In the figurative dictionary of international relations, the term multipolarity has historically served as a measuring stick for power distribution at the global level. It refers to a system unrestricted to one but rather includes several governing entities capable of propelling their agenda at a large scale across the globe. GDP, military capacity, and diplomatic influence are conventional indicators used to measure power concentration.
Is it still as simple as that today? While the notion of multipolarity in its classical sense answered the question, “What happens when power is concentrated in specific states? Even more than one.” The world has evolved to a point where complexities such as identity clashes, non-traditional security threats, and the rapid evolution of the idea of a state have removed the understanding of multipolarity from specific states and transformed it into a transnational dilemma.
Constructivist Challenge to Polarity
Alexander Wendt’s articulation of constructivism describes international politics as intersubjective, rather than a material reality alone. Wendt’s argument that “Anarchy is what states make of it” posits that international relations are not defined by tanks or currency; they are socially constructed to assimilate legitimacy of influence, acceptance of norms, and reproduction of identities. The entities or states that can be considered a ‘pole’ did not always rely on capability, but on recognition of normative influence or authority.
The reductionist understandings of normative aspects of power driven by realists and neo-realists brought this down to military might. However, the fact stands that the post-Cold War world has taken on a civilizational discourse. For example, the United States may not have a military rival in raw terms; however, the civilizational identity and history of nations such as China, Russia, and India afford them soft power projection and greater cultural discourse, allowing them to cement their spheres of influence. From the historical footprints of Babylon in Iraq to the ancient customs of Egypt, polarity is no longer restricted to great powers.
What Happened to the Westphalian Template?
Confrontation with the Westphalian order has been a longstanding debate between structuralists and liberals alike. The principles of non-intervention, territorial sovereignty, and the equal status of states are as attractive as a laurel wreath on the head of a conquering prince. However, the selective employment of these principles along with the emergence of newer governance models and non-state actors gaining more traction has perpetually de-linked the chain of Westphalian sentiments from the railguard that is the world order.
The more sophisticated catalysts that marked the end of the Westphalian understanding were those found in regional integration frameworks and international legal agreements. The architecture of the European Union stands out as one of these catalysts. The integration within the EU introduces a ‘shared sovereignty,’ which is a shift from the unilateral territorial sovereignty of the 1648 treaty. The EU functions more as a supranational entity based on normative similarity. The case of the EU further gives weight to the argument that polarity based on single states is no longer the only option.
Even the United Nations Responsibility to Protect (R2P) allows external intervention in state affairs. It is a direct challenge to the intellectual basis upon which sovereignty has historically been conceptualized.
The American Paradox
Ever since the aftermath of World War II, the discourse surrounding multipolarity has seen the United States as a central focal point, or more specifically, its status as a hegemon. The country’s withdrawal from Vietnam in ‘65 and then recently Afghanistan marked the major events responsible for a shift in its power projection, and the glaring failure of its strategic objective of ‘rebuilding and resistance towards the Taliban’ reverberated throughout the international community.
Subsequently, President Trump’s policies in both his tenures have moved the US into a unilateral stance, marking a shift from its conventional investments of diplomatic capital into multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). However, this shift does not automatically equate to the rise of multipolarity. To do so would be a fallacy. The United States still enjoys normative hegemony.
It still stands out as the land of opportunities, and the hold of the dollar on the international monetary system and liberal institutions is not going anywhere anytime soon. The ideas spread through soft projection from the likes of their media and universities have embedded them deep within the global institutions. While some argue that America’s material status is declining, its ideational championing of the world order it has set up will allow it to posture as a superpower for as long as necessary.
A Competing Asia
When discussing multipolarity, Asia cannot be ignored. Often labeled as the ‘revisionist land,’ Asia stands out as a continent providing an alternative to contemporary global realities. It is perhaps the piece of land where the myth of multipolarity rings true, but not because multiple power points exist, but rather because there are differing world views competing yet cooperating in multilateral inclusivism.
From China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Japan’s focus on climate security, and the balancing act between India and Pakistan has truly seen all regions within the continent have undergone rapid transformations since the end of the Cold War.
An unprecedented space race between China and India has also been observed, gaining traction, while various defense nexuses sprout up in various regions. The flame of eastern civilization never went out, and the Asian powers capitalize heavily on their historical legacies to cement that point against any ideational offense.
Middle East: A Disintegration Dilemma
The Middle East stands out as the only region stuck in a rhetorical quicksand. The notion of Arab unity died with Gamal Abdul Nasser, and the vaunted ‘Pan-Arabism’ movement was left to sink underneath an ocean of strife. What makes the region special is that, rather than being categorized into specific camps or gravitating towards what are traditionally understood as power poles, the Arabs suffer from a case of overlapping alliances, ideological tug of war, and non-state actors acting as conflict spoilers.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are locked in a cyclical trap of the prisoner’s dilemma, while Israel refuses to take off the veil of expansionist narratives. The unequal integration of technology in offensive and defensive capabilities in the region has exacerbated arms races and turned it into a boiling pot of wars. The United States and China compete for influence in the region through military presence and economic uplift.
The identity crisis, theological radicalism, and the breakdown of territorial sovereignty due to terrorist cells have kept the region in a downward spiral ever since the end of the Cold War. Occasionally, efforts to create ‘diplomatic cooldowns’ have been undertaken, such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) 2015 and the Saudi-Iran rapprochement. Yet the recent clashes between Israel and Iran have brought the region back into a state of a potential ‘forever war.’
A Rising Africa?
In recent times, the African continent has been undergoing rapid socio-political and economic change. While the civil wars and cross-border militancy have kept the continent in a constant state of deterioration. The latest decade saw African nations working towards the development of a shared communal identity, as reflected in the African Union’s Agenda 2063.
Africa is reorienting itself from colonial-era discourses to climate justice and digital diplomacy. Crafting Just-Transitioning and AI regulatory frameworks. Historically, Africa stands out as a region politically marginalized by the intense competition between the West and East. However, dialogue on non-traditional security has given it space to establish itself as a challenger of the current status quo, deriving its influence as a victim of colonial injustices.
What is Multipolarity Today?
While the flowered idea of multipolarity paints a lesser evil than bipolarity. The fact of the matter is that the Westphalian system cannot be replicated in this day and age. Today, sovereignty is conditional, regional norms are more consequential than great power rivalry, and the process of acquiring legitimacy is being redefined. The socially constructed nuances of this era all point to one glaring fact: that a multipolar world doesn’t necessarily mean multiple powers, but rather a different set of trends governing different regions at the same time.
*The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of TDI.
Anas Yamin
Anas Yamin is an International Relations Student (at Air University). He is interested in foreign policy analysis, arms control, conflict transformation, and power politics.
