After the Second World War, there were great efforts to prevent that type of war and its atrocities from ever happening again. That effort was made initially after the First World War and was called the League of Nations. The United Nations was formed as a similar effort to create an agency with established rules and an order to facilitate global co-operation through a broad global forum comprising most of the world’s recognised nations — which was noticeable for the absence of the United States of America.

Notwithstanding this new order and its development, the world remained divided ideologically, culturally and economically. Two superpowers emerged to survive the First World War, they being the US and the USSR. This is not to suggest that there were no other powers, such as China, Japan, the Middle East or Turkey.

Countries were aligned either with the Soviet bloc or the US and the collective West — which primarily was headed by the British Empire. Then there was the non-aligned movement with countries that opted out of being militarised by either of the superpowers. Given that both superpowers had expansionist ideas, much of the conflict in the world was the result of being a proxy to the Cold War between one persuasion or the other.

The presumptive ideological argument was over the communist ideologies of the Eastern bloc countries and the capitalist ideals of the proverbial West.

As the world turned, history was made; the USSR no longer exists, thanks in large part to Mikhail Gorbachev, whose vision was sabotaged by the American administration at that time. The US became the sole superpower remaining, leaving the question of whether the world is better or worse now under one hegemonic empire rather than two. However, the leaders of the West at that time dubbed the failure of the USSR a victory for capitalism.

Assuming the capitalist fight was for democracy and freedom, did the resultant conflict that succeeded against the USSR end with a world that is now triumphant in global democracies?

The world is mature enough to understand that a democracy extends further than having elected leaders, but also should undergird the rights and privileges of the entire society to participate in the economic resources. A good observation to make and question to ask, then, is: how are the world’s resources and economies being handled, in particular since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War? Is the world now fairer and just for all, as between nations and people? If not, why not?

The opportunity to create a fairer and more equitable world was certainly in the hands of the sole remaining superpower, which — aside from its huge military dominance — essentially held sway over the world’s economy. Surely, if capitalism was the answer, here was a full-throated opportunity to prove its efficacy.

Yes, there is the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris Climate treaty, and many other international bodies and agreements. However, as proven, America retained a position of veto everywhere. To further drive home the point, the very organisations it helped to build and whose rules it made have been unceremoniously and controversially abandoned by the United States.

This puts laughter to the words and speeches of Margaret Thatcher, who in 2000 warned of the perils set by nations that disrespected the rule of law. To see now the very nations she held up as the pillars of democracy and standard bearers of law complicit in crimes against humanity, while flaunting a seeming privilege to live beyond the very rules they created. Donald Trump, as one example, ran and won an election, promoting American exceptionalism. How brazen does it need to get?

The point here is not a question of the oft-quoted ideals of freedom, but where are we, as a world, despite those glorious platitudes? Can we recite one “All men are created equal and entitled to certain unalienable rights”?

We know that the world has nations with the destructive ability to annihilate civilisation many times over. Yet this same world, because of technology, can also feed and house every person on Earth. What a dichotomy — at the same time, what a marvellous reality!

There is no invisible hand guiding the world towards peace or war. Yet, war and destruction are inevitable if we don’t find a pathway towards peace and fulfilment. The two pathways are mutually exclusive — we either have one direction or the other.

This is where our economic philosophy becomes important. Marxism or Adam Smithian capitalism are not set in stone as the ultimate of choice. John Keynes, the postwar/economic prophet, tried to explain that.

What the world needs is the moral imperative to do “the good work”. It was supposed to be America that was to be the land of the free. If not America, who will stand with the courage to fight for right and prevent evil?

I leave this question because just a few years ago, there was a distinct description of the “Axis of Evil”. However, of late, the moral finger is wavering. There needs to be a rewrite of the United Nations and its charter of global objectives along more democratic and inclusive lines.

The political process has begun. The world, as it seems, transforms around a series of tragedies. Gaza may prove to be one such. We can almost predict that the next election cycle will be almost universally predicated on leaders' and pundits’ stances on the Gaza tragedy. The New York mayoral race is just one example of this phenomenon.