Uncommon Reality: Finding the Unipolar World in Bipolar and Multipolar Discourses

Abstract

  In the wake of a few critical intersecting global issues, such as the Russia-Ukraine crisis, the Israel-Hamas conflict, and the rise of China along with middle powers and power diffusion into many actors, the argument revolves around the emerging world order–the multipolar world already on its way. However, the epistemological underpinning of the central question that finds a broader scholarly debate lacks clarity. Is the world unipolar, bipolar, or transitioning? to a multipolar? While methodically reviewing various published literary documents and scholarly papers accessed through open sources and data triangulation, this article attempts to qualitatively examine key global strategic issues and scenarios to draw an analogy of the world's various polarity conditions. Furthermore, it intends to drive a critical discourse on the contemplated world order, especially the multipolar world. It also dwells on other crucial aspects, such as strategic partners, alliances, and minilateralism. It argues that, on the one hand, there remains a continuing friction in defining the world order in bipolarity and multipolarity discourses; on the other hand, these conditions will be challenging to resonate in reality. While offering policy contours, the article concludes by advancing a strong assertion that the world order will continue to remain unipolar, constructed on the very core of established conditions such as the knowledge economy, democratic power, and values of human freedom and open dialogue for peace and stability, as well as prearranged rules that are widely inherited in a democratic culture. Moreover, the debate on defining the world order will continue to hinge on the actor who significantly possesses these qualities, values, and characteristics. However, the world order will experience the complexities of middle and small powers, finding dilemmas in their alignment and realignment between established unipolar and emerging powers. Meanwhile, Nepal, wedged between two emerging powers, China and India, and the increasing interest of world powers in the region can no longer ignore global events and ongoing power competitions. While maturing its democratic practices, skillfully designed and carefully balanced diplomacy, and a closer look at ‘strategic hedging’ in its foreign policy, Nepal should support a rules-based international order that contributes to preserving its territorial integrity and national unity In the wake of a few critical intersecting global issues, such as the Russia-Ukraine crisis, the Israel-Hamas conflict, and the rise of China along with middle powers and power diffusion into many actors, the argument revolves around the emerging world order—the multipolar world already on its way. However, the epistemological underpinning of the central question that Finds a broader scholarly debate lacks clarity. Is the world unipolar or bipolar, or transitioning to a multipolar? While methodically reviewing various published literary documents and scholarly papers accessed through open sources and data triangulation, this article attempts to qualitatively examine key global strategic issues and scenarios to draw an analogy of the world's various polarity conditions. Furthermore, it intends to drive a critical discourse on the contemplated world order, especially the multipolar world. It also dwells on other crucial aspects, such as strategic partners, alliances, and minilateralism. It argues that, on the one hand, there remains a continuing friction in defining the world order in bipolarity and multipolarity discourses; on the other hand, these conditions will be challenging to resonate in reality. While offering policy contours, the article concludes by advancing a strong assertion that the world order will continue to remain unipolar, constructed on the very core of established conditions such as the knowledge economy, democratic power, and values of human freedom and open dialogue for peace and stability, as well as prearranged rules that are widely inherited in a democratic culture. Moreover, the debate on defining the world order will continue to hinge on the actor who significantly possesses these qualities, values, and characteristics. However, the world order will experience the complexities of middle and small powers, finding dilemmas in their alignment and realignment between established unipolar and emerging powers. Meanwhile, Nepal, wedged between two emerging powers, China and India, and the increasing interest of world powers in the region, can no longer ignore global events and ongoing power competitions. While maturing its democratic practices, skillfully designed and carefully balanced diplomacy, and a closer look at ‘strategic hedging’ in its foreign policy, Nepal should support a rules-based international order that contributes to preserving its territorial integrity and national unity.