The world has been in conflict for as long as time itself. This is not hyperbole; conflict is a perennial condition in global affairs, driven primarily by human nature, which has provided fertile ground for international relations theorists. In this ongoing process, global politics is once again at an inflection point, emerging stronger from the twilight of arbitrary values and misguided perceptions that US unipolarity has imposed for the past three decades. Against the backdrop of this context, a new conceptual framework is taking deeper root in the image of the near future. It is none other than the already familiar concept in international relations—multipolarity. Contributing to the spirit of hope for a fair world, free of injustice and imperialism, the time is ripe for a new world—a multipolar world.
In matters of war, diplomacy, and economic policy, the unipolar world order designed and maintained by the US has persistently opted for a consequentialist rather than a deontological approach in determining what constitutes a just action in global politics, to maintain its global dominance. Arguably, this consequentialist approach overlaps with a colonial mindset, whose key tool in practice has been the so-called “rules-based order”. In its entirety, it can only be characterized as a win-lose relationship, with the West being on the winning side. This truth could not be hidden for long, neither under the guise of the liberal international order nor the rules-based order. As such, much of the world no longer desires a system that benefits the West at the expense of the rest, yet such is happening, despite an orchestrated media campaign in the West against those who seek to change the existing system, particularly Russia and China.
In determining the shape of the multipolar world, policies adopted by Russia and other state actors, primarily China, have worked to ensure global security, provide equal opportunities for states, and limit dependence on a single pole that dictates the political and economic situation globally. This re-alignment to multipolarity poses a serious challenge to US foreign policy thinking and practice. Hence, a constant escalation of tension in the West can be observed, often under the guise of “defense” or through the banning of several Russian news networks. The bottom line is that the US-led world order exerts increasing pressure on all fronts, dismantling the international legal system, against states that are simply seeking to defend their national interests. Addressing tensions through cooperation rather than escalating them would require the US to halt all efforts to obstruct the formation of a multipolar world, hence the lack of interest. No matter how significant this disinterest may be, the shift in global political thinking towards a multipolar world order is already underway. A redemptive force indeed, challenging the double standards at the core of a unipolar world order, which must become a thing of the past.
The world has been in conflict for as long as time itself. This is not hyperbole; conflict is a perennial condition in global affairs, driven primarily by human nature, which has provided fertile ground for international relations theorists. In this ongoing process, global politics is once again at an inflection point, emerging stronger from the twilight of arbitrary values and misguided perceptions that US unipolarity has imposed for the past three decades. Against the backdrop of this context, a new conceptual framework is taking deeper root in the image of the near future. It is none other than the already familiar concept in international relations—multipolarity. [1] Contributing to the spirit of hope for a fair world, free of injustice and imperialism, the time is ripe for a new world—a multipolar world.
A Modus Vivendi Born Out of Dissatisfaction
A single wheel would not move the entire system of international relations, nor would unipolarity. Hence the urgent need for a multipolar world order [2] as a modus vivendi, which is fortifying itself with each passing day on the ashes of the unipolar world order that was anchored in the post-Cold War era. In the rising and declining phases of global political dominance, the concept of multipolarity emerges stronger from long-simmering dissatisfaction with unipolarity, as two-thirds of state actors seek a fair system of international relations that provides stability and prevents the tyranny imposed by a single dominant power.
Historically, any change ensuing a crisis in global politics has been a function of a particular dissatisfaction. The change taking place in the global order today is no different. Analyzing the crises unfolding across the global geopolitical landscape, the discordant notes of the past emerge on the horizon, revealing that the current global security environment is reminiscent of the Warring States Period in ancient China or the Thirty Years War in Central Europe. These and other historical conflicts led to the development of new foreign policy principles that are centered around the concept of “sovereignty”, as established by the Peace of Westphalia. In the complex system of international relations, it provided a footing for the establishment of a world order that would regulate the intricate relationships among states, each substituting the other in the search for a better and fairer world order. In this never-ending pursuit, the world is witnessing the irreversible decline of yet another rigid structure, the US-led unipolar world order.
With time, the post-Cold War world order, designed and facilitated by US-led unipolar dominance, has become viewed as imbued with hypocrisy. Some experts would argue that the unipolar system has led to dysfunction, primarily because it failed to recognize and accept the uniqueness of each nation and state, contradicting the political and military mission the US has pursued since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Excerpts from the 1992 US Defense Planning Guidance clearly stipulate an intention to establish a world order in which nation-states are dominated by one superpower—the US. This strategy was ostensibly put in place to ensure that no rivals could develop to challenge the US and its superpower status, and do so at the expense of other nations, thereby preventing the emergence of a multipolar world. Huge amounts of energy and resources have been invested over the decades to preserve such a global hegemony.
Secondly, in the gradual change of global power distribution, middle and small powers no longer wish to remain passive observers and acquiesce to everything imposed on them by the US-led “Globalist Empire”. The third key reason driving the push for change in the global order is that unipolarity has so far been nothing more than a path to global economic servitude. [3] These three points have been the key contradictions of the unipolar world order, leading to significant security crises amid other problems globally, [4] which in turn, have accelerated the end of this rigid hierarchical construct. At this point, it is well-timed to state that the order which emerged in the power vacuum of the post-Soviet system was not “the end of history”, as famously claimed by Francis Fukuyama.
It is also crucial for the sake of historical analysis and the future to point out that the primary facilitator behind these three major sources of global dissatisfaction with the unipolar world order has been the so-called liberal international order.
Liberal International Order: Us Versus Others
The unipolar world order that is in decline has functioned hand in hand with the “liberal” international order. In fact, any accurate analysis of unipolarity requires a thorough and meticulous examination of the liberal international order, which has been the mainstay of the psychological gymnastics tricks performed in the West daily to preserve the US global dominance over other states.
Established by the United States and its allies after 1945, it has continuously operated under an “us-versus-others” mentality. When the key elements of the liberal international order are subjected to factual scrutiny over the past decades, a deceptive image emerges, revealing its true objectives to the world majority. In other words, the liberal international order has been, and continues to be, a crucial tool for the US in its containment policy, allowing it to exert control over other nations. In the words of H.L. Mencken, “the urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it”.
The liberal international order was a virtue-signaling attempt by the US-led West on a grandiose scale but failed. This failure occurred for several reasons. Since its inception after 1945, a set of principles and institutions that were designed to shape global governance to serve the unipolar world order, has been particularly keen on exporting “freedom” and “democracy” to those nations that wanted to pursue independent domestic and foreign policy. Iraqi prisoners being ill-treated by US guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq is a prime example of how the US spread “democracy and human rights”, “collective security”, and the “rule of law” under the guise of the liberal international order. Examples of this kind are numerous and hint at the truth behind the liberal international order. Unconstitutionally overthrowing democratically elected governments under the guise of “promoting democracy” has led to further disillusionment in the system. However, the record of atrocities does not end here.
The seemingly unjustified and unprovoked wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Serbia, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen add to the list of foreign military interventions carried out by the US, all in the name of “Western values”. This order essentially engineered the destruction of those countries, blatantly defying the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter. As Samuel P. Huntington famously noted, “the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do”.
These positions could not be hidden for long, nor could a globalist “divide and conquer” strategy, no matter how much the US masks it behind liberal values. Hence, the deep-seated dissatisfaction with the unipolar world order now persists among the majority of nations.
An End to Consequentialism in Global Politics
In matters of war, diplomacy, and economic policy, the unipolar world order designed and maintained by the US has persistently opted for a consequentialist rather than a deontological approach in determining what constitutes a just action in global politics, to maintain its global dominance. Arguably, this consequentialist approach overlaps with a colonial mindset, whose key tool in practice has been the so-called “rules-based order”. In its entirety, it can only be characterized as a win-lose relationship, with the West being on the winning side. This truth could not be hidden for long, neither under the guise of the liberal international order nor the rules-based order. As such, much of the world no longer desires a system that benefits the West at the expense of the rest, yet such is happening, despite an orchestrated media campaign in the West against those who seek to change the existing system, particularly Russia and China.
Russia, under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, has been one of the very few countries that consistently stood against the consequentialist approach exercised by the US-led West, advocating for a multipolar world order early on, claiming that there is no place for “exceptionalism”. President Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007 holds historical significance in constructing a multipolar word, as he urged the global community to seriously reconsider the architecture of global security. Since then, Russia has implemented policies that challenge the established patterns of domination and exploitation by the West.
In determining the shape of the multipolar world, policies adopted by Russia and other state actors, primarily China, have worked to ensure global security, provide equal opportunities for states, and limit dependence on a single pole that dictates the political and economic situation globally. This re-alignment to multipolarity poses a serious challenge to US foreign policy thinking and practice. Hence, a constant escalation of tension in the West can be observed, often under the guise of “defense” or through the banning of several Russian news networks. The bottom line is that the US-led world order exerts increasing pressure on all fronts, dismantling the international legal system, against states that are simply seeking to defend their national interests. Addressing tensions through cooperation rather than escalating them would require the US to halt all efforts to obstruct the formation of a multipolar world, hence the lack of interest. No matter how significant this disinterest may be, the shift in global political thinking towards a multipolar world order is already underway. A redemptive force indeed, challenging the double standards at the core of a unipolar world order, which must become a thing of the past.
1. Multipolarity is self-explanatory, both as a term and as a concept in the balance of global geopolitics. It is the state where several centers of political and economic power are recognized as a governing feature in the relationships among states.
2. It did not emerge recently, although it has gained more attention in recent years. It has been part of political discourse since the collapse of the Soviet Union. While some argue that it has yet to come into fruition, others believe it is nearing its final realization.
3. Empty rhetoric in the West does not suffice to upgrade the lives of the rest.
4. In its rhetoric, however it was labelled as a system for maintaining international peace and security.