Op-Ed: In Global Politics, You’re Either at the Table — or on the Menu
“If you’re not at the table in the international system, you’re on the menu.”
These were the words of former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the 2024 Munich Security Conference — a strikingly candid admission of the brutal calculus that defines international politics. In saying the quiet part out loud, Blinken exposed a truth often dressed up in the language of democracy, human rights, and international law: the global order is not guided by morality, but by power, interest, and the pursuit of dominance.
The world today is not a harmonious community of nations. It is a high-stakes competition — a rat race — where a select few wealthy and militarily powerful countries compete for global supremacy. Fair play is idealized, but rarely practiced. More often, it is coercion, manipulation, and the strategic use of force that determine outcomes. In this reality, smaller or less powerful nations are not just sidelined — they are frequently the collateral damage.
At the center of today’s geopolitical contest is the escalating rivalry between the United States and China, two superpowers locked in a complex struggle for economic, technological, and military dominance. Russia remains a factor, though its global clout has waned compared to its Cold War-era influence. Yet the field is not limited to these giants. Several regional powers — including Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey — are staking out increasingly assertive roles within their spheres of influence. They may not yet be vying for global hegemony, but their actions suggest a growing appetite for strategic autonomy and regional dominance.
This is the unvarnished nature of global politics: a system in which national interest trumps principle, and where alliances are formed not out of shared values but out of mutual benefit or shared threats. The rhetoric of democracy versus dictatorship is often little more than a smokescreen. In practice, both democratic and authoritarian states alike engage in the same zero-sum competition for influence and advantage.
The consequences for countries not “at the table” are profound. These nations often find themselves at the mercy of shifting alliances, proxy wars, and economic coercion — their sovereignty compromised, their futures shaped not by their own aspirations, but by the interests of others.
Understanding this reality is not a call for cynicism, but for clarity. If the global system is to be reimagined as more equitable and cooperative, we must first acknowledge what it truly is: a contest of power. Only then can we begin to ask whether a different kind of table is possible — one where more nations have a real seat, and fewer are served up as the main course.
Anonymous 