The Rise of Regional Powers: Is Multipolarity the New Global Order?

Image by Mathias Reding on Unsplash

The global order has faced a subtle yet significant shift in recent years. Traditional alliances are being reevaluated, regional actors are gaining confidence, and the once predictable rhythms of international order have become less consistent. At the core of this gradual change lies the realignment of US foreign policy; a series of moves that have provoked new debates about international cooperation, diplomacy, and the structure of global power.

From changes in trade policy to a more selective approach towards military engagement and intervention, the United States has been signalling a new set of agendas and priorities. Some interpret this as a strategic realignment of their position, others think it is a step back from a cohesive global leadership. These issues remain controversial and polarising, demanding all actors involved, allies and rivals alike, to stand ready in anticipation, preparing for the most unconventional turn. However, regardless of their interpretation, one thing is irrefutable: regional powers responded with growth and influence expansion, new alliances are forming and new challenges are occurring against the long-held assumption of US-led global order.

A Shift in Strategy: The U.S. Repositions

During the second Trump administration, America’s foreign policy has undergone its most dramatic shift in recent history. America’s liberalist view of international relations and diplomacy have seemingly slowly morphed into a realist model as some of their recent policies have been reflecting a different, and often alien, set of priorities. President Trump’s recent foreign policy tends to emphasize national interests and strategic pragmatic power dynamics over the promotion of the conventional liberalist view that the United States have long been known to uphold. The new tariff policy is a great example of this drastic shift in strategy.

Trump’s administration has imposed the infamous flagship tariff policy upon nearly all of their trading partners. Supposedly, this move aims to rejuvenate the US’ domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign trade by limiting import products from all of their trading partners in hopes that the American consumers may rely and support the domestic market. This protectionist approach reflects that of the early 20th century economic policy, which highlights the importance of immediate national economic interest over the principles of free trade. A parallel can be drawn from a policy during the interwar period: the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which aims to achieve a similar goal. Regardless of the effectiveness of this approach, one thing that is certain is that the reaction of the international community is almost uniform: distasteful and cautious. The US, as one of the world’s largest importers, buying approximately 3 trillion USD worth of products in 2023, plays a central role in the global economy. Such an abrupt change in policy is bound to cause tremendous implications on every actor in the economy, allies and rivals alike. Even if this disorder is well-anticipated by the United States government, which it should, the diplomatic strain this causes is still difficult to mitigate. This move by the United States government has risked triggering retaliatory tariffs, trade wars, and long-term disruptions in global supply chains. The administration has put out some signals for negotiations to compromise, but it is undeniable that the overarching goals of this policy is economic leverage of the domestic market over foreign cooperation, seemingly ignoring the international reaction by both allies and rivals.

The tariff policy is not the only example of the United States’ sudden change in policy; in terms of defense and security, the United States has been taking drastic measures, especially regarding its role in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. In a surprising turn of events, in February of 2025, the United States rejected a UN resolution to condemn Russia’s war against Ukraine and support Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This clash was sparked by a disagreement over the wording of the resolutions marking the anniversary of the Russian invasion which explicitly stated Russia as an aggressor of the conflict. The US promoted a draft with a more neutral tone, seemingly refusing to explicitly acknowledge the aggressive and provocative nature of Russia. This move shocked the traditional allies of the United States and sparked widespread political confusion. Assumptions were made about what the intentions behind this drastic move were. Some popular speculations include the US attempt to test Russia’s willingness for peace or an attempt to fracture Russia’s relations with China, knowing that Trump’s campaign puts a lot of emphasis on economic rivalry against China. But again, regardless of the reasoning of such actions and how effective they truly are, some political realities are undeniable, which is the tension arising between the US and its allies. Domestically, the administration framed the rejection as an effort to prioritize national interests and avoid further entanglement in foreign conflicts, but internationally, it has been perceived as a retreat from global leadership.

Rethinking the Global Equation

From these shifts, a question arises: is the global order slowly morphing into multipolarity? Are we the witness of a global power decentralization, or is it simply a momentary realignment within an enduring structure? To explore this case, there are several crucial key areas where US influence is particularly visible for examination:  economic influence, security dynamics, and their impacts.

Economic Autonomy and Regional Realignments

The issues within the field of economics and trade have significantly warmed up as the US imposed its tariff policies. The US–China trade rivalries have long played a significant role in shaping the dynamic of the current global supply chain and prompted nations around the world to act accordingly. Regional communities have responded differently to these policies, but of course, as expected, their responses are predominantly in the realms of anticipation and insecurity. In East Asia, China, Japan, and South Korea are attempting to bolster economic cooperation through the revival of the long dormant trilateral dialogue in East Asia, in anticipation of new US policies. This is done with the intention to mitigate unpredictability stemming from the US repositioning its policy. These efforts at regional cooperation implies a strong collective desire to establish a certain degree of autonomy in managing trade flows and ensuring economic resilience. The move also reflects a growing recognition that dependency on a singular external market—especially one as volatile as the current U.S. — poses long-term strategic risks.

Southeast Asia has been hit acutely by tariff policy. Being one of the most export-reliant regions, the disruption within the global trade flows signals significant economic turbulence, knowing Southeast Asian countries’ manufacturing sectors are deeply linked with global supply chains. Some manufacturing powerhouses such as Vietnam and Cambodia, were hit by a shocking 46% and 49% tariff respectively, stunting the economy of the textile industry. The sudden imposition of tariffs has undercut the predictability that exporters in the region rely on, prompting a strategic shift in how Southeast Asia approaches economic resilience. This turbulence prompted countries within the region to cooperate regionally. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim called upon the neighbouring countries to stand in solidarity in preparation of US tariffs. He called for ASEAN-wide action ahead of Trump’s tariff challenge. This call to action was realized through his reported contact with Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto.

Meanwhile, Latin America has also been trying to renew their regional and intra-regional integration. MERCOSUR plays a crucial role in Latin America’s effort to strengthen intra-regional diplomacy as tariff policy might speed up trade discussion with the EU. This trade deal has been a subject of opposition for decades by various members of the EU, but now that there is another threat of uncertainties posed by the tariff policy, countries such as Austria, who previously opposed the idea, are considering the trade deals with Latin America as a form of remedy.

Security: Regional Organizations Step Up

Image by Alexandre Lallemand on Unsplash

Meanwhile, in the domain of security, unpredictable US maneuvers have prompted regional actors to act dynamically as the US took sharp turns. The traditional international security infrastructure and institutions such as NATO and bilateral security pacts in the Asia-Pacific, seemed to experience diplomatic strain after the aforementioned US unconventional security policies came into effect. US rejection of the UN resolution regarding Ukraine and Russia seems to be a departure from moral clarity where US allies, primarily the EU, have previously found comfort in. The EU has been emphasizing its plan regarding its own defence and security through the Joint White Paper for European Defence Readiness 2030. This plan is Europe’s reaction to the increasing security threat posed by various conflicts and insecurity provoked by Russia’s expansion in its military capacity, China’s intransparency of its military spending, and potential spill-over from conflicts in the Middle-East and North-Africa.

This notion of security independence and departure from the US is not confined to Europe. The idea of strategic security self-reliance and diversification of security alliances is getting more popular. South Korea has been actively trying to develop indigenous defense technologies to reduce foreign dependency, which include the development of new engines for the new KF-21 Boramae, a 4.5-generation multirole fighter developed by KAI (Korea Aerospace Industry).

India’s response to the recent political realignment between the United States and Russia is the potential acceleration of the “Make in India” initiative to decrease security dependence, which includes native developments of military technologies. In the Middle-East, Saudi Arabia is advancing its diplomatic and security relations with China, seeking to develop their joint ventures in energy and infrastructure. The overarching theme is clear: the US-led global security architecture is undergoing a period of turmoil and fragmentation, the permanence of such fragmentation is debatable of course, but there is a causal relationship between this fragmentation and US’ recent unconventional approach to security and defense.

The Structural Challenge of Moving Up the Ladder

Yet, despite the growing regional growth and assertion, the structural barrier stayed seemingly impenetrable. The current international system is primarily shaped by institutions and norms of the post-WWII world. Various institutions such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Trade Organization (WTO) are examples of institutions still strongly upholding the older model of power distribution.

There have been repeated hindrances in efforts to revolutionise and reform the UNSC to better represent current geopolitical realities. Critics argued that the existing structure, where each of the five permanent members wield veto power, creates challenges in passing critical resolutions towards any of them. Similarly, governance reforms within the IMF have also been stalled, and attempts to redistribute voting rights to grant bigger influence to developing countries are being hindered. The United States unilaterally thwarted this attempt despite it being supported by the majority of member states. This resistance, which are facilitated by the inherent structures of institutions, reflects the obstacles of achieving equitable representations within the current global order.

The concept of world-system theory, first introduced by Immanuel Wallerstein, provides a framework of understanding  the hierarchical nature of the global economy. This theory classifies countries into 3 groups: core, peripheral, and semi-peripheral, which emphasize how power is concentrated in the core while peripheral nations remain dependent. The idea of mobility from peripheral (or even semi-peripheral) roles into the core global power remains a feat not many could achieve. Some have, such as China and South Korea, but the path of such a journey remains steep and full of obstacles. Some would argue that the current world order is deliberately designed not to establish “interdependence” among states, but “codependency” from peripheral countries to the core countries. As such, assumptions of “moving up the ladder” being impossible is not uncommon. A lot of people assume that this impossibility is entrenched or even inherent within the system – a seed planted within earth which has been watered and fed throughout its lifetime, growing firm and fertile.

Nonetheless, movements advocating for a more representative global order are gaining momentum. Economic struggles such as the revival of trilateral diplomacy of East Asia and recent calls for action to further economic integrity of ASEAN in the midst of tariff struggles are seen as a means to enhance regional economies. Security measures, such as the EU’s growing concern for independent security and independent military programs held by countries such as South Korea and India to boost domestic military manufacturing, are also seen as an effort to promote self-sufficient security. These efforts can be seen as a means to advance regional influence and promote a multipolar world order.

Navigating the New Normal in A More Complex, Layered Order

Image by David Mendes on Unsplash

These efforts signify a shift, or at least an attempt, towards a multipolar world. However, the fundamental nature of global order and power structures means that substantial change remains a complex, slow, and gradual process. Rather than a sharp turn towards multipolarity, the emergence of a layered global order is more likely to occur in the foreseeable future. This layered global order is where the US continues to play a significant and/or leading role, but regional actors are more confident in asserting their agenda upon their neighbours, allies and rivals. This does not mean it would be a shift into conflict, but simply that global governance may be more fairly distributed and less centered on few actors. The question evolves from whether US hegemony will endure, to how it would coexist with other autonomies.

This realignment of US policies across different fields of governance occur simultaneously with the rise of regional powers who are becoming more confident and assertive. A pessimistic view of this phenomenon is the fragmentation of the global landscape, as abrupt change in US policy might cause insecurity and uncertainties among its allies and rivals. A more optimistic view suggests that this may provoke a stable and gradual change of the current world order into a multipolaristic system, allowing for a more democratic environment. One thing is clear – the dynamic of the international order is becoming more fluid, new alliances are being tested, and international institutions are being contested and pressured to reform or risk irrelevance. Diplomatic agility and adaptability are becoming an increasingly important currency. The challenge forward is not just leadership, but also coordination—how every actor can share responsibility in global management, and collectively maintain stability, equity, and global cooperation in this fragmented, yet interconnected world.