And then there's death, the inevitable outcome when these forces converge, reminding us that our collective fate hangs in a delicate balance.
These modern horsemen are not mere relics of the past but active agents shaping our future, underscoring the urgent need for global cooperation and resilience in the face of these ever-present challenges.
In our rapidly changing world, the ancient imagery of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse has taken on a chilling relevance, particularly as we contemplate the specter of Armageddon.
Pestilence, no longer just a figure in a religious text, is embodied in pandemics like COVID-19, which have exposed the vulnerabilities of our hyper-connected societies.
War, once thought to be a relic of the past, is a constant threat in our era of geopolitical instability, where conflicts can erupt in any corner of the globe, potentially triggering catastrophic consequences.
Famine, which should be unthinkable in a world of technological advancements, persists as climate change, economic disparities, and political conflicts disrupt food supplies and leave millions in desperate need.
And death, the final rider, is ever-present, a grim reminder of the stakes involved when these forces combine.
In this context, Armageddon—the ultimate showdown between good and evil—feels less like a distant myth and more like a looming possibility.
The convergence of these horsemen signals a world teetering on the edge, where the battle for our future is not just a matter of prophecy but a real, pressing challenge.
Whether we avert this modern Armageddon depends on our ability to recognise these threats for what they are and to respond with the global cooperation, innovation, and resilience needed to steer away from the brink.
Multipolar World
In today's multipolar world, where power is increasingly dispersed among global players like China, Russia, and the BRICS nations, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have taken on new identities that resonate with our modern geopolitical landscape.
The first horseman, financial instability, gallops through the global economy, where the interconnectedness of markets means that a crisis in one region can trigger shockwaves across the globe.
Trade wars, currency disputes, and economic sanctions are the weapons of choice in this high-stakes game, making financial security a key battleground in the struggle for global dominance.
The second horseman, fuel and energy security, rides on the back of the world's insatiable demand for energy.
In a time when control over oil, gas, and emerging renewable technologies can shift the balance of power, energy resources have become the new gold, with nations like Russia and China using their energy assets as strategic tools to influence global politics.
As countries scramble to secure their energy futures, the risk of conflict over these precious resources looms large.
Then there's the third horseman, food security, a challenge that's becoming more acute as climate change and political instability disrupt traditional food systems.
In a world where population growth is outpacing food production, and where the effects of climate change are hitting the poorest regions hardest, the competition for food is no longer just a humanitarian issue—it's a geopolitical one.
Nations are increasingly focused on securing their own food supplies, and this struggle is shaping alliances and strategies on the global stage.
Finally, the fourth horseman, climate change, hovers over all these challenges like a dark cloud.
It's the force that's amplifying financial, energy, and food insecurities, and it's reshaping the geopolitical and geoeconomic landscape in ways we're only beginning to understand.
As the impacts of climate change become more severe, countries are being forced to rethink their national security strategies and international relationships.
In this new world order, the ability to navigate these four horsemen will determine not just the fate of individual nations, but the future stability of the entire planet.
The Future, Looking into the Crystal ball
The future of international relations, geopolitics, geoeconomics, and geostrategy is deeply intertwined with the dynamics of a multipolar world, where power is distributed among several key players rather than dominated by a single hegemon.
As we look to the past—specifically the outbreaks of the First and Second World Wars—it's clear that the balance of power in a multipolar world can be both a source of stability and instability, depending on how it is managed.
In the early 20th century, the multipolar world order, with its competing empires and alliances, failed to prevent the outbreak of World War I and later World War II.
The intricate web of alliances, rivalries, and the pursuit of national interests led to catastrophic conflicts as powers sought to either assert their dominance or bandwagon with stronger states for protection.
The balance of power, rather than maintaining peace, became a precarious balancing act that ultimately collapsed into war.
Today, the rise of new powers like China and the resurgence of Russia, alongside the influence of coalitions like BRICS, have reintroduced a multipolar dynamic into global affairs.
This shift away from the unipolar moment of American hegemony after the Cold War has profound implications for the future of international relations.
The central question is whether this multipolarity can be managed to maintain global stability or whether it will lead to renewed competition and conflict, akin to the dynamics that led to the world wars.
Geopolitics and geoeconomics in this new era are characterized by strategic competition over resources, technology, and influence.
China's Belt and Road Initiative, Russia's energy diplomacy, and the BRICS' efforts to create alternative
financial structures to Western-dominated institutions are all examples of how these powers are shaping the global order in their favor.
The geostrategy of the 21st century is not just about military power but also about economic influence, technological leadership, and soft power.
The stability of a multipolar world is not guaranteed.
While some argue that a multipolar system can be stable if managed through effective diplomacy and international institutions, others warn that the competition between great powers could lead to conflicts, as history has shown.
The risk of miscalculation, especially in areas like the South China Sea, Eastern Europe, or the Middle East, could spark wider confrontations.
Moreover, in a multipolar world, the absence of a clear hegemon might lead to more frequent shifts in alliances (bandwagoning) as states seek to align with the most powerful or advantageous partners, further complicating global stability.
The way forward requires a new approach to international relations that emphasizes cooperation over competition. Global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and cybersecurity threats cannot be effectively addressed by any one nation alone.
International institutions need to be reformed to reflect the realities of multipolarity, ensuring that emerging powers have a seat at the table while maintaining a commitment to collective security and global governance.
In a nutshell, the future of a multipolar world will hinge on how well the international community can navigate the challenges of balance of power, manage the ambitions of rising powers like China and Russia, and avoid the pitfalls that led to previous global conflicts.
While the multipolar world presents opportunities for a more balanced and representative global order, it also carries significant risks that must be carefully managed through diplomacy, cooperation, and a renewed commitment to peace.
Small State Alignment
Malaysia, sitting at the crossroads of the world's most dynamic region, is playing a delicate balancing act as it navigates the intensifying rivalry between the United States and China.
This small but strategically vital nation has perfected the art of strategic hedging, engaging with both superpowers without fully committing to either.
On one hand, Malaysia has deepened its economic ties with China, benefiting from the flood of Chinese investments and its role in the Belt and Road Initiative.
These economic bonds are significant, but Malaysia is acutely aware of the risks of becoming too dependent on Beijing, especially when it comes to maintaining its sovereignty and autonomy.
On the other hand, Malaysia values its security relationship with the United States, recognising the stabilising role that American military power plays in the region.
The U.S. presence, particularly in the South China Sea, serves as a crucial counterbalance to China's assertiveness.
Yet, Malaysia isn't simply choosing sides.
Instead, it's leveraging its relationships with both powers to maximise benefits while minimising risks.
By engaging in regional multilateral frameworks like Asean and advocating for a rules-based order, Malaysia is ensuring that it doesn't get pulled too far into either orbit.
In this complex geopolitical chess game, Malaysia is determined to maintain its independence and flexibility, refusing to be a mere pawn in the great power rivalry.
Its future alignment will depend on how the global dynamics shift, but for now, Malaysia's strategy is clear: keep both superpowers close, but not too close, and always keep an eye on its own national interests.
Kancil Diplomacy
Malaysia's approach can indeed be seen as a form of "Kancil Diplomacy," a term derived from the mouse deer (kancil), a small but cunning creature in Malay folklore known for outsmarting larger, more powerful animals.
The kancil's ability to navigate dangerous situations through wit and strategy mirrors Malaysia's diplomatic approach in managing relations with larger powers like the United States and China.
In this context, Malaysia, like the kancil, uses its agility, strategic acumen, and careful balancing to navigate the complexities of great power rivalry.
By not fully aligning with either superpower, Malaysia maintains its sovereignty and maximises its national interests.
It engages with China economically, benefiting from trade and investment, while simultaneously valuing its security ties with the U.S., which provides a counterbalance to China's growing influence in the region.
This strategy allows Malaysia to play a nuanced role in international relations, avoiding the pitfalls of being caught between two giants while leveraging the opportunities that both relationships offer.
It's a classic example of small-state diplomacy where survival and prosperity are achieved not through brute strength
but through clever, calculated moves—just like the kancil in Malay folklore.
Economist Samirul Ariff Othman is an international relations analyst and a senior consultant with Global Asia Consulting (GAC). Samirul has a background as a senior researcher at the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research. The viewpoints articulated are solely those of the author.