© Off-Guardian
One of the objections often thrown my (and our) way — by those who presumably support a new world order led by the BRICS+ group of nations — is that we critics of multipolarity are claiming, with regard to national governments, that "they're all in it together."
Having never once made that argument, constantly refuting it is very annoying. So let me outline why the "they're all in it together" rebuttal is a canard.
Essentially the "all in it together" response runs something like this:
By only highlighting all the areas of agreement between East and West you are overlooking the very real geopolitical differences and conflicts between the two. You are claiming Putin is a WEF stooge and that Xi is a puppet of the White House. We only need to look at their statements and foreign policy commitments to know this isn't true. Yours is a ridiculous argument, you stupid "they're all in it together" proponent. Obviously you couldn't be more wrong.
While making this reposte suggests the defenders of multipolarity haven't read anything we've written — or have deliberately misinterpreted it — it is a not a cogent argument in any event. It needs to be exposed.
The multipolar world order (MWO) is touted as a potential antidote to the current, claimed, international rules based order or system (IRBO). The IRBO emerged as the Western-led consensus on international relations under the "unipolar world order," headed by the US / NATO alliance of nations states. The IRBO and unipolarity dominated geopolitics following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The IRBO — and the unipolar world order — is predatory and serves the economic and geopolitical interests of Western developed nations, at the cost of everyone else. It has allowed the West to instigate, sponsor and engage in conflicts all over the world. The IRBO aligned nation states pillaged resources, installed puppet governments and exploited weaker nations as they liked. The IRBO is little more than a neocolonialist project of a public-private empire. There are no actual rules beyond "might is right."
On this we can all agree. There's nothing worth defending with regard to the IRBO.
The problems begin when you start pointing out that the MWO is not, in fact, an antidote to the IRBO. It is the evolution of the IRBO. Multipolarity is virtually an enabling act for a new system of global oppression and the transition to a new global economic model.
The is flatly denied by MWO advocates. The argument between MWO backers and opponents appears to be rooted in a dispute over the nature of oligarchy.
Comment: As Putin said in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson: See also: