Diplomatic quips and movements have had their strong hold on the sustainability policies the world over, and it has become critical for policy endorsements and support to make real the aspirations of a sustainable global community. Therefore, changes in policy movements and approaches have a resounding impact on sustainable frameworks and models. Political goodwill is undeniably one of the most significant capitals for sustainability work. In practice, lobby groups, financial institutions, and advocacy champions spend their time in Washington, in Paris, and London to sway policy direction.

Thus, the splinter of the liberal international order made more real at the elite forum in Davos, with Mark Carney the Canadian Prime Minister bold statements, signal that this not is merely a moment of transition, but a broader reckoning with multilateralism itself. Historically, the liberalist international order has been the greatest champion for multistakeholder partnerships and engagements, with collaboration towards common goals being a driving force for global aspirations. Indeed, this has had its rallying calls, and shortfalls. Nevertheless, it has been the better route, so far, especially in areas where outright answers are far to come by or where unilateral action is unrealizable (particularly for small powers whose dependencies limit realist maneuverability).

However, as realist logics regain prominence and great powers increasingly shape global outcomes through hegemonic bargaining, the prospects for equitable participation narrow. For actors lacking the leverage of middle or great powers, sustainability becomes less a policy choice and more a survival strategy; one pursued amid uncertainty, shifting alliances, and uneven access to global commons. In such a landscape, restraint and diplomatic hesitation no longer guarantee protection. Instead, marginalized voices must articulate their claims more directly within the global political economy.

Thus, small powers, a majority of which are in the Global South, contend to raise enduring but unresolved questions: Should Africa demand fair valuation and pricing for its nature-based assets, including rare earth minerals and agricultural resources? Should historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions translate into compensation or reparative mechanisms? These questions are not new, but their urgency intensifies as global order becomes more fragmented and transactional.

Yet the central challenge for sustainability advocates may not lie in choosing between realism or liberalism, but in grounding sustainability at its most fundamental level: the community. What forms of resilience are possible if global systems fail or access is disrupted? Can societies feed themselves, maintain functional supply chains, and meet essential needs under conditions of external shock? These questions sit at the core of long-term thinking across both national and grassroots scales.

That’s why, more efforts should be put, now, in building sustainability with more resilient communities that can wager the threats of shifts in international order, and endure the shifting winds of globalization. The choice of sustainability (as an alternative order) is realization that as international orders evolve, humanity’s well-being will depend more on localized capacity, adaptive systems, and collective self-organization rather than the presumed stability of global governance structures.