When the Soviet Union collapsed, the world entered unipolar stage and the American economic might, military supremacy, and cultural influence set the global tempo. The adage "When America sneezes, the world gets a cold" wasn't a cliche; rather, it was a fact that markets from Tokyo to Frankfurt confirmed.
But walk the corridors of power today—in Beijing, certainly, but also in the modernist halls of Brasília, the bustling ministries of New Delhi, and the opulent palaces of Riyadh—and a different diagnosis emerges.
The world is no longer merely reactive. It has developed its own immune system, its own economic engines, and its own strategic compass. Now, the American sneeze receives a chorus of responses, including opposition, apathy, and, increasingly, a countervailing force. We are witnessing the unmistakable, painful, and chaotic birth of a multipolar world, and its implications are rewriting the rules of global order from Beijing to Brasilia, New Delhi to Riyadh.
This new era is riskier and more complex with shifting alliances and proxy conflicts. However, it also marks the tumultuous birth of a more diverse and representative international system in which billions of people's interests and voices, marginalized for long.
The Decline of American Financial Dominance
America's 70-year playbook for maintaining global order is weakening. Sanctions—once devastatingly effective—are losing their punch. For instance, cutting Russia from SWIFT and freezing its foreign reserves was meant to cripple its economy, but the weaponisation of the financial system is now driving nations to build alternatives.
A new financial ecosystem is emerging. Countries are settling trade in yuan, riyals, and rupees instead of dollars. Central banks are buying gold and exploring digital currencies as insurance against dollar-based sanctions.
America's strategic goal has been to weaponise the dollar while imposing sanctions on any nation that defies Washington. But experts increasingly argue that a different system is necessary for survival in a multipolar world.
The US-led military pacts like NATO have been pillars of global strategy, but historical records show America has never directly fought for allies in peer-to-peer conflicts – not in the Gulf Wars, not in Yugoslavia, not in the Iraq invasion. The unspoken message is that America provides security umbrellas in exchange for following its strategic interests, but allies shouldn't expect direct military support against major powers.
The security guarantee, according to critics, is in fact a guarantee of arms sales and strategic positioning. It leads to dependence rather than genuine equality. This gap between promise and action is driving nations to hedge their bets and seek alternative arrangements.
The New Great Game: US, India, Pakistan, and China
Recent statements by President Trump praising Pakistan's Army Chief and Prime Minister signal a potential strategic shift. This comes amid reports of vast mineral discoveries in Pakistan, particularly in Balochistan. The country is transitioning from geopolitical liability to strategic asset, serving as a buffer between China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan through the Wakhan Corridor.
It is at this interesting juncture that India vacated its sole overseas military outpost last week at Tajikistan's Ayni airbase after a bilateral pact expired. The withdrawal is being seen as a significant diplomatic failure.
Washington is directly challenging its recent approach to India. Despite being presented as a strategic partner and a counterweight to China, the reality behind closed doors tells a different story. The recent flurry of 10-year defense pacts between India and the US appears aimed at pushing India from genuine partnership toward strategic dependency that serves Washington's primary goal of containing China.
In any conflict where Washington's interests aren't directly at stake, Delhi may find itself alone. This "Pakistan first" pivot is a case study in that hard-won lesson.
Beijing offers an alternative model for power projection. Its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and economic corridors are advertised as win-win partnerships. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is strategically vital for China as it provides a naval foothold in the Arabian Sea, protecting energy supply lines, and projecting power into the Indian Ocean.
China is building infrastructure and political leverage with concrete benefits like ports, railways, and steel, and this practical approach resonates with nations wary of American economic statecraft.
China's dominance in rare earth elements (REEs) was reportedly a key factor in recent agreements with India. This geopolitical signal is about control. A legally binding EU certificate ensures exported goods won't be resold or transferred without Beijing's approval, granting China significant control over global supply chains and technological advancement.
China leads the race for future technologies in EVs, batteries, solar panels, wind turbines. "They are beating New York, London, and Berlin in all forms of this business," as one Hong Kong-based financier noted. "They are building the post-carbon world, and they will own it."
Economic Reality Behind Geopolitical Shifts
Geopolitical tectonic shifts are based on hard economic data, not abstract theories. The global balance of power is no longer a binary US-China contest. It's a complex landscape of established and emerging powers. The 2025 Global GDP Projections (IMF) are $105 trillion.
Key Players are:
United States: $28.5 trillion (27.1%) – Still the largest, but its share is in steady decline from its post-Cold War peak
China: $18.8 trillion (17.9%) – Second largest on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) basis, and substantially larger than the US
Japan: $4.9 trillion (4.7%) – A mature economy caught between its US alliance and deep economic ties with China
Germany: $4.6 trillion (4.4%) – The European powerhouse, struggling to define an independent EU foreign policy
India: $4.2 trillion (4.0%) – The fastest-growing major economy, a key swing state in the new order, but facing challenges like agricultural focus and allied sectors. 40% of Indian wealth is controlled by just 1% of the population
G7 Total: $49 trillion (46.7%). The dominance of the old guard is visibly slipping. The numbers tell the story. Economic power is redistributing, and geopolitical influence follows.
America's Debt Problem
America's national debt now exceeds $35 trillion—the foundation of its position, yet also its vulnerability. This debt demonstrates both continuing strength and persistent faith in the dollar, but it constrains fiscal policy, fuels political polarisation, and provides an opening for rivals to question the long-term viability of the American economic model.
New centres of power are rising from this economic rebalancing. Singapore and Hong Kong remain critical hubs, though increasingly pulled into Beijing's embrace. Both China and the West are investing heavily in Malaysia and Bangladesh, developing crucial supply chain nodes for garments and electronics. Turkey has become a strategic broker, selling Ukraine drones while maintaining relations with Russia. Small states like Qatar have mastered "Small State, Big Influence," mediating between Washington and the Taliban, Pakistan, and Israel simultaneously.
In the absence of a global policeman, regional powers are stepping in. Iran's influence stretches across the Shia Crescent. Gulf states position themselves as established military bases. Regional players dominate in Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia.
There are tumultuous changes even within America. Zohran Mamdani's victory in New York demonstrates that grassroots movements championing bold economic policies like universal rent control and police defunding can win elections by organizing from the bottom up, re-shaping a new Democratic Socialist political strategy. This domestic shift toward addressing working-class and immigrant concerns mirrors the broader global transition to multipolarity.
The New Mosaic of Power: A World of Many Poles
Multipolarity is witnessing the rise of China and the reemergence of numerous power centers, each pursuing its own interests, from Brussels to the Amazon rain forests.
Pakistan-Saudi defense cooperation signals a decisive shift in security architecture independent of the West. Turkey and Iran no longer position themselves as Western partners. Muslim-majority countries are engaging on more equitable terms, a model Qatar employs successfully. As Western influence wanes, conflicts like Palestine and Kashmir become greater flashpoints. Despite military might, Israel faces growing isolation and potential genocide charges in Gaza.
Non-alignment has returned in an assertive form. South Africa and Brazil refuse US-China entanglement, trading with all sides and forming blocs like BRICS+. They're playing powers against each other while demanding respect for their own interests, illustrated by their questioning why Palestine's borders aren't championed with the same urgency as Ukraine's.
Power is dispersing from the hegemonic West. Africa, long treated as a subject of external agendas, is now asserting itself as an autonomous agent shaping the changing global order.
Asia's Complex Chessboard
South Asia, however, is behaving differently, with new undercurrents reshaping a volatile region. The maxim that "peace in South Asia means peace in Asia" has never been more pertinent.
The recent air combat between India and Pakistan in May 2025 is a stark reminder of long-standing tensions. India has vehemently denied Pakistan's allegations that it uses Afghan soil as a proxy base. However, Kashmir is likely to regain urgent international attention, as it did after New Delhi's unilateral abeyance of Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), and Islamabad used it to reach out to rights-supporting nations and organizations worldwide.
The current Islamabad-Kabul relationship remains complex with a tense mix of cooperation and conflict. Doha and Istanbul are mediating a ceasefire, which is crucial for all. If handled well, it could lead to long-term regional peace.
However, India has vehemently denied Pakistan's allegations that it uses Afghan soil as a proxy base. Meanwhile, as India deepens ties with the West and Israel, whether by compulsion or choice, it must manage its own complex neighborhood. With significant investments in infrastructure, Bangladesh has emerged as a significant front where Chinese influence is strongly felt. Small Indian Ocean nations like Sri Lanka and the Maldives have become arenas for this quiet contest, with the Maldives recently pivoting strongly toward Beijing and demanding Indian military personnel leave its soil. This is micro-multipolarity in action.
India's relationships with Himalayan neighbours are becoming increasingly complicated. New geopolitical realities, such as China's growing influence, are causing strategic friction. Nepal and Bhutan continue to have strong cultural and historical ties with Myanmar but some frictions are developing. India's need to balance security concerns with democratic ideals adds further intricacy. To manage competing interests while preserving crucial partnerships and regional stability, these relationships necessitate clever diplomacy.
The dynamics are equally volatile in East Asia. As a permanent spoiler and nuclear-armed wild card, North Korea is empowered by its renewed alliance with Russia. Even though Japan and South Korea officially align with the United States, they are in a delicate dance—avoiding direct confrontation with Beijing while strengthening their own defenses and regional partnerships.
Managing a Multipolar Peace
A multipolar world is not inherently a peaceful one. The early 20th century was multipolar and culminated in the catastrophic conflagration of the first and second world wars. The challenge for the 21st century is to manage this diffusion of power without triggering a major conflict. The path forward requires a fundamental, and perhaps painful, rethink of international diplomacy, involving multi-pronged approaches:
Reformed Multilateralism: The UN Security Council, the IMF, and the World Bank are creaking past a 1945 order. Their legitimacy and effectiveness are waning. The permanent five (P5) veto-wielding members of the Security Council reflect the winners of a war eight-decade past. Incremental reform is no longer sufficient. A radical overhaul is needed to give meaningful representation to powers like India, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, and Japan.
Economic Interdependence 2.0: The old model of client-state relationships, built on aid and arms sales, is obsolete. The new model must be based on a more resilient and mutually beneficial interdependence. This means supply chains that are diversified, partnerships that are transactional but also respectful of strategic autonomy, and trade agreements that acknowledge development needs, not just profit margins.
Regional Conflict Mediation: With no single, credible global policeman, the resolution of regional crises, from Gaza to Kashmir, from Yemen to the Sahel, will increasingly fall to regional organisations and middle powers. The African Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and ASEAN will be thrust into the spotlight. This is a riskier, more fragmented approach, but it is more reflective of the new reality. It requires building local capacity for peacemaking, a task the great powers have long neglected.
Strategic Restraint: This is the most difficult psychological shift, particularly for the United States. It must transition from a posture of primacy to one of “first among equals,” a concept alien to its post-Cold War identity. It must pursue its interests through diplomacy and coalition-building rather than diktat. Conversely, rising powers, chiefly China, must learn that with great power comes a responsibility to maintain common global goals of the freedom of navigation, the stability of the financial system, and the fight against climate change.
Have you liked the news article?