Md. Shawkat Alam Faisal

History is the greatest teacher of humility, and in terms of global power, it serves as a constant reminder that no empire is everlasting. A stunning message supposedly from China's president, Xi Jinping, asserting, "The world can move on without the United States," rings through the halls of geopolitical discourse with the resonance of historical truth and the inevitability of change. It is more than just a threat to the United States' dominance; it is a philosophical reflection on the fleeting nature of hegemony.

Throughout the last century, the globe has witnessed great empires grow, prosper, and eventually vanish into history. A century ago, the British Empire spanned continents, had the biggest navy, and controlled one-fifth of the world's wealth. London was the world's financial capital, with British influence extending from the Caribbean to the Indian subcontinent. Its leaders, bolstered by power, believed in the idea of their own invincibility. However, while Britain remains influential, it is no more the global powerhouse that it once was.

Two centuries ago, France was Europe's cultural and military hub. Under Napoleon, its influence spanned much of the continent. French philosophy, art, and architecture captivated the imaginations of elites around the world. However, the imperial ambition that crowned Napoleon sowed the roots of France's decline. Its aura of invincibility was destroyed, and the empire that once viewed itself as the moral and political leader of Europe faded into the background of a new global order.

More than four centuries ago, the Spanish Empire was the first really worldwide force. From Manila to Mexico, Spanish galleons carried incredible wealth in silver and spices, fueling an economy and monarchy that considered its dominion as divinely ordained. Spain's kings felt their glory was unchanging. However, overreach, corruption, and complacency left their dominion insecure, and Spain was quickly conquered by adversaries it formerly considered beneath it.

The pattern is always the same. Empires that regard themselves as indispensable frequently forget that power is not a given. It's gained via invention, moral leadership, diplomacy, and temperance. And the moment a country believes that the world cannot function without it, the clock starts ticking toward its final demise. Influence, like riches, is fluid. It flows to those who adapt, listen, and rise to new difficulties rather than resting on the shoulders of previous victories.

The United States has always wielded power by violent intervention, typically under the guise of advancing democracy or ensuring global security, but frequently leaving a path of instability, opposition, and shattered sovereignty. In Iraq, the 2003 invasion, justified by false allegations of weapons of mass destruction, deposed a regime but threw the country into disorder, sparking sectarian conflict and fueling the emergence of extremist groups such as ISIS. The United States' engagement in Syria, including direct military strikes and support for rebel factions, has prolonged the conflict and contributed to one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of the century. In Iran, Washington's long-standing campaign of economic sanctions, cyber warfare, and targeted assassinations, such as that of General Qassem Soleimani, exemplifies a forceful approach that has fueled tensions and undercut negotiations. Lebanon, which is frequently caught in the crossfire of US objectives in the region, has experienced political and economic instability, exacerbated by American pressure campaigns against Hezbollah. In addition, the US has intervened in Libya, where NATO-led strikes contributed to a regime collapse followed by years of civil war and lawlessness; in Venezuela and Bolivia, it has supported opposition forces, encouraged regime change, and imposed crippling sanctions, resulting in deep economic and political turmoil. Even in Africa, such as Somalia and Niger, drone strikes and military operations have become common means of influence, with little transparency or accountability.

However, nowhere is the United States' selective use of power more evident than in its unflinching backing for Israel. Despite broad worldwide criticism and genuine claims of war crimes throughout Israel's repeated assaults on Gaza and, more recently on Iran, the US has continued to diplomatically and militarily defend Israel. It has vetoed UN Security Council resolutions aimed at holding Israel accountable, contributed billions of dollars in military aid, and defended policies that have resulted in the displacement and death of thousands of Palestinians. In doing so, America has not only isolated itself from most of the global community, but has also undermined the very values of justice and human rights that it claims to support. This unwavering commitment, even during Israel's most ruthless campaigns, exemplifies how American might, when employed without restraint or thinking, can contribute more to global disappointment than peace or order.

Today, the United States dominates the global order—militarily, culturally, and economically. But behind this domination lurks a fundamental question: has America begun to presume its position rather than constantly earning it? In recent years, the globe has witnessed the United States deal with internal conflicts, democratic backsliding, and a more unilateral approach to global politics. Allies are uncertain, while adversaries are more certain. Global institutions that were traditionally dependent on American leadership are increasingly considering multipolar options. The globe is quietly and methodically adjusting to a future in which Washington's voice may no longer be final.

The message "the world can move on without the United States" does not pose a threat. It's already happening. The ascent of China, the comeback of regional powers, and non-Western governments' growing economic interdependence all point to a world less reliant on a single center of gravity. The internet, climate crises, AI, and pandemics do not accept American exceptionalism; they necessitate collaborative response, which no single country can provide alone.

History reminds us that no empire, no matter how powerful, will last indefinitely. The essential distinction is how it manages the changeover. Will it fade with dignity, contributing to a new, shared global order, or will it cling to the idea of indispensability and face the humiliation of decline? The demise of an empire is never simply a result of economic loss or military defeat; it is the erosion of legitimacy when respect is required rather than inspired. In the final reckoning, the world does indeed move on. It always has been. And those who assume they are the axis around which it revolves would be wise to remember that permanence is an illusion, relevance is earned, and history has never favored arrogance.

The Author is an apprentice lawyer of the Bangladesh Bar Council holding LL.B. (Hons.) and LL.M. in International Law from University of Rajshahi.He can reached at email shawkatalam.rulaw@gmail.com