Pivotal Powers and International Security: Toward Flexibility

This is a chapter from "Pivotal Powers 2024: Innovative Engagement Strategies for Global Governance, Security, and Artificial Intelligence".

The distribution of power and influence in international security is becoming increasingly dispersed. The United States uncontestably leads in terms of military spending—$916 billion in 2023. That is far ahead of China’s outlay ($296 billion) and Russia’s ($109 billion), the next two biggest spenders, and more than ten times the defense budget of each major European state. Does this imply that Washington also has the unique power to shape global security and that multipolarity is nothing but a myth, as some leading US scholars suggest?

Not quite. While the United States’ military lead will likely continue, a good case for a changing global security order can be made as other states emerge as increasingly relevant actors in circumstances in which Washington is unable or unwilling to act. The role of non-Western states in the wars in Ukraine and Gaza illustrate this trend. In 2022, Türkiye brokered the Black Sea Grain Initiative among the UN, Ukraine, and Russia, which allowed the shipment of food and fertilizer to mitigate the ramifications of the European conflict on global food security. Similarly, Brazil started to position itself as a potential mediator with a peace plan, first in a relatively unspecified version in 2023 and more recently through a more concrete six-point joint proposal with China. Meetings between India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, and other high-ranking members of his government with their Russian and Ukrainian counterparts prompted speculation about another mediation effort. No less significantly, Qatar became an important player in attempts to reach a ceasefire in Gaza. Add in UN peacekeeping efforts—which, despite all criticism, remain the most significant deployments of international forces—and the picture is even more striking. As of July 2024, European countries and the United States were not among the top ten contributors of uniformed UN personnel, whereas Nepal, Rwanda, Bangladesh, and India are among the leading suppliers of troops.