In memory of Juan Pablo Cárdenas, colleague and friend who surely would have read this article and would have shared his always insightful opinions and reflections with me.
His life and his struggle, his high professional level and above all his superior human qualities beyond question, will always accompany me as an image of the example to follow to be good in life.
This article serves as a prelude to future debates, and also as a warning to all those who believe we are moving toward a multipolar international system. I don’t believe this, and I’ve been saying so for many years. I even wrote a book, “The Balance of Power: The Reasons for the Equilibrium of the International System,” to argue in favor of this viewpoint.
This is no small matter; it is more than a mere theoretical debate confined to the narrow confines of academia. It concerns the behavior of the major powers in the immediate future and its projection in the medium and long term. To that extent, it involves all actors in the international system. It is worth adding that this process is unfolding at a time when life on the planet is undergoing unprecedented situations and profound transformations that point to a new world in the making.
Multipolarity as a concept establishes an international system characterized by the diffusion of political, economic, and military power among several centers or “poles” of influence, which seems to be occurring as the deterrent capacity of the United States and the West has diminished in recent times. However—and this is the central theme of my book—I have the impression that, given the inability of the world’s leading power to establish itself as a global hegemonic leader, we are actually moving toward the configuration of a balance of power system that—while sharing many similarities with multipolarity—differs in that power is distributed equitably to prevent a single actor from dominating the others.
Not only that, in a multipolar system, any actor can attempt to assume a dominant role. In contrast, a balance of power is a closed system in which each of the essential national actors seeks equilibrium with its peers, primarily for two reasons: first, because it has concluded that it cannot defeat them, and second, because it needs them for its own survival. Furthermore, in multipolarity, the idea of defeating the adversary persists. The balance of power aims to sustain the other members in order to maintain the equilibrium that guarantees survival.
Just a few months after my book was published in 2014, Henry Kissinger released his own, “World Order,” which, interestingly, presented views similar to my own. Of course, Kissinger, from the realist school of international relations and a proponent of some of the most consistent imperialist theories of the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, based his ideas on his concern about the loss of US hegemony and its inability to understand that its survival depends on accepting the need to share power.
To be more precise, I will quote him: “In the world of geopolitics, the established order, proclaimed as universal by Western countries, is at a turning point. Its panaceas are globally understood, but there is no consensus on their application; indeed, concepts such as democracy, human rights, and international law receive divergent interpretations that belligerent parties regularly invoke against each other as battle cries. The rules of the system have been promulgated, but, lacking active enforcement, they have proven ineffective.”
The warning from someone who, at 100 years old, was still a frequent visitor to the White House—where he was listened to by both Republican and Democratic administrations—reveals a concern that went beyond mere diagnosis. He said: “Achieving a balance between the two aspects of order—power and legitimacy—is the essence of the art of government. Power calculations without a moral dimension will transform any disagreement into a test of strength; ambition will find no rest; countries will be engaged in unsustainable tours de force of elusive calculations related to the changing configuration of power. On the other hand, moral proscriptions that disregard balance tend toward crusades or the development of impotent policies that invite questioning; both extremes endanger the coherence of the international order itself.”
Incidentally, Kissinger’s influence wasn’t limited to the White House. He is known to have met publicly with President Xi Jinping at least twice, most recently on July 20, 2023, when the Chinese leader received him at the Diaoyutai State Guest House in Beijing, just four months before the veteran American political leader’s death. Overall, throughout his life, beginning in 1971, Kissinger visited China more than 100 times, meeting with nearly every communist leader in the country, from Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai to Xi.
And it’s only natural that this was the case. While Kissinger, influenced by Machiavelli and Hobbes, understood the need to establish balance in international politics as the axis of the system after discovering it in his studies of realism, in China, this concept—in conjunction with that of harmony—forms part of the fundamental philosophical framework of the country, from Confucius, Lao Tzu and his school of Taoism, the Yin-Yang school and the Five Elements, to Han Feizi and the Legalists. I remind you, dear readers, that we are talking about 25 centuries ago.
In today’s world, we are beginning to glimpse some developments that could point toward a possible realignment of the balance of power. These include:
1. The definition of relations between China and Russia as a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership for Coordination in the New Era”, described by both governments as a bond of “not allies, but better than allies”.
2. The arrangement between China and the United States to promote “constructive strategic stability” agreed between the two countries during President Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States in September of this year, where the Chinese leader urged both powers to be “more partners than rivals,” also advocating a relationship of peaceful coexistence and cooperation given the deep economic ties between the two countries.
3. President Vladimir Putin’s decision to supply diesel to the United States and the global market in order to lower fuel prices, thereby granting Trump a “breath of fresh air” to cope with the pressure he faces in the lead-up to next month’s elections. Acting accordingly, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a temporary license (valid until April 2027) authorizing commercial transactions involving Russian diesel despite the sanctions, which also represents a similar “breath of fresh air” for Russia to cope with the more than 28,500 coercive measures and economic sanctions imposed by the United States, Europe, and other countries, aimed at strangling the Russian economy.
As we can see, agreements are emerging from unexpected sources. The biggest loser in this situation is Europe, which has been definitively left out of this new global game. Likewise, Ukraine and other US satellites have been discarded for the sake of the national interests of the three powers that are now vying for power.
Of course, there are conceptual differences regarding what national interest means to each leader. For Xi Jinping, it’s the interest of the Chinese people and their dream. For Putin, it’s the interest of Mother Russia, its history, and its centuries-old culture that Europe has always sought to destroy. And for Trump, it’s the interest of the billionaires for whom he governs. That’s what they will put on the table.
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit will be held in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China, on November 18 and 19. A trilateral summit between the leaders of China, the United States, and Russia is being prepared in parallel. This would be the first time such a meeting has taken place. Perhaps this meeting will lay the foundations for the global balance of power that will govern the future of humanity. We will have to pay close attention to what happens there. Perhaps the three leaders will pose for a photo. If so, we should consult Abel Prieto, former Cuban minister and expert photo analyst, to see what he sees in it.
As I have said many times in recent years, it is necessary to free ourselves from the analytical categories of the Cold War because they are outdated and useless for studying today’s world. Ideology is no longer the organizing principle of international relations; now they are structured around the interests of states. To that extent, there are no permanent friends or enemies. Friendship is circumstantial and limited to the present moment.
Today it’s worth recalling the words of British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, who in March 1848, in a speech before the House of Commons, said that his country had “…no eternal allies nor perpetual enemies,” adding that its interests were eternal and perpetual, and therefore it was its duty to defend them. If this isn’t the case, how can we understand that Russia is sending fuel to the United States, but can’t get it to Cuba?