The world is beginning to confront the rise of multipolarity. Journalist Fareed Zakaria, in his book The Post-American World and the Rise of the Rest, argues that the end of America’s hegemony is near. Even the UN secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, stated that “we are moving towards a multipolar world.” In a multipolar world, more countries will have a level of influence in global politics comparable to that America currently maintains. Autocratic states leverage the rhetoric that a multipolar world is fairer and more equitable, unlike the America-centric world they are working to abolish. The rest of the world is catching up: technologically, educationally, and economically. The question proposed is whether democratic ideals can continue to govern international politics without the American hegemony overseeing international institutions.
There is no doubt our world looks much different than it did just five years ago. The rapid implementation of artificial intelligence, shifting global power dynamics, and an overarching, distinct view of how power is exercised are creating new tensions. For the first time since its rise to power following WWII, the United States and its grand strategy are being tested. The shift towards multipolarity challenges the American-led liberal world order. As autocratic states gain influence and actively contest democratic narratives, U.S. grand strategy must shift from passive order maintenance to active defense and adaptation or risk losing its ideological and institutional influence.
Multipolarity is an international system where there are multiple centers of power yielding roughly equal capabilities, preventing any single state from domination. For the past 30 years, the US has dominated the world order, creating institutions that uphold democratic ideologies and promote Western values. The societies that believe that their way of life is being threatened by US domination have begun to challenge American authority, leading toward multipolarity. Other nations, such as China and Russia, have leveraged novel tactics and technologies to expand their influence, challenging American dominance. For example, Russia actively maintains networks and messaging platforms in unstable parts of the world, such as Africa and parts of the Middle East, to exert control. China uses technologically advanced surveillance and censorship to suppress dissent among its population and advises other nations how to replicate these methods. These dangerous actions are evidence of just how harshly other nations are challenging the liberal world order. Throughout history, world order has fluctuated, and new powers have risen and fallen. Multipolarity leads to an increased sense of instability. The world is headed toward a degradation of American-led initiatives and institutions. The friction between the known liberal world order and emerging autocratic influence is bound to reshape the world order.
American grand strategy has been relatively constant throughout the “American Century.” American strategists have agreed upon the liberal international order, which promotes democratic values including self-governance, free markets, and human rights. Institutions like the United Nations and NATO have upheld these values and expanded their influence globally. It is hard to imagine a world without US-led initiatives and support. Broadly speaking, the liberal international order has been widely successful in maintaining peace and cooperation. Allies have partnered with these ideals and have benefited greatly from the protection and security they provide.
Historically, the US has relied on stability, institutions, and norms to uphold its hegemony. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a time when America was undoubtedly the most influential global power. America faced little opposition. “The end of the Cold War ushered in not a hoped-for democratic consensus but a new age of ideological and military confrontation.” Nations, specifically autocratic states, rejected the US-centric order as inequitable and an aggressive imposition of values against their own. Since then, the rise of this restlessness has only grown. The order seen in the 1990s is weakening due to multipolarity.
A shifting world order demands a shift in the US’s current role in politics. Nations and their beliefs “can be altered by acts of cowardice or bravery, by wise leaders and cruel ones, and above all by good ideas and bad ones.” It is impossible for a nation to be solely self-interested in a globalized world, as reliance on our trading partners and allies grows. In a multipolar world, the US may lose its valuable alliances to the sphere of autocratic influence. No longer is influence determined by military might but by a nation’s ability to propagate ideals and norms.
The modern world has rapidly digitized, and nations have leveraged the novel information domain to sway entire nations to their ideologies. Tactics, from social media campaigns to censorship, have allowed for autocratic states to gain power and undermine American alliances and values, swaying more nations under their influence. The American Century is ending, and the rest of the world is catching up: technologically, educationally, and financially.
For decades, the US national interests have endured multiple world conflicts and united opposing administrations. These four national interests are: 1) the defence of the US and its constitutional system, 2) promotion of the nation’s economic well-being, 3) creation of a favourable world order, and 4) promotion of US democratic values and a free market system. A multipolar world uniquely threatens each of these persistent national interests. First and foremost, America can no longer easily exercise dominance via international institutions. NATO is facing increased internal strain and external criticism. Dissent is growing from nations excluded from the NATO-backed Western world. Additionally, kleptocratic, autocratic nations exercise influence in international financial systems. They capitalize on the amoral and susceptible economic exchanges, undermining America’s interest in free markets and economic well-being.
Adversarial nations have leveraged nonkinetic warfare, in both the informational and cyber domains, to impart their influence on peripheral nations and Western nations alike. Their manipulation of grey zones has threatened the defense of the US by influencing our domestic population and separating our allies from their allegiances to democratic values. Broadly speaking, autocracies have found novel ways to manipulate narratives, suppress dissent, and influence global leaders, undermining the American national interest in a favorable world order. The liberal international order is losing ideological legitimacy globally. National interests are now ideological, not just economic and militaristic. American grand strategy and national interests require a new doctrine of democratic ideologies and human rights to contest manipulative autocratic ideologies.
In the interest of human rights and democratic values, the US should implement three strategic proposals: institutional reimaging, insulation of economic and technological competition, and active ideological promotion. First, the US must recognize that post-WWII institutions like the UN and NATO are aging. Frustration is growing due to the disproportionate influence certain nations, particularly the US, yield over the institution. In the interest of equal global governance in a multipolar world, the UN must reform to better reflect the current world order. In the strategic interest of a favorable world order, reimaging the UN as the basis for global governance is key. Letting it be surpassed by geopolitical rivalries and unchecked competition is unacceptable. Although it would not protect America’s global dominance, it offers a peaceful transition into a multipolar world.
Another way to decrease reliance on an autocratic system is by insulating global economic and technological practices and policies. Kleptocratic nations leverage loopholes in financial infrastructure and transactions to fund their campaigns. They have implemented shell companies and global banks to launder money to their regimes. America and the rest of the democratic world must actively prevent economic exploitation by securing supply chains and scrutinizing trade, ensuring illegal transactions are weeded out. Additionally, reducing reliance on autocratic nations and their systems would defend and slow their massive campaigns, without the need for kinetic force.
Finally, America must present an active ideological promotion campaign. Authoritarian narratives must be countered. This is first achieved by aligning domestic actions with democratic values, so the narrative has clear messaging. If America can avoid hypocrisy, the fuel for autocratic narratives would diminish. And by leveraging American soft power, the US can actively dissuade nations from falling for the authoritarian trap. As adversarial nations relentlessly broadcast their messaging, the democratic world must actively promote its ideological values in a similar manner.
Overall, America’s strategy must shift to actively defending democracy rather than assuming its superiority. “No democratic government should ever assume that arguments for democracy or for the rule of law are somehow obvious or self-evident. Authoritarian narratives are designed to undermine the innate appeal of those ideals.” Democracy cannot withstand the rise of autocratic states by believing that its arguments are simply more righteous. Democracies across the globe must stand up to fight a growing evil that disregards civil liberties and human rights. America, particularly, is charged with leading this active defense, focusing on reshaping institutions, financial markets, and ideological promotion, ensuring a shift to a multipolar world that continues to uphold liberal values. The passive approach of the “American Century” cannot withstand strategic competition in the twenty-first century.
