JULY 16 — A former Colombian president recently told Al Jazeera that the world faces four existential threats: nuclear war, climate change, pandemics, and artificial intelligence. And many believe he’s right — we’re not managing any of them well. Let’s be honest. On nuclear weapons, we’ve gone back to Cold War-style brinkmanship. On climate change, we talk big at summits but keep digging up fossil fuels. On pandemics, we let our guard down the moment the masks come off. And on AI, we’re racing ahead without seatbelts, let alone brakes.

Do we agree with him? Absolutely. These aren’t separate problems. They’re four symptoms of the same disease: short-term thinking. Politicians focus on the next election, companies on the next quarter, and the rest of us on surviving today. Meanwhile, the bombs, the heatwaves, the next virus, and the algorithms are all ticking. So how would we fix this? Definitely not with more vague promises.

As for the suggestions, first, the world must treat nuclear disarmament like the emergency it is. Renew treaties, lower alert levels, and make a “no first use” pledge the global norm — not the exception. Second, on the climate fiasco, stop subsidising what we’re trying to stop. Tax carbon, invest in green infrastructure, and make polluters pay for the damage. Not in 2050 — this decade. Third, for pandemics, build a permanent global early-warning system and local vaccine production in every region. Many are asking why is there still no vaccine for Ebola, when Covid produced many vaccines in the shortest time. Is it to do with the commercial potential? Most of all, there should be no more begging for doses during a crisis. Fourth, on AI, we need a binding international safety standard before the first algorithm makes a catastrophic decision we can’t reverse. Pause high-risk systems until basic tests are law.

None of this is impossible. It just requires leaders who think in decades, not days—and citizens who demand it. The former president of Colombia is right to sound the alarm. Now we need to wake up. So here’s the hard follow-up: Do we actually have the kind of leaders who can solve these four threats? Honestly? Not enough of them.

We have plenty of politicians who give great speeches. We have CEOs who promise “responsibility” while racing their rivals. But real leaders? The ones who tell hard truths, sacrifice short-term gain for long-term safety, and cooperate across borders? They’re rare. Most are still playing small games — blaming immigrants, banning books, or bashing the other party — while the planet burns and the algorithms learn to outsmart us.

That’s why the former president is also right about something unspoken: we need to bring back multilateralism — but not the old, slow, bureaucratic kind as we saw in the UN, WTO and the rest. The old version failed because it was too polite, too slow, and too easy to ignore. Rich countries did what they wanted. Poor countries begged. And when a crisis hit, everyone ran home.

So yes, we need modified multilateralism. What would that look like? First, smaller, faster action groups. Not 193 countries trying to agree on a comma. But issue-based coalitions — say, 10 big economies on AI safety, or 15 high-emission nations on carbon pricing — that agree to move first and invite others to catch up. Peer pressure works better than paperwork. Second, real consequences. If a country breaks the rules on nuclear escalation or unleashes an unsafe AI model, instant sanctions — not years of debate. Think of it like a global fire alarm, not a book club. Third, give up the veto romance. The UN Security Council’s veto is a relic. Modify it: no veto on genocide, pandemics, or climate emergencies. If that means creating a new body alongside the old one, fine. The threat is urgent; the architecture should be too.

How can the world do this? Not by waiting for a superhero. We do it the slow, boring way: citizens pushing, media exposing, young people refusing to accept “too difficult.” Then politicians follow — or get replaced. We don’t need perfect leaders. We need enough leaders, in enough countries, with enough fear of their own people if they fail. Multilateralism 2.0 won’t be handed down from on high. It will be built from the bottom up, crisis by crisis. The question isn’t whether we can. It’s whether we will — before the fourth threat, AI, starts making that decision for us. As a country not spared from such threats, we in Malaysia must do the same. Otherwise, stop dreaming about sustainability. It is gone.

* Professor Datuk Ahmad Ibrahim is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at ahmadibrahim@ucsiuniversity.edu.my

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.