Opinion – Is Multipolarity Meant to Destabilize the World?

Concerns about the changing global order have grown as we transition from a neutral world, dominated by the United States since the end of the Cold War, to a more fragmented, multi-layered one. The rise of new powers—China, India, Turkey, and Iran—has ushered in what many see as an era of diversification. For some, this raises hopes for a balanced international order, while others fear that diversity will create instability, as competing interests clash without a single guiding hand. The question is not just whether multipolarity is inevitable; whether it is naturally degenerate. The history of multipolar systems is very mixed, often marked by conflict and competition. However, the historical example of the “concert of Europe” provides an interesting model for managing today’s emerging diversity through power, cooperation, and, most importantly, self-restraint. A modern concert of power can help the world’s leading states to coexist without endless interventions that risk turning multipolarity into something dangerous for all.

To understand today’s instability, we must think about the unique circumstances that emerged after the Cold War, when the US became the world’s most powerful superpower. America’s conservative era spread the values ​​of liberal democracy and market capitalism around the world, fueled by the hope of a new world order. But while the West celebrates the “end of history,” these values ​​faced opposition in many parts of the world. Efforts to integrate Western practices—from open markets to democracy—often clashed with traditional or authoritarian structures, prompting a backlash from states that saw these changes as inconsistent with their interests.

This cultural wave of globalization produced complex reactions. In developing countries, some accept Western symbols of success, while others see them as foreign. Nationalist movements gained strength, often in response to the idea that global integration benefited a privileged few disproportionately while leaving others behind. The Internet has reinforced this divide, giving leaders the power to unite their people on nationalist or anti-Western issues. This disrupted the landscape, bringing the world closer to the configuration of many places. The problem, as history shows, is that multipolarity tends to invite instability. When multiple powers vie for power without a single dominant leader, rivalries deepen, alliances form, and miscalculations become costly. The chaotic alliances that led to World War I are a prime example. A complex web of commitments between powers such as Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, and Britain created a fragile system in which a single event—the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand—started a world war. Today, similar bilateral arrangements are emerging as states like China and Russia choose special, strategic partnerships over global alliances, adding to the risks.

However, history provides a model for managing diversity without falling into the trap of inevitable conflict: the Concert of Europe. After the Napoleonic Wars, the great powers of Europe established a framework for balancing power and resolving disputes, aimed at preventing any single power from dominating. For nearly a century, the Concert of Europe has maintained a relative peace on the continent, providing a forum where states can negotiate interests and resolve disputes without resorting to war. The concert was not perfect—in the end, it was resolved—but it shows that diversity can be managed if the powers that be commit themselves to cooperation, balance and respect. This “concert of power” concept is well suited to today’s world, with its distribution of power centers and complex conflicts. A modern energy concerto, based on self-restraint, can provide an effective framework for multi-site stability. Rather than relying on international institutions or ideological debates, it will emphasize cooperation between major powers, encouraging states to respect each other’s spheres and avoid collective intervention. In this model, self-restraint will be the goal, limiting conflicts and motivating solutions.

One of the main challenges of diversity is that international institutions often struggle to keep up with different power structures. The United Nations and the European Union were designed for a world of shared responsibility, but as powers put their national interests first, these institutions have been ineffective. For example, during the Syrian Civil War, competing agendas between states sidelined multilateral solutions, and within the EU, countries such as Hungary and Germany diverged from a unified policy to protect their national interests. The concert of powers will recognize these limitations, providing a forum where the most powerful states can negotiate directly, balancing interests without expecting all players to adhere to a global standard.

Multipolarity also fosters a new kind of cultural competition, as rising powers assert their values ​​and priorities. China’s actions in the South China Sea, for example, are based on a campaign to seek regional dominance, while Turkey’s military actions against Kurdish groups show that national interests often override broader stability. In the context of the concert of powers, restraint would mean that each state respects the other’s core interests, avoiding policies that provoke conflict. A multilateral system without self-restraint risks exacerbating these cultural and territorial conflicts, but a concerted approach may reduce such risks by emphasizing practical boundaries. Another destabilizing factor in many societies is the tendency of states to legitimize their rule by posing external forces as threats. Turkey’s alignment between NATO and the BRICS, for example, strengthens its regional influence while casting Western alliances in doubt. China’s rhetoric about sovereignty in Taiwan and the South China Sea includes support for nationalism by framing external powers as existential threats. A concert of power approach, however, would encourage transparency and dialogue among leading states, reducing the need for confrontation and helping to maintain stability.

Historically, diversity has often led to major conflicts, but the concert of power offers a way to break this cycle. By encouraging direct communication and cooperative problem-solving among the world’s leading states, the concert could prevent conflicts from spiraling out of control. The goal would not be to avoid competition altogether—competition is inevitable in international relations—but to manage it without letting differences escalate into open conflict. Self-restraint, in this context, involves limiting intervention to situations of clear national interest, rather than reacting flexibly to all global problems. In concert, major powers can focus on supporting regional stability without interfering in each other’s spheres. This will require a significant shift away from the global policing approach that has characterized much of the post-Cold War era, to a more limited, regionally focused strategy.