Interrogating “Multipolarity”: A Response to “Understanding Power Dynamics”

[This piece is a response to an article originally published by UKColumn which challenges my position, which is shared by OffGuardian (and others), on the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel. The UK Column article maintains that “traditional” geopolitics remains a vital topic for the alternate media, and that multipolarity represents a positive alternative to Western Imperialism.

Written by Catte Black (from OffGuardian) and myself, this response puts a second case, arguing that what some might call “multipolarity” does NOT represent any real alternative – and that neither “side”, whatever the depth of the objections to each other – have the welfare of ordinary people as their goal.

You can also read the post at OffGuardian]

 

The article titled “Understanding Power Dynamics and Moving Beyond Divisions: Covid19 through to Ukraine and Israel/Palestine” is written by the eminently qualified propaganda and disinformation scholar, Professor Piers Robinson, and renowned journalist and activist Vanessa Beeley and is herein referred to as the “RB-piece”.

It presents a number of fascinating and well constructed arguments, as well as, we suggest, some rather weaker contentions and a few rather serious and glaring omissions and/or fallacies.

There is much that we agree with in the RB-piece, ie., –

• The identified lack of any kind of “functioning democracy,”
• The need to oppose “demonstrably corrupt and unrepresentative power elites,”
• The importance of abandoning “the left-right paradigm,”
• Recognising “the scale of the struggle we face” and building a world “united against an oligarchical tyranny. “

These are all points of agreement between us, and above all we agree that

In order to face that great power and to dismantle the projects with which it intends to destroy the world as we know it, we must form a cohesive and united Resistance front, one which is inclusive of East and West and everything in between. We must move beyond the left-right paradigms and understand that the rapacious predator class has no such limits or partitioning restrictions on its strategy. Neither should we.

Our only caveat is to clarify what an inclusive “East and West and everything in between” means.

If it means that humanity should be free from all forms of oppression, then we are in full agreement.

However, the subtext of the RB-piece apparently advocates that humanity could free itself via the proposed “multipolar world order”.

We respectfully and entirely disagree with this idea and, on the contrary, suggest we should oppose the multipolar world order just as vigorously as we might any other model of tyranny.

– we hope this response will explain why.

 

Overarching concepts

The concept of “power axes” is key to the RB-piece. Seen through the lens of the policy derived destruction wrought by the “Covid-19 event,” the power axis that exploited this event to “concentrate power” is said to have a “distinctly international, or global, dimension to it.”

The associated notion of a “globalist technocratic agenda [. . .] that is propelling us into a globalised technocratic order” is identified, and this “technocratic agenda” is attributed to a global-public private partnership (G3P) power axis pursuing the global “technocratic order.”

The RB-piece defines this suggested G3P power axis as:

[. . .] multiple governments [. . .]”in particular, the US, China, UK and Germany/EU”, international organisations such as the UN and WHO, plus influential think tanks like the WEF as well as powerful banking and financial actors.”

The second identified power axis is the “Western Empire”—the US and its allies and its “so-called military-industrial complex (MIC).”

The Western Empire is described as driving “the continued projection of power by the US and its allies” through military aggression in places like Ukraine and Gaza.

The G3P, on the other hand, is described as pursuing the “concentration of power” in the hands of a so-called “elite” and is further clarified as:

[. . . ] an attempt to consolidate the biosecurity regimes trialled during the early phases of the Covid19 event.

The World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) push toward a global pandemic preparedness accord (treaty) and proposed amendment of the current International Health Regulations (IHR) is also cited as an example of the G3P’s “emerging biosecurity architecture.”

It is firmly asserted in the RB-piece that both the G3P power grab and the military exploits of the Western Empire

[. . .] represent clear and present threats to the lives and well-being of people.

Based upon these offered concepts of two discrete power axes and their related processes, a number of theories are broached in the RB-piece.

Hypothesis 1 is that the G3P and Western Empire objectives and processes are aligned and consideration is given to the possibility that “the same elite power networks” are responsible for fuelling both the wars and the biosecurity regimes.”

Hypothesis 2 floats the possibility that the G3P, while committed the concentration of power, has within it divergent national interests more concerned with “material and security interests”. This scenario implies that “major powers such as the US, China and Russia [are] pushing forward with the development of global biosecurity regimes whilst resource and security driven conflicts roll on.”

Hypothesis 3 proposes that the G3P, rather than being “global” is more closely aligned to “Western-centric elite power networks” and suggests that both the G3P power grab and Western military imperialism “might be explicable as part of Western Imperialism.”

It is this third suggested scenario of an essential conflation between the G3P (globalist) forces and “Western Imperialism” that provides the basis for the remainder of RB-piece’s analysis, and, while some brief consideration is given to the possibility that a more global network (G3P) is aligned with Western Empire, it is through said “Western Imperialism” and a “Western-based” cartel of public-private interests (W3P), that we are encouraged to understand the suggested global “power dynamic.”

The (undeniable) violent crimes of “Western Imperialism” are the piece’s focus.

And it is here, we suggest, that the piece’s internal arguments become strained and increasingly less credible.

 

Ukraine and the Middle East

Let’s begin this section by stating the obvious that empires are always evil and essentially anti-human. And the “Western Empire” has been no exception to this rule.

Let’s also make it clear that critiquing or examining other power structures in no way implies endorsement of empire.

We agree with RB that both their identified power axes “represent clear and present threats to the lives and well-being of people.” We agree that powerful public-private partnerships are “propelling us into a globalised technocratic order.” And equally we  agree that those pursuing “Western Imperialism” continue to slaughter the innocent.

However we suggest that the RB-piece’s over-simplified assertion of the ”Western Empire,” as essentially the sole driver of all evils, makes it hard for them to present a fully cohesive analysis of current events.

For example, it is suggested that the wars in Ukraine and the the ME (West Asia) are the result of

[. . .] the continued projection of power by the US and its allies.

This is then juxtaposed with the following observations:

[. . .] whatever credibility the West possessed in the past is now being further, perhaps catastrophically, eroded.

and:

[. . .] it is very difficult to imagine there being sufficient military, economic or ideational capacity necessary to win in the Ukraine or the Middle East, let alone engage any other major powers.”

Both of these observations are accurate, but the problem for the RB-piece is that they both fundamentally contradict their initial claim that these conflicts represent “the continued projection of power by the US and its allies.”

There is clearly a problem in their reasoning here, because the 2022 war in Ukraine simply does not follow the previous pattern of “imperial conflict”.

For one thing – this phase of the longterm war in Ukraine was launched by Russia, who, in total refutation of its own past policy, invaded the territory of a sovereign nation – something hitherto in this century only ever undertaken by the Western empire and/or its satellites – and resulting in thousands of Ukrainian civilians being killed by Russian forces.

Of course Russia offered “justifications” for its actions at the UN, and some may find the “self-defense” argument persuasive in this case (though of course the Western Empire has routinely used the very same argument to justify every bloodstained campaign it has ever undertaken).

But ultimately whether we accept the justification is irrelevant.

What signifies here is that the 2022 conflict in Ukraine was something new – an aggressive military campaign launched by Russia entirely abandoning its previous strategies in the region which it maintained over many years of gross provocation.

This sudden and dramatic policy shift in itself, regardless of any other consideration, requires us to “update” our understanding of what forces might be at play.

While the US orchestrated Maidan coup and the following 8 year-long war in the Donbass was definitively a “projection of power by the US and its allies” it can be argued it was one of the last.

All the indications are that Russia is in the military ascendancy in Ukraine and that its “victory” is anticipated – with the Western legacy media propagandists now openly discussing their version of what Russia winning the war portends, and with the NATO arms supplies and funding for the Kyiv regime drying up.

Indeed it seems such a victory was never in much doubt. Speaking even before Russia shocked the world by entering the war in Ukraine, US President Joe Biden presciently said that Russia

[will] be able to prevail over time,

and added

militarily, they [Russia] have overwhelming superiority.

While there was much talk of making Russia pay economically for its military exploits, neither the US nor its NATO allies ever committed the necessary forces to actually defeat Russia in Ukraine. It looks as if, rather than aim for victory, the killing in Ukraine is prolonged by NATO drip feeding just enough support to enable “the war” to limp on.

Why?

Is this another example of Western Empire’s callous disregard for human life?

Absolutely.

Is it anything as simple as “the continued projection of power by the US and its allies”?

We suggest  absolutely not.

Indeed it could be argued that what we witnessed in Ukraine could better be described as the “projection of power by the multipolar axis.”

If true – would this be a better state of affairs?

The hope, that Western Empire will cease its expansionist wars, is a heartening prospect, & there are many reasons, highlighted in the RB-piece, to welcome the end of the Western Empire’s projection of power.

However is it wise to assume the erosion of the “Western Empire” will automatically lead to a better world?

Before we do that let’s examine the “multipolar axis,” its aims and objectives.

Are we looking at a simple binary here? Red versus Blue? East versus West? Unipolar versus Multipolar? Or is that very projection of simplicity something we need to be wary of?

In a section of the RB-piece, that we’ll cover in a moment, the subject of orchestrated “structural deep events,” i.e., manipulated major global events that have geopolitical and economic ramifications, are discussed. It seems Hamas’ Al-Aqsa Flood attack on Israel on October 7th was, at the very least, an Israeli LIHOP false flag attack.

That is to say, it appears to have been “orchestrated.”

If so, assuming Israel is part of the identified “Western Empire,” (a relationship that is apparently shifting) it could be argued that Hamas’ attack – lauded by many as a blow against Western tyranny – was in fact the “projection of power” by Western Empire.

Further evidence suggests this possibility.

It is unlikely that Hamas’ would exist in the form it does today without the support of the Israeli state. In addition, when US-led coalition sponsored an Islamist insurrection against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, Hamas backed the so-called rebels.

Essentially, Hamas aligned with US coalition and Israeli interests at the time.

Notably, the Hamas 7th October attack also served as a claimed casus beli for Israel. As pointed out in the RB-piece, its military response evidently “meets the criteria of genocide.”

Hamas isn’t actually mentioned in the RB-piece but the following is stated:

[. . .] the Israeli military action against Palestinians, introduce new dynamics. In recognition that conflict in Ukraine, Israel/Palestine and West Asia (alias the Middle East) is being driven by Western geo-political ambitions, not least of which concerns attempts to maintain US-led dominance of the global system.”

Once again, as in Ukraine, we are confronted with the apparently failed “projection” of Western Imperial power.

If this imbroglio is really an attempt “to maintain US-led dominance of the global system” it has been a strategic disaster from the outset, most notably through the overwhelming resistance it has faced in the United Nations (UN).

True, Israel has in the past been subject to censure following innumerable UN General Assembly resolution (A/Res) none of which it has ever been compelled to abide by. So, this condemnation is not entirely unique.

Nonetheless, the UN Secretary Generals condemnation of Israel’s military response to Al-Aqsa Flood at the UN Security Council was fairly remarkable.

Accusing Israel of operating a “suffocating occupation,” Antonio Guterres has effectively accused Israel of war crimes stating that nothing justifies:

[. . .] the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.

A subsequent UN resolution saw 153 countries unite against Israel’s evident genocide of Palestinians, demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.

Meanwhile even the Western legacy media, such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Sky News and others were increasingly featuring the horrors of the Gaza slaughter & telling its readers that the US was looking “increasingly isolated on the world stage.”

Humanity has long understood that dying empires are dangerous beasts, but if the mass slaughter in Gaza was an attempt “to maintain US-led dominance of the global system,” it couldn’t have backfired more comprehensively.

For the RB-piece analysis to maintain internal sense, we have to assume at this stage that the strategic planners of Western Empire are, to say the least, catastrophically error prone and shortsighted.

This is, of course, entirely possible.

But the weakness of the RB-piece is that it offers the Western Empire as an all-powerful entity without serious opposition, which renders these abject failures as totally inexplicable.

How is it repeatedly failing at its own objectives?

Why does it increasingly appear like a demented and blood-soaked anachronism – when it allegedly has total control of how its actions are portrayed?

Why is it apparently incapable any longer of even giving itself consistently good press from its own controlled media?

We suggest this is not an accident.

We suggest there is very clear opposition to the continuation of Western Empire, not simply from its victims, but from within its own self.

We suggest the “multipolar axis” represent a rapidly emerging global power structure that has support, not only in the East, but from many of the most powerful stalwarts of the decaying Western Empire.

 

Offering a different analysis of the global power dynamic

By omission, no criticism of the “multipolar global system” is offered by the RB-piece. We can therefore assume it is tacitly endorsed.

So, what is that model?

Recently, highlighting the danger of a declining Western Empire, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, said:

[. . .] the West clings to elusive dominance, no one is safe from its geopolitical machinations. And such understanding is growing in the world. We feel this when communicating with partners in the international arena. Most of them agree with us that sooner or later our Western colleagues will have to accept the realities of a multipolar world, and then all issues will be resolved on the basis of a balance of interests.

The multipolar axis is led by the BRICS nations, including China, Russia, India and now with Saudi Arabia and Iran among them. Their shared objective is to construct a supposedly more “inclusive” model of “global governance.”

According to a joint statement issued by Presidents Xi and Putin, made less that 3 weeks before Russia officially entered the war in Ukraine, the envisaged multipolar world order, will establish a “a just multipolar system of international relations”:

Today, the world is going through momentous changes, and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation. It sees the development of such processes and phenomena as multipolarity, economic globalization, the advent of information society, cultural diversity, transformation of the global governance architecture and world order; there is increasing interrelation and interdependence between the States; a trend has emerged towards redistribution of power in the world.

There are some key multipolar concepts that we would like to highlight. The “momentous changes” are global and are considered part of the “rapid transformation” of humanity. This includes a “transformation of the global governance architecture.” In light of the “increasing interrelation and interdependence between the States,” this multipolar transformation is based upon a “redistribution” of global power, in all of its dimensions: political, military, economic, financial, social and cultural. The joint statement continued:

The sides [the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China] call on all States to pursue well-being for all and, with these ends, [. . .] protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role.

Essentially this is the same “world order” that has been until recently dominated by the “Western Empire.”

In the referenced Chinese and Russian joint statement, “mutipolarity” is claimed to be a better system of “global governance” because global problems will supposedly be:

[. . .] resolved on the basis of a balance of interests.

The lack of any notable divergence from the current “international ruled based order” (IRBO) is emphasised by the following elements of the joint statement.

Firstly:

[. . .] the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set noble goals in the area of universal human rights, set forth fundamental principles, which all the States must comply with.

In multipolarity, the UN is the forum where the “balance of interests” will be judged. “All States must comply” with its balanced judgements.

How “balanced” it will be depends upon how you view stakeholder capitalism and public-private partnerships. The UN is a global governance organisation that is based upon both.

In 1998, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the World Economic Forum’s Davos symposium that a “quiet revolution” had occurred in the UN during the 1990s:

[T]he United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a “quiet revolution. [. . .] [W]e are in a stronger position to work with business and industry. [. . .] The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world. [. . .] We also promote private sector development and foreign direct investment. We help countries to join the international trading system and enact business-friendly legislation.

Manifestations of the UN’s “business-friendly” approach and commitment to public-private partnerships can be seen, giving just one example among countless others, in UN Resolution 70/224 which:

[. . .] reaffirms the [UN’s] strong political commitment to address the challenge of financing and creating an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development particularly with regard to developing partnerships through the provision of greater opportunities to the private sector.

This commitment to a global governance system providing greater partnership opportunities for the private sector—a model of global fascism—is evident in our second quoted example from the joint statement:

Development is a key driver in ensuring the prosperity of the nations. The ongoing pandemic of the new coronavirus infection poses a serious challenge to the fulfillment of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is vital to enhance partnership relations for the sake of global [sustainable] development.

“Sustainable development” and fulfillment of Agenda 2030 SDGs, on the path to meeting Agenda 21, is a “key driver” in multipolarity. Partnerships are vital and all States must comply.

Thirdly:

The sides reaffirm their focus on building the Greater Eurasian Partnership in parallel and in coordination with the Belt and Road construction to foster the development of regional associations as well as bilateral and multilateral integration processes for the benefit of the peoples on the Eurasian continent.

In the authors’ collective opinion, the “Greater Eurasian Partnership” is the dominant geopolitical “partnership” within of the “multipolar axis.” The Belt and Road Initiative is evidently an important component for the sustainable development of Greater Eurasian project.

Fourthly:

The Russian side confirms its readiness to continue working on the China-proposed Global Development Initiative, including participation in the activities of the Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative under the UN auspices. In order to accelerate the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the sides call on the international community to take practical steps in key areas of cooperation such as poverty reduction, food security, vaccines and epidemics control, financing for development, climate change, sustainable development, including green development, industrialization, digital economy, and infrastructure connectivity.

If this sound like the same agenda you’ve heard from the talking heads of the Western Empire that’s because it is exactly the same agenda.

The only difference is that more “nation states” (meaning their appointed leaders of course, not the people) will supposedly have a say in the new “multipolar” version of global public-private governance.

Fifth:

The Heads of State positively assess the effective interaction between Russia and China in the bilateral and multilateral formats focusing on the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. [. . .] They will further increase cooperation in the development and manufacture of vaccines [. . .]. The sides have commended the work of the competent authorities and regions of the two countries on implementing quarantine measures in the border areas [. . .] and intend to consider establishing a joint mechanism for epidemic control and prevention [. . .] The sides plan to strengthen coordination on epidemiological measures to ensure strong protection of health, safety [. . .] The Russian side welcomes the work carried out jointly by China and WHO to identify the source of the new coronavirus infection and supports the China WHO joint report on the matter.

The “Covid-19 event” is the only concentration of power “process” highlighted in the RB-piece. Consequently, the resistance to the “elite power networks” behind the reported power grab is named the “Covid resistance.” The “Covid-19 event” and the rollout of the biosecurity state was not restricted to the West plus China. It was a truly global power grab “process” in our view.

The “multipolar” governments of Russia, Iran, Israel, India, Brazil, South Africa and Hamas—the government of Gaza—also followed the same “globalist technocratic agenda” and are all committed to the same global “biosecurity state.” If the “Covid resistance” is going to be united then it needs to mount opposition to these governments too.

Sixth:

No State can or should ensure its own security separately from the security of the rest of the world and at the expense of the security of other States. The international community should actively engage in global governance to ensure universal, comprehensive, indivisible and lasting security. [. . .] The Russian side reaffirms its support for the One-China principle, confirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and opposes any forms of independence of Taiwan.

It’s a little ambiguous perhaps, but multipolarity appears to suggest a potential global security force of some sort, under the command of UN administered public-private global governance.

The apparent potential for a “world army” is seemingly mooted.

That multipolarity embraces the One-China “principle” is far less ambiguous. Taiwanese independence is not recognised by the UN. However, while we should be very wary of opinion polls, especially as reported by the legacy media, there appears to be considerable support for independence in Taiwan.

The Chinese government’s “principle” is a claimed right to incorporate Taiwan into its jurisdiction, by force if necessary.

Regardless of the merits or shortcomings of the Taiwanese independence argument, there is clearly nothing inherently “peaceful” about multipolarity in this instance.

Seventh:

The sides condemn terrorism in all its manifestations, promote the idea of creating a single global anti-terrorism front, with the United Nations playing a central role, advocate stronger political coordination and constructive engagement in multilateral counterterrorism efforts.

There is nothing in the concept of multipolarity that suggests an end to the “war on terror.” In fact the potential for a greatly expanded, global “counterterrorism” effort is raised by multipolarity.

Eighth:

The sides reiterate their readiness to deepen cooperation in the field of international information security and to contribute to building an open, secure, sustainable and accessible ICT [information and communication technology] environment. [. . .] yThe sides [. . .] support the work of the relevant Ad Hoc Committee of Governmental Experts, facilitate the negotiations within the United Nations for the elaboration of an international convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes.

The UN’s “ad hoc committee” (AHC) is working to develop an International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes: a so-called UN Cybercrime Treaty.

The “ad hoc committee” is not comprised of just “governmental experts.” The claim made in the joint statement is deceptive. The UN reports:

[. . .] non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council are invited to participate in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee [. . .], civil society organizations, academic institutions and private sector organizations [. . .] are also invited to participate in the sessions.

The list of “stakeholders” that are participating in the “ad hoc committee,” formulating a Global Cybercrime Treaty, include Microsoft, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC UK)—whose members include Deloitte, HSBC, IBM, AIG and the Bank of China—and Google.

The purpose of the envisaged UN Cybercrime Treaty is to criminalise the sharing of information that:

[. . .] may have an adverse impact on States, enterprises and the well-being of individuals and society.

The Chinese government is among those eager to use the treaty to criminalise the “dissemination of false information.”

What constitutes “false information” will be decreed by “multipolar” public-private global governance.

Multipolarity embraces both stakeholder capitalism and global public-private partnership.

It advocates the control of information by the diktat of an allegedly preferable model of global governance.

The multipolar world order will determine when the spreading of “disinformation”—the dissemination of “false information”—constitutes a crime.

Public-private global governance, with the Greater Eurasian Partnership at the heart of the “multipolar axis” leading the way, will censor and prosecute accordingly, as it sees fit.

We have to ask – do the authors of the RB-piece really endorse this model for the future of humanity?

Of course, there are also many positive multipolar selling points highlighted in the joint statement.

The offer of a more balanced distribution of global power, clear resistance to the military expansionism of “Western Empire,” a stated commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and a call to withdraw nuclear weapons from overseas territories and re-instigate nuclear and chemical weapons agreements are all suggested.

These are vitally important global issues of concern and the “multipolar axis” apparent wish to resolve them shouldn’t simply be dismissed.

But is the global prison implied by the whole spectrum of “multipolarity” really the only, or best, way to achieve an end to war and the threat of nuclear annihilation?

By conspicuous omission it appears the authors of the RB-piece believe this to be so.

This represents the primary divergence from the alternative analysis we offer here.

We do not believe that any form of global governance is either warranted or beneficial for humanity.

Further, we suggest that the idea that multipolarity represents any real divergence from the long-established power dynamics of the imperial West is severely challenged by the fact multipolarity is supported by many highly influential elements of “Western Empire.”

We suggest it is not distinct from the concentration of power “process” and that it is being promoted overtly by the East but also surreptitiously by elements in the West whose interests are also aligned with those of the multipolar axis.

We consider a multipolar world order to represent the fulfillment of the ambitions of a truly global-public-private partnership.

A G3P rather than a W3P.

The purpose of the “multipolar world order” is to exert oligarchical control over humanity through governments’ “partnerships,” controlled by the United Nations (UN), which is, in our view, a global public-private partnership.

A historical perspective on Western-centric multipolar partnership

There are numerous voices, especially among the so-called Western “elite,” that have long advocated what we would today call a “multipolar world order.”

For example the Anglo-American Establishment, whose activities were catalogued by Professor Carroll Quigley, reportedly sought to establish a post WWI “three power world.”

Similarly the Rockefellers, who were instrumental in the creation of the UN, commissioned their Special Studies Project, led by Henry Kissinger, which published its final Prospects for America Report in 1961. The UN global governance system it envisaged was the multipolar world order:

The hoped-for result is peace in a world divided into smaller units, but organised and acting in common effort to permit and assist progress in economic, political, cultural and spiritual life. [. . .] It would presumably consist of regional institutions under an international body of growing authority” combined so as to be able to deal with those problems that increasingly the separate nations will not be able to resolve alone. [. . .] The United Nations [is] the international organisation that today holds out the reasonable hope of being able to take over more and more functions and to assume increasingly large responsibilities. [. . .] The spirit and the letter of the Charter [. . .] gives more than lip service to the indispensable world order[.]

[PFA p. 26 & 33]

Both the World Economic Forum’s misnamed publication “Covid-19: The Great Reset” and the most hawkish Western policy think-tanks, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), promote the notion of a “regionalised” or multipolar world. For example, at the recent global Doha Forum Børge Brende, the WEF President, said [go to 07.35]:

Multipolarity is potentially a positive thing for the world, moving forward, with the big caveat that we also need the world to be multilateralist on top of it, where we agree on some rules.

Similarly, the CFR wote:

Regionalization [multipolarity] has enhanced economic competitiveness and prosperity in Asia and Europe. It could do the same for the United States, if only it would embrace its neighbors.”

But perhaps the clearest “Western-centric” support for the multipolar axis’ plan is found among the global financial establishment. Speaking in 2019 at the Jackson Hole G7 central bankers symposium, then governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney said:

Any unipolar [monetary] system is unsuited to a multi-polar world. We would do well to think through every opportunity, including those presented by new technologies, to create a more balanced and effective system. [. . .] [A] multi-polar global economy requires a new IMFS [International Monetary and Financial System] to realise its full potential. [. . .] Let’s end the malign neglect of the IMFS and build a system worthy of the diverse, multi-polar global economy that is emerging.”

Far from opposing a multipolar world order, there are powerful—including perhaps the most powerful—Western-centric actors who desire it.

Their collective “networks” have kept multipolarity in mind for generations.

As highlighted by Sergei Lavrov, the claimed “dominance” of Western Empire is definitely “elusive.”

Its apparent rank failure to “project” any kind of dominance in Ukraine, coupled with its resounding propaganda and political defeat in the Middle East, thoroughly contradicts the notion of its continued dominance.

But these aren’t the only examples of the Western Empire apparently bleeding out.

At an extraordinary meeting of the G20, in response to Israel’s attack on Palestinians, Vladimir Putin was among the global leaders, including UN general Secretary Antonio Guterres, to harshly criticise Israel. Putin stated:

Are you not shocked by the extermination of civilians in Palestine and the Gaza Strip today? Is it not shocking that doctors have to operate on children “do abdominal surgeries“ and use a scalpel on a child’s body without anaesthesia? Did it not shock you when the UN Secretary-General said that Gaza has turned into a huge children’s cemetery?

Strong words, and well said. Which isn’t unusual for Putin. He is a highly skilled communicator. He continued:

Dramatic transformation processes are underway in the world. New powerful global economic growth centres are emerging and gaining strength. A significant portion of global investment, trade and consumer activity is shifting to the Asian, African and Latin American regions, which are home to the majority of the world’s population.”

That is exactly what we are seeing. It is an ongoing global “process” that is absent from the analysis of global power dynamics offered in the RB-piece.

Not just global investment but resources too, are flooding to the East and the South, and much of it is flowing from Western Empire.

It is hard to see how China’s economic miracle could have unfolded as it did without the foreign direct investment (FDI) it received from Western-centric “elites” and the governments, or rather the taxpayers, they own.

Given The RB-piece’ exclusive focus on the “Covid-19 event” they might find it instructive that, while there was a sharp decline in total global FDI during 2020 – it continued to rise in China. In fact, while FDI in other advanced economies collapsed, China benefited from FDI valued at $163 billion.

The 4% increase of FDI in China in 2020 saw it temporarily surpass the US as the world’s leading recipient of direct investment.

And the Western-centric “elite” have shown no less enthusiasm to invest in Multipolar China post-covid.

For example, BlackRock, and the Western oligarchs who invest through it, decided to make an sizeable investments in China’s “state-owned” hydrocarbon giant PetroChina.

The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) is among the largest “fossil fuel” energy companies in the world. It deals in both gas and oil and PetroChina is its publicly listed arm.

But this is a global public-private partnership, and so BlackRock have also supported China’s oligarchs to invest internationally.

In 2019, Larry Fink, the chairman of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment firm, leading on the corporation’s Chinese investment strategy, told investors:

[. . .] the Chinese are looking for greater participation of global firms in their asset management space [. . .] We hope to have a majority-controlled asset management [business] in China and we are very engaged with the Chinese regulators.

Engagement with Chinese regulators was very profitable for BlackRock. It was the first to receive a license from the Chinese state to operate a wholly owned onshore mutual fund for Chinese investors.

While BlackRock acquiesced to pressure from US regulators to shut down its Chinese “offshore” fund, in an open snub to the US state, it reportedly stated that its investment commitment in China was “steadfast” and that it has no intention of terminating its “onshore funds that have raised money in China.”

The RB-piece’s exploration of public-private partnerships infers that they are “western-centric.” The suggestion is that the “elite power networks” responsible for managing the process of the “concentration of power” are more or less, exclusively Western.

The facts demonstrate clearly otherwise.

To be clear:

BlackRock currently operates a mutual fund in China enabling wealthy Chinese investors to actively engage in the suggested “concentration of power” process anywhere in the world:

The Fund follows an asset allocation policy that seeks to maximise total return in a manner consistent with the principles of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing. [. . .] The Fund invests globally at least 80% of its total assets excluding cash and derivatives, in Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) and investment strategies which pursue a positive ESG objective or outcome.

The “Covid-19 event” is not the only power hungry process underway. Nor is the emerging “biosecurity state” the only envisaged social control mechanism.

For example, Sustainable Development, complete with its commitment to a global digital ID, alleged financial inclusion, and its avid promotion of national debt as a means of financing “sustainable development” in every country—especially the poorest—is another notable power grab “event” or “process.”

The RB-piece lacks any notable exploration of international finance and banking. There is no acknowledgment of the global rollout of CBDC (digital money), digital ID, SDGs, the 4IR, etc.

While we appreciate it is not possible to include an analysis of everything in the limited form of an article, to omit any mention of these “processes” in an investigation of global power dynamics is an oversight in our view. Again, speaking at the extraordinary G20 meeting, Putin added:

Market turbulence is on the rise. Chronic issues in the international financial sector, as well as energy and food security challenges, are intensifying. [. . .] Russia advocates restoring the spirit of open and mutually beneficial international economic cooperation based on the UN Charter [. . .] It is important to achieve an effective optimisation of the global economic governance system, in particular, to restart the WTO in its entirety, including its arbitration function. [. . .] We need to enhance the role of developing economies in international financial institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank.”

Just like Klaus Schwab and all of Putin’s Western political counterparts, Putin sees a “polycrises” in the world that can only be resolved with better global “economic governance” led by reformed institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. This should all fall under the collective authority represented by the UN’s model of public-private global governance.

Global stakeholder capitalism if you will.

A commitment to sustainable development, digital transformation, net zero, natural asset companies (“sequestration in forests.”), carbon trading, censorship (information security) and so on, is all apparently essential, according to the President of the Russian Federation.

To be explicitly clear:

We see no evidence to suggest any reason why Western-centric “elites” have anything to fear from a multipolar world order. Which may explain why many promote it today, just as their historical “networks” have for decades.

 

The “subliminal white supremacy” slur

The RB-piece several times references an allegedly “right-dominated Covid resistance”, which seems strange given:

a) that the authors were themselves part of the “covid resistance” but would not, we suggest, ever refer to themselves as “right-wing”

b) the authors themselves call for an end of such easy and misleading labeling and for a “united resistance”

This is yet another major internal contradiction in their piece that needs to be reconciled.

It would seem manifestly obvious that there is nothing inherently “right-wing” in questioning the pandemic narrative and we are astonished to see it suggested in this piece.

But sadly it doesn’t end there. Not content with invoking the very left-right divisive tropes it claims to deplore, the RB-piece then strays into incoherent vitriol with the ultimate slur of “white supremacism”.

[. . .] the Palestinian people have priorities that need addressing that are more urgent than any emerging global-level political and economic structures. They are fighting for their existence in Palestine. Indeed, one could argue there is a level of subliminal white supremacism in the argumentation that conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine or the wider West Asia region are little more than distractions that will facilitate the Western-centric dystopian governance regime.

This aspect of the analysis simply has no merit in our view.

It’s also a textbook trick of legacy media propagandists.

There is literally NOTHING “white supremacist” about criticism of the “multipolar axis” or indeed about considering the possibility of war being used for purposes of distraction.

Nor does the possibility of lives being sacrificed for cynical and undeclared political ends in any way diminish the tragedy of their loss.

We hope the authors of the RB-piece rethink the inclusion of such silliness in an otherwise perfectly rational analysis.

On a connected but slightly less contentious note, the RB-piece suggests:

For Western-based writers and researchers, it is perhaps easier to engage with threats posed to their own lives and well-being and those of fellow Westerners. This might create a propensity to prioritise critique of the Covid19 event. But this should not be done at the expense of support for those at the receiving end of the Western Empire’s firepower in places such as Gaza and Syria.”

This offered advice appears to draw a distinction between “Western-based” journalists and what we might call the “on-the-ground” journalists reporting directly from places like Gaza and Syria.

A distinction can certainly be made. The courage exhibited by on-the-ground war correspondents isn’t required if you are presently analysing global power axes from the relative safety of, for example, London or Moscow, or Berlin, although it is perhaps a little odd that it seems only Western-based writers are singled out for this criticism.

However, while “Western-based” journalists might prioritise any number of critiques over others, the inference that they per se can’t possibly understand suffering, or have no experience of it themselves, strays close to some highly speculative “virtue signalling.”

More importantly perhaps the RB-piece roots this allegation in the a priori assumption that the Palestinian people face a “Western-centric dystopian governance regime.”

We have already presented an alternative analysis that suggests this is fundamentally inaccurate and that the ”dystopian governance regime” is multipolar, public-private in nature and not merely “Western-centric.”

To present one example very relevant to the RB-piece contention, the Israeli state has deployed a digital ID based surveillance grid against Palestinians. It is so draconian, in 2014, former members of Israel’s infamous Unit 8200 wrote a joint letter expressing their dismay to the Israeli government over its vice like control of Palestinian’s whereabouts and activities.

Many of the facial recognition cameras, and the associated “identification” software systems, used by Israel to oppress and target Palestinians are supplied by the “multipolar” Chinese majority state owned technology corporation Hikvision.

Amnesty international has called this surveillance operation “automated apartheid.” For its part in the Palestinian “lockdowns” and oppressive restrictions, and its complicity in the targetting of Palestinians, Hikvision-Israel states:

Hikvision is committed to serving various industries through its cutting-edge technologies of machine perception, artificial intelligence, and big data, leading the future of AIoT [artificial intelligence of things]: Through comprehensive machine perception technologies, we aim to help people better connect with the world around them.”

Israel’s state partnership with the Chinese state is restricting Palestinians movements, identifying them for both Israeli settler and state violence and cutting them off from “the world around them.”

Perhaps this partnership shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Israel is participating in the Chinese government’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). For example, the Chinese Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG) corporation built the enormous automated port in Haifa as part of the BRI. Between 1992 and 2017 the volume of overall trade between Israel and China multiplied 200 times over.

Alongside Israel’s possession of its own nuclear arsenal, Israel’s role as a conduit for Western military and industrial technology transfers to China is perhaps one of the world’s worst kept “secrets.” While occasional gripes from “Western Empire” have been aired, the fact that Israel is known to provide China access to this technology has never deterred the Western Empire from handing it over.

The Palestinian priority is indeed to survive, but they are “fighting for their existence” against a multipolar threat. This multipolar threat is also the “emerging global-level political and economic” structure.

It is the overarching power axis and it is inextricably intertwined with, not mutually exclusive of, the threats faced by the Palestinians.

To point this out is not to “distract” anyone from the appalling suffering of the Palestinians. On the contrary, it is an attempt to highlight the totality of the power axes oppressing them.

Assuming that it is only the Western Empire that is subjecting them to tyranny is not only wrong, it runs the risk of “uniting the resistance” against a poorly defined adversary.

As Sun Tsu said:

[. . .] If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

The RB-piece alleges that much of the analysis presented in this opinion piece lacks historical context, is narrow and myopic, etc. Again, the vitriol seems strangely out of context, but misplaced accusations aside, one point is worthy of further, final reply.

There also appears to be little analysis of how people in so-called Global South nations actually feel about the global future or how they instinctively pivot towards the East, having suffered untold horrors at the hands of the West’s military-industrial complex for most of their existence. [. . .] [U]ntil we start to take full responsibility for the misery inflicted by historic strategies still supported today [by] Western regimes, we will never address key root causes of world subjugation. While we address what we consider to be a universal dystopian future, we must also simultaneously address the liberation of the nations we have enabled our governments to prey upon, destroy, rape and plunder. We can’t fight dystopia while dismissing, marginalising or ignoring those already living in it.

For Palestinians a “pivot towards the East” in the hope of at least some relief from the violence of Western Empire might be understandable – but given that the “East,” certainly in the form of China, is complicit in their present destruction, how much “liberation” they can expect from a multipolar saviour is questionable.

Is this not a rather crucial – if not THE crucial – question?

The Palestinian people gain nothing from the support of people who refuse to engage with geopolitical reality.

And part if that reality is that the new “multipolar world order” is currently testing its control mechanisms on Palestinians—and many other people around the world—in “partnership” with Israel.

It is also “projecting” its military might in Europe.

To assume this “axis” will “liberate” anyone seems an extremely optimistic and wildly premature conclusion.

To not even acknowledge the existence of the “multipolar axis” or give any consideration to the the nature of the public-private global governance regime it is attempting to construct, leaves the analysis of global “power dynamics,” offered in the RB-piece, wanting.

We hope this opinion piece is part of the “start” to a dialogue that will genuinely contribute, in some small way, toward a “united resistance.”

 

Please note: Due to publication constraints my usual editor has not had an opportunity to edit this article. Any typos or other grammatical errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

The post Interrogating “Multipolarity”: A Response to “Understanding Power Dynamics” appeared first on Iain Davis.