The World is Already Multipolar: The International System is Changing in Three Big Ways Because of It #14

Based on an International Relations class I teach

Saluto,

In an interview that went under the radar, Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State said:

“It is not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet.”

What’s striking isn’t that we’re heading multipolar, most of the world already believes that. It’s that the US Secretary of State is saying it out loud

So this newsletter will focus on three key changes to the international system happening as power spreads around the world:

1. Regional dynamics are increasing in importance

This is the clearest trend. The era of overwhelming US dominance, think the 90s and early 2000s, is ending.

Military, economic, and cultural power is shifting. China and India now offer real alternatives. Even traditional US allies like South Korea and Japan are reconsidering American reliability.

What this means practically: Regional powers, as well as regional dynamics, are going to matter more now for world politics.

The following article outlines how Brazil is leaning into that multipolar world and seeking to make the most of it.

2. Populist leaders in countries that built the liberal world order are now undermining it from within

The US and Europe created most of today’s international institutions: the World Bank & IMF, WTO, international courts, and others.

Now the Trump administration is attacking them from within.

Here’s what people in the Trump administration actually argue as to why they are going after them:

• The refugee system is being abused

• The World Trade Organization allows China to steal manufacturing jobs

• Environmental rules hurt Western companies while developing countries ignore them

• Human rights organisations unfairly target Western countries while ignoring dictatorships

Plus, the US is paying for those institutions disproportionally.

I’m not saying they’re right. Every point can be challenged. But it doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong.

What matters is that the Trump administration says that to its base (as well as other European populist leaders). This makes such institutions the scapegoats for many of the international problems.

On top of that, many of the rising powers have no incentive to defend Western-created rules.

I mean, do you imagine Saudi Arabia propping up the mission of UN Women or China promoting the work of the OHCHR ? (the OHCHR is part of the UN that promotes human rights)

What this means practically: The US and European populist leaders will keep undermining these institutions. So these institutions will likely lose influence if other parts of the world don’t come to their defence.

Here’s an article outlining how Trump pulled the trigger on those liberal institutions, and how it left European leaders in disarray.

3. Companies are becoming more powerful than some countries

Sure, ‘the state has the monopoly over the legitimate use of force’ according to Max Weber.

But is it still true?

You used to have sectors that were off limits for companies: Healthcare, Education, Prisons, Defence.

They are not anymore.

Let’s just take a Private Military Company (PMC) like Wagner, rebranded Africa Corps after their CEO tried to take power from Putin.

There are reports of them being paid in natural resources in African countries they operate in or reports of some governments that hired them to be unable to fire them.

Now I used the example of the use of force because it is the most extreme, but the reality is that most of the time it will be smaller countries negotiating with giant firms and having less power than the company.

When Moldova negotiates with Meta or Google, who has the power? It’s not really Moldova, despite their many talents. So smaller countries will have to stick together or accept that they will have less control over what happens in their own country.

What this means practically: Governments, especially in developing countries, will find it harder and harder to regulate powerful companies.

Here is an article outlining the increasing influence of Tech giants and how they are wielding more and more influence.

💭 My take-away: Viewing the shift to a multipolar world through the lens of the Cold War is intellectually lazy

Many assume multipolarity means China replaces the US. That’s a lazy analysis.

A multipolar world means different models coexist, not that one replaces another. Analysts who default to Cold War comparisons are taking a shortcut instead of doing the harder work of understanding something genuinely new.

It doesn’t mean that there aren’t things to learn from the Cold War era, but rather, don’t be intellectually lazy by just claiming things like we are entering another Cold War era.

Happy readings,

Dr Cedric Pfanner