The international system is undeniably shifting from a unipolar moment, dominated by the United States after the Cold War, towards an increasingly multipolar order. This transformation is characterized by the emergence of multiple centers of power, including a more assertive China, a resurgent Russia, and the growing collective influence of nations traditionally categorized as the Global South.
Subsequently, for developing nations, including Pakistan, this evolving landscape presents both profound challenges and unprecedented opportunities to redefine their roles and exert greater agency, moving beyond the historical alignments that defined much of the 20th century. The critical question remains: Is this a genuine, fundamental reorientation towards greater autonomy, or merely a series of pragmatic, tactical maneuvers within an already established power hierarchy?
Post-Bloc Politics: The Multipolar Game
For decades, many developing nations were compelled to align, either overtly or subtly, with one of the dominant Cold War blocs: the US-led West or the Soviet Union. Post-Cold War, the unipolar moment often saw these nations seeking favor or aid from the singular hegemon. However, the current multipolar environment offers a more variegated diplomatic playing field. Countries in the Global South are increasingly demonstrating a desire to diversify their partnerships, recognizing that over-reliance on any single power can limit their strategic flexibility and economic independence.
Pakistan, for instance, a historical ally of the United States, has simultaneously deepened its strategic and economic ties with China through initiatives like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). More recently, it has also explored avenues of cooperation with Russia, particularly in energy and defense, reflecting a conscious effort to broaden its diplomatic and economic horizons.
Source: The Diplomat
This strategic balancing act is not unique to Pakistan as many nations across Africa, Latin America, and Asia are engaging with a wider array of partners, driven by national interests rather than ideological fealty. They are looking to secure investments, access technology, diversify trade routes, and enhance their security without being drawn into exclusive blocs.
You May Like To Read: Tragic Crash: Soviet-Era Plane Claims 48 Lives in Russia’s Far East
Ad-Hoc Power
A defining feature of a shifting landscape is the rise of new, often issue-based coalitions and the growing influence of regional alliances. Unlike the rigid, ideological blocs of the Cold War era, these modern formations are more flexible, pragmatic, and centered on common economic, developmental, or security priorities.
Within the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), for example, there’s a growing push for greater economic cooperation and a unified stance on certain global issues, though internal divergences remain. Similarly, The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), initially focused on regional security in Central Asia, has broadened its mandate and membership, including countries like India and Pakistan, becoming a significant platform for economic and security dialogue that often presents an alternative to Western-dominated forums.
Beyond these established groupings, we see the rise of non-traditional forums and ad-hoc coalitions addressing specific challenges like climate change, debt relief, or pandemic response, where countries from the Global South often play a leading role. The expansion of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) to include new members like Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Ethiopia is a prime example of this trend, creating a more diverse economic and political grouping that explicitly aims to challenge existing power imbalances in global governance.
Sourrce: FPRI
Thus, these platforms offer avenues for South-South cooperation, allowing developing nations to share knowledge, pool resources, and pursue mutually beneficial projects without the traditional limitations often associated with North-South engagements.
Genuine Agency or Tactical Maneuvering
Whether this represents a genuine shift towards greater agency for the Global South or merely tactical maneuvering is a nuanced question. On one hand, the diversification of partnerships and the formation of new platforms undeniably grant these nations more options and leverage. They are no longer solely dependent on the whims of a single superpower, enabling them to “forum shop” for the best deals, technologies, or diplomatic support. This increased optionality provides a degree of strategic autonomy previously unattainable, allowing them to pursue national interests more vigorously.
The collective economic weight of the Global South, especially with the rise of economic powerhouses like China and India, also provides a stronger negotiating position on global issues. However, it would be naive to suggest a complete break from traditional power dynamics. Many Global South nations still rely heavily on trade and investment from the established major powers. The military and technological capabilities of the US, China, and Russia remain formidable, often compelling smaller states to tread carefully. In some instances, the engagement with new partners might be a tactical play to extract better terms from traditional allies, rather than a full pivot.
Old Order, and New Tests
The rise of multipolar alliances and the increasing agency of the Global South have profound implications for established multilateral institutions like the United Nations (UN) and the Bretton Woods system (IMF and World Bank). These institutions, largely shaped in the post-WWII era under Western dominance, are facing growing pressure for reform to better reflect the contemporary distribution of power.
Developing nations are increasingly vocal in their demands for a more equitable global governance structure. Within the UN, there are persistent calls for Security Council reform to include more permanent members from the Global South, reflecting their demographic and geopolitical significance.
Similarly, the Bretton Woods institutions are criticized for their outdated voting shares and governance structures, which still disproportionately favor Western economies. The establishment of alternative financial institutions, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), often led by Global South powers, signifies a growing desire to create parallel structures that are more responsive to their development needs and less burdened by the limitations often imposed by the IMF and World Bank.
While these new alliances and institutions offer alternatives, they also pose a challenge to the universality and legitimacy of existing global governance mechanisms. The risk is not necessarily the demise of the UN or Bretton Woods, but rather their marginalization if they fail to adapt.
Thus, to remain relevant, these institutions must embrace substantive reforms that genuinely empower the Global South, fostering a truly inclusive multilateralism where diverse voices contribute to shaping global norms and solutions. The Global South’s quest for agency is hence a critical force pushing for a more representative and potentially more resilient global order.
