Waiting for Godot in the 21st Century: Humanity waits. The powerful manage time.

Samuel Beckett received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1969. His best-known play presents two men waiting for someone who never arrives. Seventy years after its premiere, that wait offers a way to examine a contradiction of the 21st century. Humanity possesses extraordinary resources, knowledge, and technologies, while millions of people continue waiting for food, security, housing, and political decisions that could change their lives.

I. TWO MEN WAITING

In 1953, a Parisian stage presented an apparently simple situation. Two men, Vladimir and Estragon, stood beside a tree waiting for a character named Godot. They talked, argued, recalled events, forgot others, and considered leaving. Yet they remained there. Godot never appeared. Samuel Beckett, an Irish writer born in Dublin in 1906, had created one of the foundational works of contemporary theater.

The play did not explain who Godot was or establish a definitive interpretation of his absence. That uncertainty allowed for multiple philosophical, religious, and political readings. Beckett himself avoided identifying the character with any specific figure. His theater explored the human condition, language, dependence, repetition, and the difficulties of finding meaning in existence.

Seventy-three years after that premiere, the world presents a situation that allows for a disturbing comparison. Millions of people await decisions from governments, international organizations, and economic authorities. They wait for a war to end, for a shipment of food to arrive, for a border to open, or for an international resolution to produce concrete consequences.

The difference is fundamental. Vladimir and Estragon remain waiting within a theatrical fiction. The people of Gaza, Rohingya refugees, displaced families in Sudan, and civilians trapped by the war in Ukraine face real situations. They are not all waiting for the same things, nor do their tragedies have the same causes. But they share one condition. Their future depends, in part, on decisions beyond their control.

International institutions announce conferences, negotiations, financial commitments, and reconstruction programs. Some interventions save lives, while others fail. Agreements can produce results, but they can also remain stalled for years. Meanwhile, those who wait continue to grow older, fall ill, and die.

“In Beckett’s theater, Godot was missing. In the 21st century, there is no shortage of his representatives.”

II. IRELAND, FAMINE, AND THE SHIPS OF EXILE

Between 1845 and 1852, Ireland suffered a demographic catastrophe that profoundly transformed its history. The disease that destroyed successive potato harvests struck particularly hard among an impoverished rural population whose diet depended on that crop. The Great Famine caused approximately one million deaths and triggered mass emigration that continued for decades.

Ireland was then part of the United Kingdom. The structure of land ownership, relations between landlords and tenants, rural poverty, and decisions made by the British government aggravated the consequences of the agricultural crisis. Potato blight was the biological trigger. The magnitude of the tragedy cannot be understood without examining the existing economic and political conditions.

During those years, Ireland continued exporting certain agricultural and livestock products, although the volume and composition of exports varied throughout the crisis. The coexistence of food trade and mass starvation exposed the limitations of a system in which the availability of food within a territory did not guarantee that its inhabitants could afford to buy it.

“Ireland exported food and buried the starving. Trade kept working. The Irish did not.”

Hundreds of thousands of Irish people embarked on journeys to North America. The United States received a substantial share of that exodus. New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and other cities became destinations for families abandoning their homes with little prospect of returning. Large numbers also arrived in Canada and Great Britain.

Ships crossing the Atlantic sometimes carried passengers in overcrowded conditions, with poor sanitation and inadequate food. Some became associated with the expression *coffin ships* because of the diseases and deaths that occurred during certain crossings. Not every voyage took place under the same conditions, but the danger was serious enough to remain embedded in Irish historical memory.

The United States welcomed numerous Irish immigrants, although that reception was accompanied by religious discrimination, social hostility, and anti-immigration political movements. Many newcomers were Catholic and poor. They had to enter difficult labor markets, accept dangerous jobs, and build community organizations to defend their interests.

Over successive generations, their descendants participated in American economic, cultural, and political life. Irish immigration helped transform cities, labor unions, institutions, and political parties. Those refugees from poverty became part of a society that was also built through successive waves of migration.

Today, the United States is once again debating its borders, asylum applications, deportations, and the admission of foreign workers. There are legal and historical differences between 19th-century migrations and those of today. Nevertheless, the comparison raises a legitimate question about collective memory and immigration policies.

“The grandchildren of those who arrived fleeing hunger now debate how many hungry people should be allowed in.”

Beckett was born more than half a century after the Great Famine. His work should not be presented as a direct consequence of that tragedy. But Ireland’s history provides an extraordinary historical background for examining waiting, abandonment, and human displacement.

The Irish did not wait indefinitely for their circumstances to change. Millions eventually left their country. Exile was a desperate response to conditions they could not resolve individually.

III. GODOT NEVER ARRIVED

Contemporary political history is filled with commitments whose fulfillment has been delayed for decades. The establishment of a Palestinian state remains an unresolved issue. The Rohingya population displaced to Bangladesh continues to face enormous obstacles to returning to Myanmar under conditions of safety and citizenship. Inhabitants of territories affected by prolonged conflicts await solutions that depend on numerous actors.

Political waiting does not always mean inactivity. Negotiations, partial agreements, humanitarian programs, and diplomatic efforts exist and produce verifiable results. But when structural solutions fail to arrive, provisional measures can become a permanent way of managing extraordinary situations.

Refugee camps illustrate that contradiction. In many cases, they were conceived as temporary responses to emergencies. Yet some have ended up housing entire generations. Children are born there who have never known the territory their parents fled.

The international community has developed conventions, specialized agencies, courts, and protection mechanisms. Their existence represents important institutional advances. The problem arises when adopted decisions lack effective implementation or when political interests prevent declarations from being translated into results.

“The permanent solution is under review. Burials, on the other hand, require no authorization.”

Beckett’s play contains an essential uncertainty. Its protagonists do not know whether Godot will arrive. In international politics, many populations know perfectly well who has the power to intervene. They know which governments control borders, who finances military operations, and which authorities can approve humanitarian corridors.

The question is not merely one of waiting. It is a matter of determining who possesses the power necessary to change the conditions that force people to wait.

IV. THOSE BORN WAITING

A child born in a refugee camp has played no part in the decisions that caused the displacement of their family. Nor has that child chosen the sanitary, educational, or nutritional conditions in which they will grow up. Their future may depend on their parents’ nationality, documents they do not possess, and political agreements negotiated thousands of miles away.

In Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, a vast Rohingya population lives under material and legal restrictions. Many families fled Myanmar during the violence of 2017, although Rohingya displacement has earlier precedents. Access to education, employment, medical services, and development opportunities remains constrained by their refugee status.

In Gaza, generations of children have grown up amid blockades, episodes of violence, and destruction. The consequences of war include deaths, injuries, displacement, interrupted schooling, and psychological harm. The scale of humanitarian needs requires distinguishing between military events, the responsibilities of different actors, and the protection owed to civilians.

Sudan presents another dimension of the tragedy. Since war erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces in April 2023, millions of people have been displaced. The conflict has destroyed infrastructure, disrupted agricultural production, and severely worsened food insecurity.

In Ukraine, Russia’s full-scale invasion, launched in February 2022, caused mass displacement, civilian deaths, and material destruction. Children separated from their homes have had to adapt to foreign schools, shelters, and new family circumstances. Others remain in territories exposed to attacks and restrictions.

The historical circumstances differ. So do the political and military responsibilities. But none of those differences diminishes children’s right to protection.

“Adults argue about who is right. Children learn first who is hungry.”

Childhood constitutes a particularly demanding measure of how the international system functions. It is not enough to count humanitarian budgets. We must examine how many children receive sufficient food, how many continue attending school, and how many can live without fear of attacks.

An entire generation can lose irreplaceable opportunities while governments negotiate. Childhood has no mechanism for recovering the years consumed by war.

V. THE FIVE LIONS DO NOT WAIT

The United States, China, Russia, the European Union, and India possess vastly different economic, diplomatic, technological, and military capabilities. Nor do they constitute a homogeneous bloc. Their interests coincide on certain issues and conflict on others. Nevertheless, all five play decisive roles in shaping the international order.

The United States maintains a worldwide network of alliances, military bases, and financial relationships. Its capacity to project force and impose sanctions influences numerous conflicts. It also provides resources to humanitarian operations and multilateral organizations. Both dimensions form part of its foreign policy.

China combines enormous industrial capacity with international investment, trade relationships, and a growing diplomatic presence. Its position as a permanent member of the Security Council allows it to participate in fundamental decisions. The protection of its trade routes, strategic resources, and territorial interests shapes its priorities.

Russia retains a substantial nuclear arsenal, extensive natural resources, and the capacity to exert military influence. Its intervention in Ukraine has produced far-reaching human, economic, and strategic consequences. Its participation in the Security Council and its relations with other states also influence regional conflicts.

The European Union is an economic and regulatory power, although its members maintain significant differences in defense and foreign policy. Its trade, migration, and financial decisions affect numerous countries. At the same time, it finances major cooperation and humanitarian assistance programs.

India, with its enormous population, technological capabilities, nuclear arsenal, and growing economic weight, seeks to expand its strategic autonomy. It maintains relations with rival powers and faces its own challenges involving development, security, and inequality.

These five actors are not responsible for every tragedy on the planet. Regional governments, armed organizations, economic elites, and national institutions also make decisive choices. Reducing every conflict to a conspiracy among great powers would prevent an understanding of its real causes.

But neither would it be reasonable to ignore the responsibilities of those who possess the greatest capacity to intervene.

“The five lions debate how power should be divided. The peoples of the world are still waiting for someone to distribute the bread.”

Global military budgets reach trillions of dollars annually. Their growth reflects perceived threats, actual conflicts, strategic rivalries, and sovereign decisions. Not all military spending can automatically be redirected toward social programs. Nevertheless, budgetary priorities reflect political choices.

States can mobilize enormous resources when they consider their security threatened. The question is why maintaining comparable commitments in the face of extreme hunger and poverty proves so much more difficult.

VI. THE PEACE THAT WILL ALWAYS ARRIVE TOMORROW

Peace occupies a central place in international speeches. Presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, and secretaries-general announce initiatives intended to end conflicts. Negotiations can continue for months or years while military operations and their humanitarian consequences persist.

Not all wars offer the same prospects for resolution. Some involve territorial disputes, others internal confrontations, ethnic rivalries, economic interests, or security threats. Agreements require guarantees, verification mechanisms, and commitments that the parties are willing to fulfill.
Diplomacy is not useless simply because it advances slowly. Numerous conflicts have ended through negotiations and international agreements. The problem arises when diplomatic language replaces decisions or when negotiations are used to buy time without changing conditions on the ground.

“Peace will arrive when the conditions are right. War, fortunately for those who administer it, is not nearly so demanding.”

The United Nations has mechanisms to mediate, coordinate aid, and promote agreements. But the Security Council reflects a distribution of power established at the end of World War II. Its five permanent members possess veto power, which can block resolutions even in the face of severe humanitarian crises.

That structure presents a contradiction. The institution responsible for preserving international peace depends, when making certain decisions, on the consent of the very powers that may be involved in the disputes.

The result is not a complete absence of action. Humanitarian agencies continue working, peacekeeping operations perform certain functions, and specialized organizations provide assistance. Nevertheless, their capabilities face political, financial, and operational limits.

Meanwhile, the word *peace* continues appearing in official declarations. Repeating it does not guarantee that it will become a reality.

VII. THE BUSINESS OF WAITING

Wars destroy lives, homes, industries, hospitals, schools, and productive systems. They also generate extraordinary demand for weapons, security equipment, transportation, logistical services, and, eventually, reconstruction.
The defense industry is an economically important sector in numerous countries. Its companies manufacture goods intended for both national defense and overseas military operations. Contracts can reach billions of dollars and sustain complex industrial supply chains.

It would be incorrect to claim that all wars are caused by weapons manufacturers. Their causes are far more diverse. Nevertheless, it is essential to examine the economic incentives associated with prolonged conflicts and the influence that certain sectors may exert over public decisions.

“War destroys a city. Then comes the budget to rebuild it. Two contracts and one population buried.”

Reconstruction can also represent an urgent human necessity. Restoring hospitals, electrical grids, housing, and water systems is essential for a society to function again. The problem does not lie in reconstruction itself, but in the possibility that opaque contracts, corruption, or private interests may divert resources intended for victims.

Prolonged conflicts also disrupt energy markets, trade routes, agricultural prices, and financial flows. Their consequences may temporarily benefit certain producers while severely harming consumers, workers, and importing countries.

Civilian populations often bear costs that are not fully reflected in economic statistics. Lost schooling, disease, permanent disabilities, and the destruction of family networks can have consequences lasting for generations.

In this context, waiting also carries an economic cost. Every year without effective reconstruction reduces productive opportunities and increases dependence on foreign assistance.

VIII. GODOT HAS A PASSPORT

The 21st century has transportation systems capable of connecting continents in a matter of hours. Yet the ability to move remains deeply dependent on birthplace, nationality, income, and decisions made by states.

A citizen of a country with extensive mobility agreements may travel through numerous territories without first applying for a visa. Another person, born in a region affected by war, may face administrative obstacles even when attempting to reunite with family.

States have the right to regulate their borders in accordance with international law. They must also respect their obligations concerning refugee protection and human rights. Legitimate debate over migration includes security, reception capacity, labor integration, and the sustainability of public services.

But there is an essential difference between managing borders and disregarding the humanity of those attempting to cross them.

“Capital crosses borders in seconds. The hungry must first prove that they deserve to arrive alive.”

Irish history brings us back to the United States. During the 19th century, numerous immigrants arrived without sufficient resources and faced discrimination. Their descendants eventually became integrated into American society, although that process was marked by conflict and inequality.

Today, American immigration policies reflect tensions among economic needs, border control, humanitarian protection, and domestic political disputes. There is no automatic equivalence between that earlier immigration and present-day displacement, but there is historical continuity in the debate over who may enter and under what conditions.
Europe faces similar dilemmas. Mediterranean migration routes have recorded thousands of deaths over recent decades. Immigration control policies coexist with humanitarian obligations and labor needs arising, among other factors, from an aging population.

Refugees cannot wait indefinitely. Their need for protection begins when their safety is threatened, not when an administrative negotiation concludes.

IX. THE 21ST CENTURY CANNOT KEEP WAITING

Humanity possesses scientific and technological capabilities that would have been unimaginable to previous generations. Agricultural production uses advanced systems of mechanization, fertilization, genetics, and logistics. Medicine can prevent or treat diseases that once caused millions of deaths.

Artificial intelligence is transforming industrial, financial, scientific, and administrative processes. Satellites make it possible to monitor crops, floods, and population movements. Computer systems can coordinate international supply chains with enormous precision.

Nevertheless, technological progress does not, by itself, guarantee an equitable distribution of its benefits. Poverty, conflicts, institutional restrictions, and income inequality limit access to essential goods for millions of people.

“We have machines capable of learning on their own and governments that still have not learned how to prevent a child from dying of hunger.”

Contemporary hunger cannot be explained exclusively by insufficient global food production. Conflicts, difficulties in economic access, logistical problems, climate disruptions, and political decisions also play a role.

In some territories, food is available, but families lack the income needed to purchase it. In others, wars prevent supplies from being transported. There are also regions where droughts, floods, and environmental deterioration severely reduce production.

Solutions require different policies depending on each situation. Distributing food during an emergency is not enough if the conditions generating food insecurity subsequently persist. Nor is increasing production sufficient when households lack the resources needed to purchase it.

The great powers possess significant capabilities to help resolve these problems. But national authorities, regional organizations, businesses, and communities also play essential roles.

The 21st century needs to evaluate its results through concrete human indicators: how many people have enough to eat, how many children attend school, how many families have access to safe water, and how many displaced people can return home.

Technological capability must also be measured by its effects on everyday life.

X. BECKETT HAD A QUESTION

Samuel Beckett died in Paris in 1989. He did not witness the contemporary expansion of the internet, generative artificial intelligence, or the geopolitical transformations of the 21st century. Nor did he write *Waiting for Godot* as a treatise on international relations.

His work belongs to literature and allows interpretations that must not be confused with the author’s demonstrated intentions. But precisely that openness makes it possible to use the play as a starting point for reflection on time, uncertainty, and dependence.

Vladimir and Estragon continue waiting because they believe someone will arrive. Waiting shapes their conversations and decisions. Godot’s absence determines what they do and what they refrain from doing.

In the contemporary world, millions of people wait because they have no alternatives. A refugee cannot return to an unsafe territory simply because they have decided to stop waiting. A family living under siege cannot open a humanitarian corridor on its own. A hungry child cannot change national budgets.

Waiting, then, is not a philosophical choice. It is a material condition imposed by political, economic, and military circumstances.

“The powerful have calendars. The poor have ages. And age does not stand still while calendars are being negotiated.”

Ireland offers a historical warning. During the Great Famine, economic and political decisions failed to prevent a demographic catastrophe. Millions of people died or left the country. Emigration permanently altered its social structure.

The United States received a substantial share of those emigrants. Their descendants helped build one of the greatest powers on the planet. History demonstrates that those who arrive fleeing poverty can make decisive contributions to the development of the societies that receive them.

Today, other peoples face hunger, wars, and displacement. Their circumstances are not identical to those of Ireland. But they share a common question concerning the ability of institutions to protect those who lack power.

International responsibility does not consist of promising impossible solutions or attributing every problem to a single power. It consists of identifying feasible decisions, assigning verifiable responsibilities, and evaluating their human consequences.
The United States, China, Russia, the European Union, and India may disagree profoundly over security, trade, technology, and international organization. Their differences do not eliminate the need to cooperate in the face of humanitarian catastrophes.

The protection of civilians, food assistance, and healthcare should not depend on the powers first reaching agreements on all their strategic disputes.

“Declaring war takes one decision. Feeding its victims takes twenty conferences.”

Beckett created a play in which waiting remains unresolved. International politics, by contrast, can and must be evaluated through results. An agreement fulfilled, a population protected, or a restored supply system represents real change.

Humanity does not need another mysterious character upon whom to place its hopes. It needs accountable institutions, governments capable of fulfilling commitments, and societies able to demand results.

The problem of the 21st century is not that Godot never appears. It is that too many known, possible, and necessary decisions continue to be postponed while their consequences fall upon those least able to bear them.

The final question does not belong to Beckett alone. It belongs to those who are still waiting.

How many generations must disappear before waiting is no longer considered a solution?

“Godot never arrived. Hunger, on the other hand, was always punctual.”

Author: Mauricio Herrera Kahn

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Samuel Beckett.En attendant Godot. Les Éditions de Minuit, 1952.
2. Cormac Ó Gráda.Black ’47 and Beyond: The Great Irish Famine in History, Economy, and Memory. Princeton University Press, 1999.
3. Christine Kinealy.This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845–52. Gill & Macmillan, 1994.
4. UNHCR, UNICEF, FAO, and the World Food Programme. Institutional reports on forced displacement, childhood, food security, and humanitarian emergencies.

Mauricio Herrera Kahn