World War 3 Has Already Started
The world is currently facing multiple armed conflicts, yet many people only focus on the most high-profile ones, like the wars between Russia and Ukraine or Israel and Hamas. These conflicts dominate the media landscape in the English-speaking world. However, there are actually 144 active war zones worldwide, according to the Human Rights Institute. For example, Colombia has been dealing with long-standing conflicts involving rebel groups and drug cartels for decades.
While Ukraine and Israel are in the spotlight, many other regions, like Syria, Yemen, and parts of Africa, continue to experience significant violence and instability. One area of growing concern is the tension between the United States and China. This rivalry is escalating, with both countries competing to become the next global superpower.
China has been increasing its military presence around Taiwan, while the U.S. has been supporting Taiwan with weapons and financial aid. The United States is preparing for a potential future conflict, although it's uncertain when or how this might unfold. China’s influence in Taiwan is growing, and the political situation there is becoming more complex, much like the divisions in the U.S. government.
When people ask about the possibility of World War III, some might argue that it has already begun, albeit in a different form than previous world wars. Instead of massive armies clashing on open battlefields, today’s conflicts often involve proxy wars, where powerful nations support smaller countries to fight on their behalf. This strategy allows them to avoid direct confrontation while still exerting influence.
Proxy wars have been a significant part of global conflicts since the end of the Global War on Terror, and they continue to shape international relations today. The U.S. is currently dealing with the consequences of prolonged conflicts, such as the Global War on Terror, which lasted almost 20 years. Wars are becoming longer, and proxy conflicts could potentially last for decades.
The United States might not be the world’s sole superpower by 2032, raising concerns about the future of global leadership and stability. The nature of war has changed, with a focus on preserving economies and industries, rather than destroying them, as was common in the past. This shift has made proxy wars more viable, as they allow for quicker recovery and economic gain after the conflict ends.
There is also growing concern about the possibility of a draft in my own country, Bangladesh, especially as the conflict between Bangladesh and India has been building over several decades, rooted in historical, cultural, and political tensions. This complex relationship often oscillates between cooperation and conflict, influenced by issues ranging from border disputes to trade imbalances and water-sharing agreements.
The underlying tensions between Bangladesh and India have the potential to escalate, highlighting the possibility of a broader conflict that could have significant implications for the region. India’s deliberate flooding in Bangladesh and the increased influence of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), an Indian intelligence agency, in Bangladesh have exacerbated tensions.
Both countries accuse each other of harboring criminal elements and failing to manage diplomatic relations effectively. This mutual distrust makes any attempt at reconciliation or cooperation a challenging endeavor. Water-sharing agreements, or the lack thereof, represent another flashpoint. The water conflict between these two countries is crucial because most water bodies in the region flow from India to Bangladesh.
India’s control over the upstream water flow has been a source of contention, especially during the dry season, when water scarcity becomes a severe issue for Bangladeshi farmers and communities. The construction of dams and barrages by India, such as the controversial Farakka Barrage, has sparked protests and political unrest in Bangladesh. These water disputes are critical because they directly affect the livelihoods of millions of people in Bangladesh, turning a natural resource issue into a potential catalyst for conflict.
Beyond physical borders and natural resources, economic competition plays a crucial role in the growing tension. Bangladesh and India both aim to establish themselves as economic powerhouses in South Asia. While trade relations have generally been robust, concerns about trade imbalances and protectionist policies persist. Bangladesh often feels overshadowed by India's economic clout, leading to suspicions that India may not always act in good faith regarding bilateral trade agreements.
Moreover, the influence of external powers adds another layer of complexity to the Bangladesh-India dynamic. China's growing involvement in South Asia has made India increasingly cautious about its smaller neighbors. Bangladesh’s strategic partnership with China, which includes significant Chinese investment in infrastructure projects like the Payra Port and the Padma Bridge, is viewed by India with suspicion.
India worries that increased Chinese or American influence in Bangladesh could diminish its own regional dominance, leading to a classic case of power politics where alliances and rivalries shape national policies and responses. In recent years, political rhetoric has also fueled the flames of tension. Nationalist sentiments are rising on both sides, often accompanied by inflammatory statements from political leaders.
Bangladesh has a growing sense of national pride and assertiveness, stemming from its economic successes and significant improvements in various human development indices. Meanwhile, in India, a surge of Hindu nationalism under the current government has led to fears of marginalization among the Muslim community in Bangladesh, further straining the bilateral relationship.
These multiple layers of conflict, if left unresolved, could lead to an escalation that may not remain confined to diplomatic skirmishes or economic retaliation. The prospect of an armed conflict, although not immediate, cannot be entirely ruled out. Such a scenario would not only destabilize South Asia but could also draw in global powers, each with its own strategic interests in the region.
The path forward for Bangladesh and India should ideally focus on dialogue and cooperation. Addressing the disputes through mutual agreements, ensuring fair water-sharing practices, and balancing economic relations would be crucial steps toward de-escalation. Building trust is vital, and it requires both nations to look beyond short-term gains and focus on long-term stability and prosperity for the people.
In a region as interconnected as South Asia, the benefits of peace and collaboration far outweigh the potential devastation of conflict. Despite the challenges, there is hope for the future. Bangladesh was founded on the principles of independence, and these values have made the country strong and resilient. However, there is a need to move away from the current political polarization and embrace collaboration, rather than compromise, to solve problems.
The silent majority of Bangladeshis, who sit in the middle of the political spectrum, need to speak up and take action. This could help our country regain its sense of unity and purpose, leading to a brighter future for all. Ultimately, the path forward requires recognizing that whether it’s in global conflicts or domestic issues, the ability to work together, while maintaining our individual strengths, will be crucial in navigating the complex world we live in.