Image of the future: What changes can contribute to multipolarity?

Alexander Tuboltsev 

Source: Al Mayadeen English

Even without listing all the details of the geopolitical changes of that era, one can understand that the period of the 1630s -1640s led to tectonic shifts in world politics, which in one way or another affected all continents.

Sometimes, when I reflect on the current international political situation, the thought comes to mind that our time is somewhat reminiscent of a historical period from the distant past. I'm talking about the 1630s and 1640s. At first glance, the resemblance may seem remote. But with all the differences in the historical, economic, and political context of the two eras, there are some analogies that can be noticed.

Firstly, the 1630s and 1640s were a period when major military conflicts were taking place in parallel in different regions of the globe. These are the Thirty Years' War in Europe, the Shimabara peasant rebellion in Japan, the English Civil War, the Dutch Revolution, internal conflicts of the late Ming dynasty... etc. This period of military and political instability was accompanied by a large-scale socio-economic crisis.

In addition, the military conflicts I mentioned eventually led to a change in the global military-political configuration. The end of the Thirty Years' War led to the emergence of the Westphalian system of international relations. At the same time, the largest colonial empire of those years, Spain, gradually fell into a severe crisis (the decline of the economy and tax system, increasing dependence on imports, and agricultural problems) and eventually lost its hegemony. Against this background, the expansion of the Dutch, British, and French colonial empires began to grow aggressively in Asia, Africa, and North America. Japan switched to the Sakoku policy, minimizing its foreign policy and foreign economic contacts, which greatly influenced the economic history of East Asia. After the Peace of Westphalia, Sweden became the regional hegemon of Northern Europe and tried to expand its colonial expansion to other continents (Swedish colonies on the Delaware River in North America and on the shores of the Gulf of Guinea in Africa).

Even without listing all the details of the geopolitical changes of that era, one can understand that the period of the 1630s - 1640s led to tectonic shifts in world politics, which in one way or another affected all continents. The balance of power has changed significantly, and in all areas - from political and military to economic and commercial.

There have been many similar periods of serious instability in the history of mankind, followed by large-scale changes. We live in a similar era. Looking into the past, with proper analysis, we are able to establish the causes and consequences of changes in previous centuries. But can we try to predict the future? And how effective can such forecasts be?

In general, people have been talking about such forecasts since ancient times. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, on the one hand, considered the future uncertain (pointing out the impossibility of accurately predicting it), but, on the other hand, in his treatise "Rhetoric", he assumed that the future is mostly similar to the past. Thus, he expressed the idea that there are certain patterns that could help predict future events and changes by studying those that have already passed.

I think this interpretation is quite correct. The future remains uncertain (especially in times of global change), but we can safely analyze the past and present to guess what lies ahead.

Firstly, we can already see the complete collapse of the idea of globalization, which has been the main project of Western political and financial elites over the past decades. Neoliberal globalism was based on two basic concepts: unification and monopolization. On the one hand, Western political elites sought to impose their vision of the future on the rest of the world, forcing them to abandon their sovereign path. This process can be described as unification, when, within the framework of the globalist paradigm, sovereign states were required to sacrifice their own diversity and national interests by submitting to a unipolar dictate. In parallel with this, there was another economic process. Western multinational corporations expanded their neocolonial expansion, seizing resources, production, and sales markets around the world. This process can be called an attempt to monopolize the world's economic resources by the Western financial establishment. Trading companies of the British, Dutch, and French colonial empires operated according to a similar scheme in the 17th and 19th centuries, seeking to monopolize trade in various parts of the world.

The main counterbalance to the destructive neoliberal globalization was the economic rise of the countries of the Global South. This was clearly confirmed by the growth of industrial production and the rapid development of various sectors of the economy and trade in countries such as China, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, etc. The countries of the Global South began to invest in their independence, develop their own projects in the field of energy, foreign trade, and new technologies. At the same time, each of them has chosen its own way of developing the national economy, which perfectly illustrates the practical implementation of the idea of multipolarity. The revolution of the Global South first gained an economic basis, and then moved into the sphere of international relations.

In an attempt to maintain their waning hegemony, Western political and financial elites (primarily the United States) have provoked a series of new armed conflicts in the world. However, this counter-revolutionary aggression of neoliberal globalism against the truly revolutionary rise of the Global South has buried the very concept of globalism in its Western presentation. Crises and conflicts led to disruptions of global trade chains, and illegal Western sanctions became the end of the idea of a free market (it turns out that the Western neoliberal establishment attacked this main neoliberal concept with its own hands). In the face of growing instability, most countries have begun to rely on sovereignty and their own strength.

The negative effects of neoliberal globalism are visible in all regions of the world. And the final departure from this pernicious doctrine is inevitable. The complex system of mutual trade and economic ties between the countries and their cultural and historical diversity perfectly fits into the concept of multipolarity, rather than unipolar unification. Therefore, in my opinion, there could be a tendency toward inter-sovereign integration in the foreseeable future. Having sovereignty and choosing their own path of development, states would not only strive for mutually beneficial cooperation but would also implement integration projects, strengthening cooperation in trade, finance, settlements in national currencies, and energy. These integration processes would be based on new principles: unshakable respect for each other's sovereignty, consideration of regional specifics of various economic issues, collective resolution of disputes and problems, and complete rejection of unilateral economic measures (sanctions).

In a global capitalist system based on the exploitation of resources and labor, it is almost impossible to imagine a fair system of trade and production. Consequently, in order to form a new system of international economic relations in a multipolar world, a whole range of initial changes is needed: an active fight against neocolonialism (including against the exploitation of resources by transnational monopolies), the creation of a mechanism guaranteeing the protection of the economic sovereignty of countries, the reform of the international financial system, etc.

The economic sovereignty of countries will be ensured only when their resources (land, natural resources, means of production) belong to the countries and their peoples themselves and not to transnational monopolists. The Western idea of endless consumption or the pursuit of endless economic growth cannot be the guiding principles for the development of a new economic system in a multipolar world. It would be nice if the main guideline for the development of the economy was society itself and its well-being, the opportunity for each of the members of this society to develop along with the rest. Instead of neoliberal individualism, which leads to the division and atomization of society, collectivism based on mutual assistance, common values, and mutual respect would become the basis of development. In addition, the idea of collectivism is very widespread in the history, philosophy, and culture of many countries of the Global South, from Africa and Asia to Latin America and Oceania. A fair and more even distribution of economic resources and opportunities could be one of the most important factors of collective well-being.

There are undoubtedly many obstacles on the way to building a more equitable international economic system. And they will need to be overcome. Among the key problems, we can mention neocolonialism, hegemonic tendencies, attempts to monopolize the high-tech industry, the enslaving international credit system, etc. Western imperialism relies on aggression, coercion, and dictatorship in everything, completely ignoring international law. Accordingly, the right of peoples to resist neocolonialism becomes crucial. Not just for self-defense against economic exploitation and political unipolar hegemony, but for active struggle in all spheres - from military to information.