Lisboa, Portugal – In the evolving landscape of international relations, multilateralism has emerged as a stage for geopolitical contestation, where the world’s superpowers—the United States, Russia, and China—vie to shape the rules and structures of global governance.
AfricaHeadline Reports Team
editorial@africaheadline.com
While these nations share participation in key institutions and forums, their visions for multilateral cooperation diverge sharply, driven by distinct strategic goals, ideological frameworks, and global ambitions.
Each power’s approach reflects not only its domestic priorities but also its perspective on the distribution of power in a world increasingly characterised by competing spheres of influence.
The United States, under the Biden administration, has sought to restore its leadership in multilateral institutions, emphasising a return to alliances grounded in democratic values. This shift follows a period of retreat during Donald Trump’s presidency, which saw America withdraw from key agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord.
President Biden’s rhetoric underscores a commitment to collective action on global challenges, such as climate change and regional conflicts. However, the US approach remains conditional, marked by a preference for initiatives that align with its strategic interests and a cautious stance toward mechanisms that might constrain its sovereignty, such as the International Criminal Court.
Recent efforts to bolster NATO’s cohesion and expand the AUKUS alliance with the UK and Australia illustrate Washington’s prioritisation of countering rising Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
On the other hand, Russia presents itself as a staunch advocate for a multipolar world, where power is not concentrated in the hands of a single bloc or ideology.
This narrative has become a cornerstone of Moscow’s foreign policy, particularly as it faces growing isolation from Western-led platforms like the G20 in the wake of its actions in Ukraine.
In forums such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Russia has aligned itself with nations seeking alternatives to Western-dominated institutions. President Vladimir Putin has positioned these groupings as vehicles for recalibrating global power dynamics, emphasising sovereignty and resistance to external interference.
Despite its economic constraints, Russia continues to deepen bilateral ties, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, as demonstrated by recent trade agreements and energy investments aimed at offsetting the impact of sanctions.
Meanwhile, China champions a form of multilateralism that is at once pragmatic and expansive, with economic integration and infrastructure development as its central pillars. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) epitomises this approach, extending Chinese influence through an intricate web of investments that link continents.
At the recent Belt and Road Forum, President Xi Jinping reiterated China’s vision of a “shared future for humanity,” a message tailored to resonate with developing nations seeking alternatives to Western aid models.
The Asian superpower has also sought to reshape multilateral institutions to reflect its priorities, as seen in its instrumental role in supporting the African Union’s recent admission as a permanent member of the G20. Yet, China’s strategy is not without criticism; its financing practices are often labelled as “debt diplomacy,” with detractors accusing Beijing of leveraging financial dependence to exert political influence.
The contrasting approaches of these three powers highlight a fundamental tension in the concept of multilateralism itself. For the United States, multilateralism is a tool for reinforcing a liberal international order, albeit one that prioritises democratic alliances.
For Russia, it is a means of resisting Western hegemony and promoting a balance of power. For China, it serves as a vehicle for advancing economic connectivity and strategic partnerships, particularly in the Global South. These competing visions are not only shaping the agendas of existing institutions like the United Nations but also driving the creation of alternative platforms that challenge the status quo.
As the world navigates crises ranging from climate change to economic inequality, the future of multilateralism remains uncertain. Will it be a space for genuine collaboration, or will it fracture under the weight of great power rivalry? The answer may well depend on whether emerging economies, particularly in Africa and Latin America, can carve out a more assertive role in mediating these competing agendas.
For now, the stage is set for further contestation, with upcoming summits and forums likely to reflect the deepening divisions—and occasional convergences—between the world’s major powers.
