Two questions about the emergence of a multipolar world

I am Dr Ernest Tchiloemba-Tchitembo from the Republic of Congo, diplomat, lawyer, teacher and diplomatic adviser to the head of government. I would like to thank the distinguished organizers of this event, in particular Mr Nikolay Malinov, Mr Alexander Dugin, Mr Rafael Machiado and all the moderators. So I am very happy and at the same time very honored to be among the participants in this exchange on a cross-border term of equal importance and the emergence of a new multipolar world.

Speakers, who are authorities in international public opinion, have pointed out with great relevance the importance of the term. I don't think I have anything more intelligent to add. However, by way of contradiction, I would like to develop some arguments that make our conviction about irreversibility. The multipolar world in international relations in the twenty-first century. The developments lead us to find answers to the following questions: What kind of international geopolitical and legal order do we expect? This is the first question. And the second question: What are the poles and mechanisms for the emergence of the multipolar world?

So, for the first question, the first question "What geopolitical and legal international order do we hope for", I would like to start by saying this. In a world where man's capacity is to constantly design and produce weapons that can annihilate planet Earth in mere minutes and perhaps other planets as well, in a world where we know with certainty that planet Earth is the only place in the universe that harbors life and there are no alternatives to the preservation of life, states and nations have at least a universal consensus on consolidating the mechanisms that preserve the institutions of planetary civilization. This is an issue that keeps coming up in the debates in the UN bodies and in the debate on multilateralism and global governance at the United Nations. Today, humanity needs universal and inclusive multilateralism, which implies the management of world affairs in permanent consultation with all actors in international relations, even in the context of the unequal balance of forces in the world and the often divergent national interests. This is what justifies the existence of mechanisms and the exclusivity of multilateralism and global governance such as the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. In contrast, regional multilateralism, as practiced in restricted institutions such as the G7, the G8 or in regional organizations such as the European Union and NATO, would not be substituted for multilateralism in the United Nations. Since the adoption in September 2000 of the Millennium Summit Declaration, which affirms the unique role that the United Nations is called upon to play in this new world era, in the new epoch introduced by the now familiar term globalization. The ever-increasing challenges facing international communities are increasingly challenging the management of global governance exercises. The preservation of peace and national security, for which the Security Council is collectively the outstanding guarantor, should be at the heart of the debates on inclusive universal multilateralism. These debates should no longer overshadow the question of the existence of NATO and the presence of foreign military bases on the territories of other states, especially African countries.

President Putin's proposal of a united security for Europe is reasonable to extend to the five continents of the planet by strengthening the international system of collective security. Once the contours of the leadership of this organization have been outlined, the question of the means and mechanisms to make this leadership more effective in global governance arises.

However, for several decades now, this global governance has known two problems. The first is the place and role of states in the decision-making process within the United Nations. It is well known that the de jure legality of member states does not actually guarantee an equal place and role in the decision- making bodies. The decision-making process, for example, in the Security Council, was an example and perfect illustration of the imbalance that still exists.

The second issue that I would like to address quickly in the time available to us is the poles and the mechanisms for the emergence of a multipolar world. This is where the problem and the role of Russia and the United States of America in the construction of a new world order is surely addressed. The first meeting in June 2021 in Geneva, Switzerland, between the President of the Russian Federation, Mr Putin, and the President of the United States of America, Mr John Biden, raised a great deal of hope in the world beyond the borders of Europe in order to make progress towards the universal consensus that I mentioned earlier. Despite the differences noted on many points, in particular on issues of human rights or cyber attacks, the two presidents appreciated their exchange. This meeting was a positive signal, but unfortunately it could not withstand the evolution of events, especially the Ukrainian crisis. In the construction of a multipolar world, we can also think about the role and capacity of the BRICS and impose a world, indeed, more of multipolarity. The growing interest this week, as we have noted, of the many countries that want to join the BRICS, in particular African countries – we have 19 of them and perhaps a few more – shows that the BRICS have the capacity to rebalance multilateralism on an international scale.