Multipolarity and Its Potentials for Peace

But as the world slowly but inexorably evolves from unipolarity to multipolarity, multiple pathways to diplomacy and peace are also evolving. If enforcing hegemony means opposing and isolating enemies, resulting in blocs that prevent diplomatic talks and negotiated settlements, multipolarity means rejecting blocs and the requirement to align ideologically and consistently with a hegemon in favor of nurturing relationships with multiple countries based on particular issues. And maintaining relations with opposing countries means being able to talk to both sides and act as an honest mediator instead of as a dishonest and partial broker.

The birth of multipolarity is revealing emerging signs of an evolving diplomatic landscape in which powers other than the U.S. can play a role and influence diplomacy and negotiated settlements. China and Russia, the two countries most nurturing multipolarity, are two powers that are growing into that role.

In Ukraine, the U.S. has not only tried and failed at diplomacy, it has actively blocked it. It is China, China’s BRICS partner Brazil and its aspiring BRICS partner Turkey that have led the way in encouraging diplomacy. In the Middle East, U.S. diplomacy has been abysmal enough to have alienated much of the Global South that hungrily awaits multipolarity.

But there are small signs that the decades of American monopoly on stewardship of the Middle East are adjusting to the new multipolar reality. While the U.S. still dominates ceasefire discussions between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the involved parties have shown an interest in involving Russia, with Israel having asked Russia to participate in the discussions.

Interest in injecting Russia into the situation comes from fading U.S. hegemony and emerging multipolarity. Newsweek reports that the initiative comes “at a time when Washington’s leadership in the Middle East has been increasingly called into question” while Russia is “ a world power with ties to nearly every major stakeholder.”

Russia has a rapport and a leverage that the U.S. lacks because it has very good relations with both opposing forces in the conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin has built strong ties with Israel diplomatically and with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally. Though those ties have had their recent challenges, Richard Kent, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, has called Putin a “philo-Semite” who “has gone out of his way to forge a strong relationship with Israel.” At the same time, Russia has maintained very close ties with Iran that have been growing ever closer. This is a balancing act that the U.S. has never desired nor attempted to make.

While not commenting on a mediation role for Russia, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia “maintains contacts with all parties of the conflict. And, of course, if our assistance is needed, Russia is ready to play its part.”

The request for Russian involvement has been reported in the Israeli and Arabic media, which has said that “in addition to the US efforts, Russia will use its influence on Iran to end the fighting in Lebanon” and that it is “encouraging Hezbollah to go ahead with the deal.” Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal reports that “Russia has expressed willingness to assist in its implementation and ‘will play a role,’ according to Israeli sources.”

This is not the first time Russia and China have been involved in mediations in the Middle East. Last year, China brokered a region transforming agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran that saw the arch rivals agree to resume diplomatic relations.

And China’s facilitating of talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran opened the door for Russia to facilitate talks between Saudi Arabia and Syria. Within two weeks of the Saudi-Iran breakthrough, Saudi Arabia and Syria agreed to reopen their embassies. And that mending of relations opened the door for Syria’s readmission to the Arab league.

Russia’s role has reached beyond the Middle East. Russia has long seen itself as a mediator in the rivalry between its two friends, China and India. Both in BRICS, an international multipolar organization that all three are members of, and in the original RIC grouping that the three formed in 1996, Russia has seen that mediation as an important global responsibility. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has noted that part of the role of RIC is “in promoting trust and confidence between India and China.”

When Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met for their first official high level bilateral meeting in over five years at the end of October, they chose Russia and the sidelines of the BRICS summit to be the venue, highlighting the importance of Russia and of multipolarity in the diplomatic achievement.

Both leaders stressed the importance of improving relations both for their own countries and for the world. The meeting came just days after China and India reached an agreement to de-escalate tensions on their disputed Himalayan border that led to the “resolution of the issues.” That agreement is holding, and on October 31, India’s defense minister, Rajnath Singh, said that “process of disengagement” is “almost complete,” an assessment corroborated by China’s defense ministry who confirmed that the frontline troops were “making progress in implementing the resolutions in a orderly manner.”

The involvement of Russia and China in the many crucial negotiations cautiously points to the possibility of a hopeful return to engagement in diplomacy in the evolving multipolar world.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.