Multipolar or multibloc world: what is future?

The last two weeks saw great happenings. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation members gathered in Islamabad, Pakistan. They deliberated on the future role of SCO in the emerging global order and other issues of mutual interest. Pakistan led the meeting with sophistication and focus.

The BRICS Summit was held in Kazan, Russia. It was attended by heads of state of BRICS member states, new members, partners and aspirant members. They discussed multiple issues, including alternative currency, alternative payment systems, new world order, trade, security, etc. Alternative currency and payment systems are major attractions, and many people consider them the start of process of de-dollarisation.

These meetings happen at a time when the world is experiencing unprecedented changes and facing complicated problems like climate change and technology. The situation urges all the countries to comprehend challenges, opportunities and change process with wisdom. It can help convert challenges into opportunities, and change can be a new beginning of a prosperous and peaceful world.

Unfortunately, it is not happening. The world has been sharply divided into South and North poles, existing powers and their allies, and emerging and resurgent powers and their allies. These powers are fighting hard to secure their interests and legitimate places in the changing world order. They believe they deserve a more respectable and powerful place at the global level. They are determined to pursue the change process to take their legitimate place.

On the other hand, the old guards of global order are resisting change with all their might, protecting unipolar world order they have long enjoyed. They have failed to understand change is an irresistible phenomenon and that it has the power to devise its own way.

The tug-of-war is going on among proponents and opponents of the change. It revolves around two concepts: unipolarity and multipolarity. The US and its allies are interested in maintaining existing system, as the system favours them. They have consolidated their control by establishing economic, financial, and political institutions. For example, economic and financial system revolves around US dollar and the rules they crafted. The system is run by institutes like IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc., but is controlled by US and its allies.

Simultaneously, United Nations was created to maintain supremacy on diplomatic and political fronts. To consolidate control, Security Council, under United Nations, was formulated to control UN and decision-making at the global level. The US and its allies present this system as a rule-based system that promotes interests of all countries. They advocate it was built on principles of equality and inclusivity and has accelerated global growth, sustainable development, and peace. They quote the example of Russian and Chinese membership of UN Security Council.

However, Global South disagrees with terminology of a rule-based international order and its advocated features. They consider global system erected by US and its allies to be hegemonic in nature and to help them create a unipolar world. Moreover, security of a few countries was prioritised over the interests and needs of other countries, especially of weak countries.

Therefore, they started demanding reforms in the system to make it fair and equitable, promote inclusive, sustainable development and ensure sovereignty of every country. The Global South had long been asking for reforms, but their voices gained momentum after the launch of war on terror, the financial crisis of 2008 and rise of emerging economies.

Unfortunately, existing powers opted to ignore these voices because they were confident of their control over financial system, economy, security and political setup. They consider reforms as an attempt against their dominant role. They have deployed all instruments of resistance, and are busy erecting walls and disrupting change.

Against this backdrop, Global South started a campaign for a multipolar world and initiated process of creating new organizations, such as BRICS and SCO. China and Russia, being big powers, took the lead and advocated for a multipolar world.

More voices joined the drive for multipolarity, and now, different countries are working to create poles at different levels. For example, in Middle East, Saudi Arabia is working to create a pole with its regional friends and allies. UAE also seek to play a prominent role in a multipolar world. Turkiye and Iran are other aspiring players. ASEAN and African Union also dream of acquiring pole status in new world order. Even voices from Global North started to appear in favour of a multipolar world. French President proposed Europe should try to become a new pole in multipolar world.

It is feared a multipolar world can become multibloc if the process is not handled with wisdom, holistic approach and empathy-based diplomacy. There are reasons behind this assumption or fear. Organisations from Global South, like BRICS or SCO, will have to compete with well-established blocs of Global North, like NATO and G-7. The competition is expected to be fierce, as the West has already started to impose sanctions on members of these organisations. The intensity of competition could further sharpen divisions and cause a war for survival, which could compel BRICS and SCO to think and act differently, like a bloc.

The structure of the BRICS and SCO will determine whether they are partnership-based, open, inclusive organisations or exclusive and elite clubs or blocs within the Global South. To find the answer, we will have to wait for the decision on expansion. If to expand, what modalities and limitations would be? Will the expansion follow fundamental principles of multipolarity, as advocated by Russia and China, or in another way?

What will the work sphere be, whether these organisations work only for their members or for the Global South? There are multiple contenders for leading the Global South. So we must closely watch whether these contenders work in partnerships or try erecting their own poles or blocs.

The Global North has started creating new blocs like QUAD and AUKUS. They are engaging countries from Global South, which is part of the old policy of “divide and rule”. We saw an early glimpse of this policy’s success when a member of BRICS showed resistance to an alternative currency and system of payment. It is feared this process will be accelerated in the future and give birth to more blocs.

The above discussion leads to two conclusions. First, change is irreversible. It will devise its own ways, whether you like it or not. Second, the idea of multipolarity has gained momentum and traction over time; rather, it is becoming a new normal for the world. However, the process must be tackled with wisdom, inclusiveness and with open mind. Otherwise, the change process can create multiple blocs in the future, which would be a disaster for the world.