Collapse of the rules-based order calls for a new multipolar world order

The recent, deeply disturbing reports surrounding the forcible detention of Venezuela's president serve as a stark reminder of the widening gap between the rhetoric of a so-called "rules-based international order" and the realities of contemporary power politics.

While global governance frameworks are routinely invoked to legitimize intervention, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure, their application remains selective and contingent. This asymmetry exposes the extent to which the rules-based order functions less as a neutral system of law and more as a flexible instrument of hierarchy — one that increasingly struggles to conceal its underlying coercive logic. Incidents such as these do not merely challenge international norms; they reveal how far norms have already eroded.

This is not an anomaly, but part of a well-worn playbook: a decades-long pattern of unilateral interventions and coercive regime changes authored by the United States and its close circle of Western allies. From Cold War coups to 21st century wars, the justificatory language has shifted between containment, democracy promotion, humanitarianism, and counterterrorism — but the underlying logic has remained remarkably consistent. The outcomes are equally familiar: the erosion of national sovereignty, entrenched instability, humanitarian catastrophes, the extraction or appropriation of national resources, and a steady global loss of trust in the very principals these interventions claim to defend.

This recurring pattern does more than condemn past actions; it offers a powerful indictment of the unipolar moment itself. The concentration of disproportionate power in the hands of a single state and its allies has not produced stability, restraint, or universal adherence to international law. Instead, it has generated a system in which the rules are applied selectively, and violations are normalized when committed by those at the apex of the global hierarchy.

In this sense, unilateral intervention is not a failure of the unipolar order, but its most revealing feature. Therefore, it provides the strongest argument for why the international community must move beyond unipolarity and work toward a genuine multipolar world order — one in which power is more evenly distributed, sovereignty is meaningfully respected, and no single actor can unilaterally define legality, legitimacy, or justice on behalf of the rest of humanity.

A world in which overwhelming power is concentrated on a single pole or even within a tightly aligned bipolar block creates a permissive environment in which the geopolitical interests of the few are laundered through claims of universal good. It sustains a system where "might makes right" is obscured by the rhetoric of shared values, and where the United Nations' foundational principle of the sovereign equality of states is reduced to a hollow promise for those far from the levers of power.

The consequences are visible in the fractured states and refugee crises that now dot the global landscape as monuments to the failure of imposed solutions. This model of international relations is exhausted, morally bankrupt, and empirically disastrous. It is a recipe for perpetual conflict and resentment, not for lasting peace or shared prosperity.

Yet an alternative vision is emerging. This vision is reflected in China's Global Governance Initiative and its complementary Global Security Initiative. Together, they propose a paradigm shift away from domination and toward dialogue, away from zero-sum confrontation and toward mutual security. At their core lies a renewed commitment to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter so often ignored by interventionist practices: the inviolable sovereignty of states and the imperative of non-interference in internal affairs. This framework asserts that stability and legitimacy must emerge organically from within societies themselves, rather than being imposed through external force or subversion.

This is not an argument for isolationism, but for a more equitable and effective form of engagement. It calls for inclusive, reformed multilateralism where global challenges are addressed through deliberation in representative institutions rather than dictated by self-appointed coalitions. It emphasizes win-win cooperation, prioritizing shared development through connectivity, infrastructure, and economic integration, rather than enforcing political conditionalities or carving out spheres of influence. Unsurprisingly, this approach resonates deeply across the Global South, where many nations have grown weary of being treated as instruments rather than partners.

The path forward is clear: the collapsing legacy of unilateral regime change demands a conscious choice for a different future. Supporting the transition to a multipolar world does not mean replacing one hegemon with another; it means cultivating a system with multiple centers of political, economic, and civilizational gravity. Such diffusion of power offers the most effective safeguard against the excesses of any single state and lays the foundation for a fairer, more representative international order in which all nations — regardless of size or power — have a meaningful voice.

Ironically, it is precisely this pattern of coercive US behavior — selective legality, interventionism, and a blatant disregard for sovereignty — that continues to strengthen China's standing across the Global South. Each episode reinforces the perception that the existing order serves the interests of a few rather than the needs of the many. As a result, more countries are gravitating toward alternative frameworks that promise respect, equality, and development without domination. The accelerating shift toward multipolarity is therefore not driven by ideology alone, but by lived experience.

A multipolar world order — one that serves all nations irrespective of size or power — is no longer an abstract aspiration. It is an emerging reality — shaped as much by the failures of unipolar conduct as by the growing demand across the Global South for a more just, inclusive, and balanced international system.

Maya Majueran is the founding director of the Belt and Road Initiative Sri Lanka (BRISL), a pioneering organization dedicated to research, dialogue, and engagement on China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). 

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.