In such a multipolar world, no scholar can come into a debate and argue that the world is actually unipolar; but such ideas are fascinating to dissect. So a question comes —was the United States ‘a global stabiliser of anarchy’ in a sense, was it the invisible hand of power, and with its recent self-serving foreign policy, and its decline of soft power, will there be disruptions to this so-called global stability? These are the questions that has rised.
For decades, US leadership through their economic influence, military presence, and soft power in a way had acted as a counterweight to chaos. But these recent turns toward inward-looking policies, especially under its 47th president, have signaled a huge change. Henceforth, lie some aspects of its implications.
Anarchy and the global arena
International relations always operates in a state of anarchy which is not necessarily chaos, but rather a structure without a supreme authority. Simply put the state of anarchy means, no one nation or institution truly rules over others. And in this stateless system, anything is possible, as no global social contract binds all players to a common rule. There is no enforcing body.
Philosophers like Thomas Hobbs (and his Social Contract Theory) have long debated whether humans and by extension, nations can survive without an overarching power. Some argue that without a common enforcer, societies revert to a natural state of conflict (In Hobb’s terminology the man’s state of nature). But specifically in the international order despite the absence of a global sovereign, the world has not collapsed into total disorder. Why?
The answer to that perhaps lies in the unseen balance of anarchy that comes through the patchwork of institutions, treaties, alliances, international laws, multilateralism, bilateralism and so much more that help keep things from falling apart. While imperfect in their own ways, they provide just enough structure to delay or deflect total breakdown (at least until now). But in a time of rising tensions and diluted trust, we must ask:
Is this enough? And will this ever be enough?
The missing leviathan
Historically, global stability has followed when one dominant power, or ‘leviathan’ (Hobb’s idea of an overarching figure) emerged through empires like the Britain in the 19th century or the United States after World War II. These periods, often referred to as “Pax Britannica” or “Pax Americana,” suggest merit to theories like the Hegemonic Stability Theory which in essence says that the presence of a strong leader can help reduce conflict and manage global order. Simply put, one leader, one empire tends to bring more stability and mitigates anarchy.
But today’s world is not that simple. There is no ‘one’ leader as modern power is defined less by military victories, or the traditional way of war but rather more by influence through economic strength, cultural reach, digital dominance and so many more arrays of aspects. And in this new age, no clear victor has emerged as fortunately there has not been a formal or traditional all-out-war. But the idea of war too have changed, and they are fought every day to determine.
Who really rules the world?
The truth is, no one and perhaps everyone. Scholars like Noam Chomsky write about how complex it is to truly derive one ruler of our world as power is more diffused than ever. In a multi-polar and complex world countries like China and India have grown in influence, while traditional Western powers have perhaps fallen behind due to their own internal divisions.
But, despite all that US still plays a crucial role through its economy, military, and institutional legacy. A recent analysis of Susan Strong’s hypothesis brings back emphasis on the ideas of structural power, and despite the negative turmoil US’s foreign policy is facing in the contemporary by losing its soft power; its structural influence is huge but having said that it no longer stands unchallenged.
US’s soft power which was once perhaps an invisible hand that shaped global narratives, now struggles under the weight of political division and isolationist tendencies. And as its trust erodes in the International System, nations that once looked to the US for guidance now perhaps will hedge their bets elsewhere.
Heuristics for the sovereign from the contemporary
It is usually impossible to dissect predictions that will prophesise in the world of International Relations (at least in a political sense). Even acclaimed scholars like Francis Fukuyama has had to take back his predictions.
There are many lessons one can learn from the contemporary. As we navigate this uncertain terrain, certain lessons emerge—particularly for nations in the Global South and Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs):
As Yuval Noah Harari in his book 21 lessons for the 21st country writes, let’s find lessons for the global south and LMICs (or any state for that matter), all in an attempt to take learnings out of this contemporary anarchy.
- If you are a smaller nation do not put all of your cards in the table of a single great power (Ukraine-USA)
- As Kautilya would put it, all your neighbors are your biggest threats (Mandala Theory), hence to put high trust on them is a foolish pursuit (USA-Canada-Mexico)
- Great Powers do not bring a guarantee of great commitment, rather they too are uncertain players (USAID)
- It only matters how strategic you are, and as self-help guides the great powers, their mediation, their ideologies, only become a ruse for a completion of their desires (US-Isreal-Gazastrip)
- Years of diplomacy, rapport-building, trust building, alliance building cannot guarantee anything in International Relations (US-Ukraine)
- Certainty is not guaranteed, and as is the nature of politics- permanence is only a tool to bend depending on the time and need. (The International System)
- To seek self-solidarity as a sovereign before you are played by the great powers, as independence minimises co-dependence, especially for countries like Nepal.
Conclusion
Whether or not the US ever truly held the world together and served as a global stabiliser, an invisible hand is a matter of debate. But its retreat from leadership has indeed exposed the fragility of our global structures. With the rise of blunt diplomacy, transactional relationships, and fragmented alliances, this marks a new chapter in international relations and a new chapter in the global order perhaps one where self-reliance is more important than ever.
Thus in a world without a clear leviathan, where due to the inevitable state of anarchy, certainty and trust is hard to foster, so especially for countries like Nepal, perhaps the best path forward may not be to seek shelter under someone else’s power, not to hedge or try to integrate itself more in a deteriorating international system but to build strength from within.
