A Historical Perspective
In November 1985, during their first summit in Geneva, US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev slipped away from official events to have a private conversation. Years later, we learned about their discussion. Gorbachev recounted to Charlie Rose that Reagan had posed a surprising question: “What would you do if the United States were suddenly attacked by someone from outer space? Would you help us?” Gorbachev responded, “Without doubt,” to which Reagan replied, “So would we.” Despite their engagement in a nuclear arms race and mutual staring across Europe, they could still envision uniting against a common existential threat.
The Current State of Global Affairs
Four decades later, humanity finds itself in another arms race. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that global defense spending reached a record-breaking $2.7 trillion in 2024, an inflation-adjusted 9.4% increase from the previous year. This rise, following nine consecutive years of budget increases, is unprecedented since the end of the Cold War, with few signs of slowing down.
Multiple factors contribute to this escalation, including the Russia-Ukraine war, growing tensions in East Asia and the Middle East, vulnerabilities in cyberspace and outer space. However, the most crucial aspect is that this buildup reflects the collapse of globalization as we knew it—an order based on rules and anchored in multilateralism, open trade, and international cooperation.
The Shift from Globalization to Planetarization
A decade ago, the global climate was markedly different. In 2015, at the peak of the latest globalization wave, world leaders reached three historic agreements: the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on development financing, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, and the Paris climate agreement. Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Barack Obama shook hands in Washington, signaling—at least to many observers—an approaching era of sustainable, inclusive, and resilient globalization.
However, this optimism was short-lived. Within a few years, trade wars, nationalist and nativist policies, and geopolitical rivalries eroded the previous consensus. Today, tariffs, subsidies, industrial policies, refugee crises, and the new arms race illustrate a world where cooperation has lost its luster.
As French historian Arnaud Orain notes, the theory of “the end of history” has given way to a world perceived as finite—a cake to be divided rather than expanded. This mindset prioritizes “mine” over “ours,” making negotiations challenging.
Existential Threats and the Need for Collective Action
The existential threats that inspired Reagan’s thought experiment remain, and they are more pressing than ever. Climate change, ecosystem collapse, and rising social inequalities endanger us all. These issues have been thoroughly documented, with visible consequences and strategies outlined in countless policy documents and expert reports. Yet, they are consistently deemed secondary to the immediate fear of aggression from neighbors or rivals.
Future historians may question why, in the mid-2020s, Homo sapiens invested unprecedented resources in preparing for self-destructive conflict while neglecting collective action against obvious planetary threats. The staggering sums—nearly $3 trillion annually on defense—could significantly contribute to decarbonizing our economies, adapting to climate change, and preserving biodiversity.
Instead of extending globalization’s cooperative logic to planetary survival, we are redesigning it with barriers, tariffs, and weapons. This could be termed “barbed-wire globalization.” Human interdependence persists, but relations are managed through spheres of influence rather than common institutions, while the planet drifts from political consciousness.
As Sophocles warned, “Evil sometimes seems good to those whose minds the gods have led astray.” It’s foolish to obsess over relative geopolitical power while ignoring the absolute reality of planetary boundaries. To have hope, we must invent something new: not globalization but “planetarization”—the recognition that preserving our fragile world is a prerequisite for all else.
Opportunities for progress, like the COP30 climate conference in Belém, Brazil, offer chances to advance this perspective. However, the window is closing.
Some argue that the outlook isn’t as grim, citing humanity’s extraordinary period of scientific and technological innovation. Given advancements in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, renewable energy, and advanced materials, why not trust human ingenuity to overcome these challenges?
The counterargument is cautionary. A century ago, revolutionary discoveries in physics, chemistry, and medicine also promised a golden future, leading to what the French called “thirty glorious years” after World War II. But before reaching that point, the world endured a devastating depression, fascism, and a global war fought with these new technologies. The Manhattan Project produced nuclear weapons before atomic energy was harnessed for civilian purposes; the same science that gave us modern fertilizers also created chemical weapons.
Today, artificial intelligence and other advancements could reshape society. However, history suggests military applications will outweigh civilian uses. As always, we should “follow the money”: defense budgets overshadow climate investments. The risk isn’t technological failure but its initial application to conflict rather than collective survival.
Unlike other historical turning points, this one offers no second chances. Resources are finite, carbon budgets shrink rapidly, and planetary limits are under pressure. The choice is clear: globalization can be reorganized into a militarized set of political blocs, where resources are consumed in trade wars, cultural wars, and real wars. Alternatively, we can embrace “planetarization” and begin seeking strategies for collective survival with dignity.
About the Author
Bertrand Badré, former managing director of the World Bank, is chairman of Project Syndicate’s Advisory Council, CEO and founder of Blue like an Orange Sustainable Capital, and author of “Can Finance Save the World?” (Berrett-Koehler, 2018).
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 1995 – 2025
www.project-syndicate.org
