Differences of opinion are the brake on the multipolar world

The unipolar world has a great advantage over the multipolar world because in a unipolar world all noses are in the same direction and in a multipolar world there is always difference of opinion. This is the big picture, because of course reality is much more complex. My concern is to understand why it is so difficult for the multipolar world to begin to work together. The opposition of the unipolar world is also in play, but is a different story. How does the multipolar world overcome its differences of opinion?

Sovereign nations have their own sovereign opinions. Russia’s Special Military Operation is conducted with extreme caution to keep the other BRICS+ countries on board. The rationale for the operation had to be defensible and the operation itself proportional and within the framework of international law. This is a very different approach to such an operation when compared to how Israel operates. The unipolar world sides with the strong player who is just allowed to go ahead and commit genocide against a defenseless population.

There are international organizations and treaties that suggest there is already a multipolar world, but unfortunately that is only on paper. At the time of drafting there were good intentions, but over time the unipolar world has seized power and staffed the organizations and interpreted the treaties for its own benefit. The multipolar world is faced with the choice of trying to turn things back to original intentions or create a new order itself. The former is difficult with so much opposition and the latter forces all countries in the world to take a stand.

BRICS+ is already having a hard time reaching consensus, let alone with more countries with even more divergent opinions. What also makes it difficult is that with the passage of time, countries can change political and therefore ideological colors so staying in or joining is no longer a given. A country’s power will always look to its own interest and thus the multipolar world must be very attractive. This is also a substantially different approach than wanting a multipolar world because you are fed up with the unipolar world.

The Middle East is torn apart, but is this because of the unipolar world versus the multipolar world or is this because of one ideology versus another ideology. As long as ideologies are fighting each other there can be no multipolar world. There is so much disagreement in the Middle East that there simply cannot be cohesion. It was good to see that in Beijing, 14 rival Palestinian groups, including Hamas and Fatah, signed a declaration on ending their years of discord and strengthening Palestinian unity. But comparatively speaking, aren’t 14 groups just too many to constantly consider for such a small part of the world?

What are actually the biggest differences of opinion in that multipolar world? Apart from own interests like with trade and territory. When we have shared interests, we can work together just fine. But what do we argue about so often? When do people become intransigent and turn to violence and oppression? The multipolar world now openly opposes the unipolar world, which in turn opposes the multipolar world. Normally the unipolar world does not stand a chance, but the multipolar world is divided. Despite that common “enemy”. Who, by the way, has extremely perfected the divide and conquer game and skillfully exploits all those differences of opinion. Money and power play a big role and many people in power are very sensitive to that. Or they are justifiably afraid of being killed.

When people in a soccer stadium cheer for their soccer club, there is togetherness. Because they don’t know from each other what political party they vote for or what religion they follow. When the same people talk about politics or a religion on a birthday, it becomes a different story. The togetherness of a country depends mainly on having a common culture. Then look at the differences between, say, Yemen and Belgium. Which of the two has cohesion and which does not. Next, look at Yemen and Saudi Arabia. What do you see? Two countries geographically close together and so vastly different. How is a multipolar world ever supposed to take shape?

In any case, what is needed is for countries to have togetherness internally. It is important for a country to have a common culture. Without cohesion, there is always strife. There may be differences, there cannot be otherwise, but too many differences are a constant brake on the whole society. Next, what is needed in the multipolar world is a common vision. What principles do we share and what do we want to achieve together. This should be sufficient in outline and transcend all ideologies, because everyone will have to agree with it. In fact, it will even have to state that we are all sovereign and that no ideology should impose its will on others. The ideology itself will have to change to make that freedom possible.

The multipolar world can succeed only if all its members succeed in shaping their own culture in such a way that all other cultures are tolerated. Differences of opinion will always exist, but the main line must be recognized. We will have to have something in common, and that is tolerance of others in particular. We will have to grow up and step out of the sandbox of toddlers. We will have to become critical of ourselves and look at our ideology in the bigger picture. Our ideologies will have to evolve, change to make the multipolar world truly possible. We have to do this ourselves and if we leave it, the world will remain unipolar. Unipolar with many unipolar islands.

By Nico Cost for GlobalSouth.co