{"id":16698,"date":"2026-09-29T15:53:29","date_gmt":"2026-09-29T12:53:29","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2026-09-29T15:59:45","modified_gmt":"2026-09-29T12:59:45","slug":"the-unipolar-illusion-is-over-the-multi-vector-era-has-begun-quincys-lieven-says","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/harici.com.tr\/en\/the-unipolar-illusion-is-over-the-multi-vector-era-has-begun-quincys-lieven-says\/","title":{"rendered":"The unipolar illusion is over, the multi-vector era has begun, Quincy’s Lieven says"},"content":{"rendered":"

Editor’s note: <\/strong>Anatol Lieven, Eurasian Program Director of the Washington-based think tank Quincy Institute, made striking assessments regarding the future of the international system at the East-West Forum held in Istanbul on September 26-27<\/a><\/span>. Stating that Western elites believe in the illusions they have built themselves, Lieven expressed that the “rules-based order” discourse is actually just a cover masking American hegemony. Reminding that the Cold War years were not a period of stability for the peoples of the global south, but rather experienced as a nightmare, the experienced expert emphasized that the policies pursued largely by Washington lie behind the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.<\/p>\n

***<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a Brit, I have to say I would have no objection to such a merger if it were run by King George and his descendants. The problem is that unfortunately the balance has shifted a bit since those days. Though I have to say, if you were to listen to the British establishment, you wouldn’t always realize that we live in many ways\u2014in America above all, but in Europe too\u2014in a weird world of illusions now. And one of the most dangerous things is that a great many people believe their own illusions. And that brings me to the infamous phrase “rules-based order,” which of course is on the one hand simply a euphemism for American global hegemony, with the Europeans as American satraps or lieutenants.<\/p>\n

It is nonetheless a myth in which, unfortunately, a large part of the Western establishment genuinely believes; they have convinced themselves that this is true. One of the key ways in which they underpin this belief\u2014and belief in its necessity\u2014is to claim, and no doubt to believe, that without this American-run rules-based order (with rules made by America and broken by America whenever it sees an interest in doing so), one of two things would happen. First, that without a global ruler, the world would fall into chaos and new conflicts would break out everywhere if America were not there to suppress or mediate them. The second belief is that if the world is not ruled by the United States\u2014once again, with Europe acting as its lieutenant\u2014it will be ruled by China in the same way America has tried to rule the world.<\/p>\n

If China did simply imitate America’s hegemonic policies, that would not be an advantage for anybody, including perhaps most of all the Chinese themselves. Fortunately, I see no signs that that is going to happen. Behind this also is an almost totally false picture of the supposed stability and peace preserved by the United States when it was the non-communist pole of a partially bipolar world with the Soviet Union, supposedly in what Americans\u2014and somewhat bizarrely, Europeans too\u2014called the “free world.” This preserved peace and stability to a considerable degree in Western Europe, but it would come as a very considerable surprise to the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Algerians, the Arab world, Angolans, many South Americans, and so on. From their point of view, the Cold War was not a period of stability and peace; it was in many ways a nightmare. And many areas tormented by Cold War conflicts are in fact today much more peaceful and stable. Where there are really serious conflicts going on, above all in the Middle East, these are very largely the result of the policies of the United States and its local allies\u2014and I would say that of the Ukraine War as well.<\/p>\n

I won’t speak much about China because we have much better people to talk about that. It does seem to me undoubtedly clear that China is aiming at global economic predominance, as indeed Britain did before (though also through military means). There are no signs to me as yet that China is aiming at the kind of militarized global primacy that America has sought. And as we just heard, that is a very good thing, because if China had produced somebody like Donald Trump\u2014or I would add, Hillary Clinton or George Bush II\u2014the world would indeed probably have been destroyed by now. But this does not seem to be the case. Indeed, there is a case, I would say, for China playing a much more active role politically\u2014not militarily, of course, but politically\u2014in certain parts of the world.<\/p>\n

Above all, I am not entirely happy with the term “multipolarity,” because if you go back to the notion of bipolarity or unipolarity, it suggests, perhaps unconsciously, that other countries have to attach themselves closely to one or other pole and have no alternative. That is still very much true in certain parts of the world, but it doesn’t seem to me that this is what most countries are aiming at, or what will be possible in the future for poles to enforce. Having spent a great deal of time in the countries of the former Soviet Union\u2014I was in Uzbekistan in the summer\u2014I have often heard them express their policies not in terms of multipolarity, but of a multi-vector policy<\/em>: trying to maintain decent working relations with all other states, including their own neighbors.<\/p>\n

In a unipolar, bipolar, or rigid multipolar world, subordinate countries often prioritize relations with the hegemon over their closest neighbors, sometimes even conducting regional relations through the hegemon rather than directly. That is ceasing to be the case. Countries are increasingly aiming to diversify their relations and avoid the American approach\u2014the constant insistence that “you are with us or against us,” that you must be completely with America, and if you’re not, you are an enemy. This has been carried to grotesque extents by Donald Trump, but he is only exaggerating something we heard very often before from American leaders.<\/p>\n

When it comes to an anarchic world\u2014that is, a world without a ruler\u2014it is a staple of anthropology that an anarchic system does not have to be a chaotic system. Anarchic systems can also generate their own mechanisms and traditions to resolve or minimize conflicts and pursue common aims. That is what we must hope for, not only to minimize the risk of conflict, but also because there are huge challenges that America, despite claiming to be the global hegemon for the good of humanity, has totally failed to address, and in many ways acted as an actively malignant actor\u2014above all regarding climate change, artificial intelligence, and the protection of secure international trade.<\/p>\n

Our anarchic system must hope for arrangements that will help us overcome this. But even if we fail, I doubt that many people around the world will look back to American primacy with much nostalgia. Thank you.<\/p>\n