Multipolarity 2.0, Check on the big boys

The default setting for world order since the end of World War 2, and well into the 21st century, seems to be bipolar. A third option, even if smoky, is defined in the context of this binary. French president Emmanuel Macron may chafe at Europe‘s ‘dependence’ on the US, and long for a multipolar world. But his recent comments on not being drawn into the US-China tussle ended up giving China a chuckle. A multipolar world can’t be built on countries choosing to be ‘neutral’. We saw that in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which was always about ‘leanings’.

Global realities – political, military, economic – make it impossible for any country to disregard the US and China. That does not make multipolarity an impossibility. But it cannot be yet another geopolitical camp in non-alignment clothing. Nor can the multipolar world be a 21st-century rendition of the colonial era with several dominant powers competing for global (market) control. Multipolarity 2.0 will have to be about checks and balances. It should be rooted in partnerships working together to keep the Big Powers in check.

Partnerships and alliances that create pathways that, while not challenging the dominant powers, seek to provide alternatives. Partnerships such as India-EU and India-Japan have the capacity to provide alternatives. The India-Japan partnership has provided Sri Lanka with an alternative to China. The Sharm el-Sheikh climate summit showed the potential of an India-EU alliance in pushing for a phase-down of all fossil fuels. Though unsuccessful, the effort succeeded in getting an initially reluctant US to agree. A multipolar world today must be about creating alliances to tackle the complex challenges that confront humanity, not just about another Great Game.