Interview Examines Whether Capitalism Still Powers Modern Conflicts and the Prospect of Global South Sovereignty

On 28 April 2026, journalist Varsha Gandikota‑Nellutla conducted a conversation with political economist Jason Hickel that, rather than unveiling unexpected revelations, reiterated the longstanding argument that the mechanisms of global capitalism continue to serve as a catalyst for armed confrontations while simultaneously constraining the capacity of states in the Global South to exercise genuine autonomy, a point underscored by the interviewer's insistence on probing the feasibility of reclaiming sovereignty in a world still dominated by debt‑laden financial arrangements and trade dependencies.

The dialogue unfolded in a sequence that began with a direct question regarding the extent to which profit‑driven imperatives, supply‑chain competition, and the strategic interests of multinational corporations intersect with the outbreak of contemporary wars, proceeded to an examination of how these economic imperatives translate into policy choices that privilege security‑industry lobbying over diplomatic conflict resolution, and concluded with a skeptical appraisal of existing international institutions, which, rather than facilitating a redistribution of power, appear structurally predisposed to perpetuate the very hierarchies that undermine the self‑determination of peripheral nations.

Throughout the exchange, Hickel’s responses highlighted a pattern of systemic inertia, noting that while rhetorical commitments to decolonization and equitable development surface regularly in diplomatic forums, the procedural realities—such as conditional lending, intellectual property regimes, and the ubiquity of structural adjustment mechanisms—remain largely untouched, thereby exposing a predictable inconsistency between professed values and operational practices, a gap that Gandikota‑Nellutla subtly emphasized by repeatedly returning to the question of whether any substantive shift in the balance of power is conceivable under the current order.

In sum, the interview, far from offering a novel blueprint for change, serves as a reminder that the prevailing economic architecture, with its entrenched interests and procedural opacity, continues to generate conflict and impede the emergence of true sovereignty for nations outside the traditional centers of wealth, a conclusion that, while unsurprising to seasoned observers, nevertheless underscores the need for a critical reassessment of the mechanisms that sustain both war and dependency.

Published: April 28, 2026