Thinking Multipolarism

Youssef Hindi

French-Moroccan essayist, historian of ideas, and lecturer France

The world has once again become multipolar ; this is a matter of fact. Yet this de facto multipolarity has emerged amid a phase of historical acceleration and the disintegration of traditional religions and modern ideologies. In the past, however — during the Middle Ages, for instance — multipolarity took shape through the “coexistence” of powerful states, kingdoms, and empires, each structured by a distinct civilization and religion. Each of these civilizational poles experienced internal divisions, schisms, inter-state conflicts, and alliances that often appeared unnatural or paradoxical.

The multipolar world is now a reality, but multipolarism itself remains to be elaborated. It must not devolve into an idealistic or utopian vision of international relations. On the contrary, it must be realistic and attentive to the current geopolitical configuration. There is no unified Western world, no united Europe, nor a united Africa. The Muslim world is so deeply divided that it has descended into what amounts to an international civil war. The same is true of the Slavic world, whose peoples are killing one another in Ukraine. The Indian world, too, is marked by profound internal divisions.

The creation and expansion of the BRICS are grounded in the economic interests of states that have become sufficiently powerful to counterbalance the monetary hegemony of the US dollar — an hegemony that no longer rests on gold or the real economy, but on the American military threat. The BRICS do not constitute a military alliance, nor do they seek to elaborate multipolarism in the sense of a shared doctrine, mirroring American unipolarism, which was structured around a coherent vision: that of global liberal hegemony supported by the international institutions born of Bretton Woods. The reason for this difference lies in the fact that unipolarism possessed a single decision-making center, located in Washington.

The emerging and re-emerging powers that make up the multipolar world face several challenges. Chief among them is the establishment of an international law no longer centered on the West nor subject to the arbitrariness of the United States. Such a law must become genuinely international and be enforced in practice. Yet the application of law requires coercive force. The members of the BRICS, together with other medium and lesser powers, possess the force necessary to enforce international law, but they lack the will to do so. The United States and its vassals, by contrast, possess the will to impose their rules and sanctions on a significant portion of the world.

Multipolarism must therefore be structured around a renewed international law, as well as a shared philosophy or moral framework — one founded on the Human Civilization, subdivided into multiple, diverse civilizations represented by distinct poles. These civilizational poles, however, are not homogeneous. In our multipolar world, the interests of states take precedence over religious and civilizational dimensions. Opposition and conflict between countries sharing the same ethnicity, language, or religion call into question both the concept of a “clash of civilizations” and the idea of political homogeneity within each civilization.

The end of unipolarity and the ongoing violations of international law have given rise, on a global scale, to a shared aspiration among all peoples for a common and genuinely universal system of international law. This, in turn, entails a fundamental reform of the United Nations and the way it operates.

The establishment of a durable multipolar global order thus requires the opening of this vast intellectual undertaking of multipolarism. It must be thought through collectively, and Sapience may well provide the ideal platform for this endeavor.