The World in Transition: The United States, China and the Formation of New Rules of Global Politics

The Munich Conference, which is scheduled to take place from the 14th to the 16th of February 2025, is primarily a platform for the dissemination of public statements and informal negotiations, rather than a venue for the formulation of concrete decisions. The majority of participants arrive with pre-established positions and merely articulate these during the conference, thereby assessing the audience's response and that of other states. Nevertheless, the conference holds significance for two primary reasons. Informal meetings can take place behind the scenes, where the parties discuss compromises that will later develop into real agreements, for example contacts between representatives of the West and China or the United States and Central Asian countries on logistics issues.If a certain topic receives a wide response during the conference (for example, support for Ukraine or energy security), this can influence further decisions in NATO, the EU, the G7, and other structures.
In essence, the conference serves to reinforce prevailing trends and provides a platform for elites to explore the potential for compromise on specific issues. The focal points and the subsequent ability of the participants to translate these discussions into tangible policy outcomes remain to be seen. At the Munich Security Conference in 2025, the following main lines of confrontation are anticipated: 1. the US and allies vs. Russia, 2. Israel and the US vs. Iran and its allies, and 3. the EU and the US vs. the Global South. However, it should be noted that these divisions are ultimately secondary against the backdrop of the primary confrontation, namely the US and the EU vs. China.
It is evident that the ongoing crisis in Ukraine will continue to dominate global discourse. In response, the West will likely engage in deliberations concerning the provision of additional support to Ukraine, while Russia, even in the absence of an explicit invitation, will seek to disseminate its narrative that Western policy is precipitating an escalation of the conflict. The ongoing debate within the West regarding the formulation of a long-term strategy for Russia, and whether to pursue negotiations with Moscow or maintain pressure, is indicative of the complexity of the situation.
Significant powers have initiated the establishment of "new rules" that are considered suitable not only for the West, but also for China, India, Russia, Turkey, and Brazil. The creation of "new global institutions" (alternatives to the UN, WTO, and IMF) is underway, with the aim of accommodating the multipolar reality. Regional blocs are being granted increased rights and autonomy (for example, the Eurasian Union, BRICS+, and the Latin American bloc).While it is evident that conflicts "will not disappear", new mechanisms to mitigate them may emerge. The collapse of the global economy is an issue of concern to all nations. Consequently, there will be an increase in the number of attempts to reach an agreement, since such an agreement would provide an opportunity to transform the global economy. The influential powers are in the process of finding a balance instead of constant conflict, and it is anticipated that there will be a transition period between chaos and a new system of rules over the next 10 years. The potential for a "managed multipolarity" scenario, wherein competing interests are balanced, is contingent upon the ability of the United States, the European Union, China, India, and other influential powers to reach a consensus. The absence of compromise in this regard could potentially lead to a state of instability and conflict.China's strategic approach in this context involves the utilisation of economic, technological, and diplomatic influence, while the United States has historically relied on forceful methods. It is imperative to acknowledge a salient point in this discourse: the propensity for negotiation is not contingent upon aspiration; rather, it is contingent upon capacity. The United States has historically adopted a stance of assuming a "monopoly on global rules," perceiving any alternative as a potential diminution of its global leadership. This perspective engenders a reluctance to "concede," as such an act could be interpreted as a "signal of weakness" to its allies (e.g., the EU, Japan, Australia) and "opponents" (e.g., China, Russia, Iran). The United States perceives that the establishment of a new system would be more advantageous for China than for itself.
The question of why the United States of America is unable to find compromises both domestically and in the international arena has recently been increasingly voiced. A situation analysis reveals several key factors that influence the United States' inability to negotiate. One of the reasons is the internal crisis, which manifests itself in the form of political chaos and societal division. Polarization hinders constructive dialogue and interferes with effective decision-making, thus negatively affecting the ability of the United States to negotiate. Perhaps Trump's election is aimed at surviving and overcoming these problems. Another significant factor is the influence of the military-industrial complex (MIC).In conditions where maintaining conflicts in regions such as Ukraine or the Middle East provides stable orders for the army, there is an economic and political interest in maintaining tension. This pressure exerts a significant influence on US government structures, compelling them to make decisions that prolong conflict rather than resolve it. Consequently, the interests of the MIC directly impact foreign policy, impeding the pursuit of peaceful solutions. Moreover, the United States is apprehensive about relinquishing its global dominance. Acknowledging the multipolarity of the world would entail a diminution of the United States' role as a global arbiter. This perceived threat to hegemony is a key factor in explaining the reluctance of American leaders to embrace initiatives that could lead to a change in the existing international order. The fear of losing the status of a global leader has been identified as a factor that hinders constructive dialogue and compromises both within the country and abroad.However, it is anticipated that under a new leader, the United States will be compelled to negotiate, given Trump's acknowledgement that continued status quo will only exacerbate the existing challenges.
Despite the presence of "sensible statements" and declarations emphasising the necessity for cooperation, the "colonialist approach" to international politics remains discernible in the actions of the United States. This paradigm, wherein certain nations "dictate terms" and others are compelled to acquiesce, persists in the contemporary era, albeit with minor adaptations to reflect the realities of the 21st century. The United States continues to wield significant influence over numerous international organizations, including the UN, IMF, World Bank, and NATO, leveraging these institutions to serve its interests. Despite the formal multilateralism exhibited by these organizations, their actions frequently align with the agendas of the United States. The United States maintains its economic dominance, a position reinforced by its role as the global reserve currency and its control over international financial flows. The imposition of sanctions on nations that do not align with US policy exemplifies this enduring practice of dominance. Even in the post-Cold War era, the US persists in maintaining a substantial military presence worldwide, including in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. These bases serve not only as a means of security but also as a means of exerting pressure on nations that might challenge US policy.
The US frequently employs a "policy of intervention" in the domestic affairs of other countries when their interests are perceived to be under threat. This can take the form of either "direct military intervention" (for example, in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan), or more subtle methods such as "economic pressure", cooperation with opposition forces and even support for anti-state movements.

Despite the growth of its own energy independence, the US continues to exert a significant influence on the global "oil and gas" markets, a practice that bears resemblance to the traditional colonial approach to resource extraction and distribution. However, recent trends indicate a shift in the US's foreign policy, with the country beginning to recognise the need for greater flexibility in its international relations, a move that is concomitant with the emergence of a multipolar world. This evolution is characterised by a strategic shift towards the utilisation of 'soft power' – encompassing culture, technology, and democratic and human rights ideas – to preserve its influence, marking a departure from the more traditional colonial methods. The US continues to advance its interests by shaping the development of novel technological and economic structures, including 5G, artificial intelligence, and blockchain. It exerts its influence on international standards in these domains, thereby reaffirming its position as a global leader.
However, the long-term implications of this approach may necessitate a shift towards a more egalitarian partnership with other regions, particularly in the face of mounting internal challenges, including economic woes, social disparities, and political crises.
On the one hand, the US recognises the shifting global landscape, marked by the emergence of multipolarity; on the other hand, it endeavours to preserve its position as a dominant power, a tendency that, at times, gives rise to actions that might be interpreted as a reversion to erstwhile colonial practices.

China's strategy is predicated on the principle of "victory without war and without interference in the internal affairs of countries."
The prevailing principle underpinning China's current foreign policy is one of systemic reform rather than rupture. In contrast to the United States, China does not seek confrontation, as it perceives military conflict to be inimical to economic growth. China is amenable to the idea of negotiations, but on the condition that it is recognised as a peer. Presently, China is engaged in the construction of a new global order through investments, loans, and infrastructure projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative. It occupies a pivotal role in the establishment of alternative institutions. These include the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) coalition, the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), and the Digital Yuan. Many countries recognise that the most effective economic strategy for achieving stable multipolarity is to conduct trade settlements in national currencies and establish parallel financial structures. China has expressed a willingness to negotiate, but not on the terms proposed by the United States.
Instead, China seeks to "quietly, without war, change the world rules, in which every voice will matter." The People's Republic of China is not seeking open conflict, but it will not countenance the suppression of its strategic aspirations and will systematically resist any pressure. If the United States of America does not wish to negotiate, it will result in economic weakening for them, since they are "spending" too much on war and losing markets. The European Union is already contemplating the possibility of seeking an alternative, which is fraught with a loss of influence for the United States of America. This ongoing geopolitical crisis, characterised by the weakening of the United States' global influence, bears a striking resemblance to the historical decline of the British Empire. The ongoing escalation of tensions surrounding Taiwan, the South China Sea, and economic sanctions against China is intensifying with each passing year of uncertain peace. In response, China, with its growing energy, will seek to demonstrate pathways for peaceful cooperation and the establishment of an alternative global order based on multipolarity.
The contemporary geopolitical landscape is undergoing a transition towards multipolarity, characterised by the emergence of multiple centres of power that will compete and negotiate peacefully depending on the prevailing circumstances. This shift in global dynamics is not driven by the absolute dominance of either the USA or China, but rather by the complex interplay of various actors and their respective interests.
In the context of multipolarity, it is evident that the USA will maintain its leadership, albeit with a decline in its sense of exceptionalism. While the USA will continue to wield considerable military and financial influence, its global influence is waning. The American model is no longer perceived as universally applicable, as sanctions, military interventions and pressure on allies have led to resistance. Europe is seeking autonomy, and countries in the Global South are rejecting the role of being merely instruments of the West.
China's emergence as a dominant player in the global economy is marked by its ongoing dependence on geopolitical turbulence and the ongoing imposition of geopolitical tensions in regions such as Taiwan and the South China Sea. China's strategic ambition to establish a substantial zone of influence, encompassing Eurasia, Africa, and parts of Latin America, is not driven by the desire to supplant the United States as the sole superpower. The European Union, while aspiring to assert its independence, is hindered by a lack of unity. Germany and France are keen to maintain economic ties with China, but face pressure from the United States to do so. A scenario could emerge in which the EU establishes its own security system, reducing its reliance on NATO. The primary sources of instability will be the competition among major powers for influence, as well as in countries with weak institutions and high levels of social tension. International law will not disappear completely, but it will become more fragmented, weakened and less universal. In this emerging multipolar landscape, the formation of distinct legal systems by each major power centre is likely to result in the erosion of a unified legal order.

Elbrus Mamedov

SR-CENTER.INFO