The emerging international order
THE DECLINE OF IMPERIAL INTIMIDATION: THE WORLD IS MOVING BEYOND THE POLITICS OF DOMINATION
October 11, 2026
By Dr Kevin Turnquest Alcena
Nassau, The Bahamas
The rise of a multipolar world, the limits of coercive power, and Africa’s historic demand for two seats at the United Nations, will happen.
The global order is undergoing a profound transformation. For decades, economic sanctions, military superiority, financial dominance, and political pressure have served as instruments through which powerful nations have attempted to influence the behaviour of others.
Yet the world is increasingly demonstrating that possessing overwhelming power does not automatically translate into political submission.
The United States’ use of sanctions against international judicial institutions raises fundamental questions about the relationship between power, international law, and accountability.
When powerful states use economic or political pressure against institutions tasked with upholding international justice, concerns arise about the independence of those institutions and the consistency with which international rules are applied.
The central argument is not that American influence has disappeared, nor that sanctions have become meaningless. It is that imperial intimidation is no longer a universally reliable instrument for securing obedience.
Nations are increasingly willing to resist external pressure, diversify their international partnerships, and defend their right to determine their own political and economic futures.
Machiavelli and the traditional architecture of power
Niccolò Machiavelli captured one of the enduring principles of political domination in The Prince:
“It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.”
— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVII.
For centuries, this logic has informed the exercise of political power. Fear, punishment, and the threat of consequences have been used to discourage resistance and reinforce hierarchies. In international relations, economic sanctions, military deployments, and diplomatic isolation can function as instruments of coercion.
But the critical question confronting the modern world is whether fear alone can sustain international dominance when targeted nations develop alternative economic relationships, strengthen domestic resilience, and establish strategic partnerships with other powers.
The answer is increasingly complicated. Sanctions can inflict serious economic damage, but economic pain does not invariably produce political capitulation. Military superiority can deter adversaries, but it does not automatically secure their cooperation.
Financial dominance can create leverage, but that leverage may diminish when countries develop alternative markets, payment arrangements, and trading relationships.
A superpower may command armies, influence financial systems, and impose sanctions, but it cannot automatically manufacture the consent of nations determined to defend their sovereignty.
Machiavelli also observed the difficulty of establishing a new political order:
“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”
— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter VI, in a common English translation.
This observation speaks directly to the contemporary international transition. Moving from a system shaped predominantly by a handful of powerful states towards a more representative, multipolar arrangement will not happen without resistance.
Existing institutions, strategic interests, and established concentrations of power do not disappear simply because the world demands change.
Nevertheless, the growing insistence on sovereign equality, institutional reform, and a greater distribution of global influence demonstrates that the existing order is being challenged.
The limits of American pressure: Iran and China
Iran’s long-standing resistance to American pressure illustrates the limits of coercive diplomacy. Decades of sanctions have imposed substantial economic costs, yet they have not compelled Iran to abandon all of its strategic objectives or simply submit to American demands.
This is an important distinction: resisting pressure does not mean escaping its consequences. Rather, it demonstrates that the relationship between economic coercion and political outcomes is more complex than the assumption that the stronger state can always dictate the result.
China presents a different dimension of the changing international landscape. Its economic scale, industrial capacity, expanding diplomatic relationships, and growing role in international trade have contributed to a world in which American predominance faces greater competition.
These developments do not mean that the United States has ceased to be a major global power. They do, however, illustrate why international influence can no longer be understood solely through military supremacy or the ability to impose economic penalties.
The emerging global reality is that power can impose costs without necessarily securing compliance.
The lesson is not that every country resisting American pressure will prevail, but that the outcomes of international confrontations increasingly depend on economic resilience, political legitimacy, strategic alliances, and the willingness of states to absorb the costs of resistance.
Voltaire and the politics of justification
The French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire offered a warning about the dangers of unquestioned political narratives:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
— Voltaire, Questions sur les miracles (1765), commonly translated into English.
This quotation offers a useful lens through which to examine how political power is justified.
Throughout history, domination has frequently been defended through narratives that portray the interests of powerful states as synonymous with international stability, security, or civilisation.
Yet a genuinely rules-based international order must be measured by whether its principles are applied consistently, including when those principles challenge the interests of powerful states.
International law cannot command lasting legitimacy if states are expected to respect institutions only when their decisions are politically convenient.
Nor can global justice remain credible if accountability appears to depend on the relative power of those involved.
The issue is not whether every international institution is beyond criticism.
It is whether disputes should be addressed through lawful processes, institutional reform, and consistent standards rather than through the assumption that the most powerful actors should determine the limits of accountability.
The question facing the international community is therefore straightforward: can a system claim to uphold universal principles while allowing geopolitical power to shape how those principles are respected?
Africa must claim its rightful place in the global order
For Africa, the transformation of the international system represents a historic opportunity.
The continent must not remain a spectator while decisions affecting international peace, security, finance, trade, and development are made in institutions where its representation remains inadequate.
“Africa’s exclusion is not only unacceptable, unfair, and grossly unjust; it also undermines the very credibility of the United Nations.”
— William Ruto
Africa’s demand for two permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council is central to this struggle.
The Security Council was established in the aftermath of the Second World War, and its permanent membership reflects the distribution of power at that historical moment.
The geopolitical realities of the twenty-first century are considerably different. Africa’s population, regional significance, economic potential, natural resources, and contribution to global affairs make the question of its representation increasingly consequential.
The African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus calls for two permanent African seats and five non-permanent seats on a reformed Security Council. Questions concerning the selection of representatives and the exercise of veto rights remain important elements of the reform debate.
This is not simply a demand for prestige. It is a demand for a more legitimate international system in which African states have a meaningful role in decisions that affect their security and development.
Africa must not remain a spectator in the making of the world order. A continent that has contributed profoundly to human civilisation must have a meaningful voice in shaping humanity’s future.
The transition towards a more multipolar world will not automatically resolve Africa’s challenges. The continent must strengthen regional integration, develop productive capacity, expand intra-African trade, improve governance, and coordinate its diplomatic positions.
Greater representation must be accompanied by the institutional strength and collective strategy required to exercise that influence effectively.
A permanent seat is not an end in itself. It is part of a wider struggle to ensure that the international system reflects the principle of sovereign equality in practice rather than merely in rhetoric.
Imperialism is losing its power as a universal instrument of intimidation
The deeper transformation taking place is not the disappearance of power, but the changing relationship between power and obedience.
Military capabilities remain consequential. Economic sanctions continue to influence the behaviour of states. Financial networks and strategic alliances still shape the international environment. But none of these instruments guarantees submission in every circumstance.
Countries increasingly assess external pressure against their own national interests, domestic political realities, and alternative international relationships.
Some resist, some negotiate, and others adjust their policies in response to the costs imposed on them. The outcomes vary, but the assumption that power always produces obedience is no longer sufficient to explain international relations.
This is where the traditional logic of domination encounters its limits. A world in which more countries can pursue independent partnerships and coordinate their responses to external pressure is a world in which coercion must compete with diplomacy, legitimacy, and cooperation.
The challenge is not to replace one dominant power with another. It is to build an international system in which no country assumes that superior military or economic strength grants it an unrestricted right to dictate the choices of others.
The true measure of global leadership should not be how effectively a country can intimidate other nations, but how effectively it can build partnerships, earn legitimacy, and sustain cooperation.
Conclusion: A new era of sovereign equality
The world is not yet beyond imperialism, nor has geopolitical coercion become obsolete. Powerful states continue to possess instruments of influence that can impose substantial costs on weaker countries, for example Cuba’s conflict with America.
But resistance to those instruments, alongside the growth of alternative economic and diplomatic relationships, demonstrates that their effectiveness has limits.
The emerging international order is being shaped by a contest between concentrated power and wider representation, coercion and cooperation, inherited hierarchies and demands for sovereign equality.
For Africa, this moment demands strategic clarity.
The continent must press for meaningful reform of the United Nations Security Council, pursue its claim to two permanent seats, and strengthen the collective institutions necessary to translate its demographic and economic significance into diplomatic influence.
The objective should not be to humiliate one power or celebrate the rise of another.
It should be to establish an international system in which international law is respected, accountability is applied consistently, and the voices of developing nations carry greater weight.
Imperialism may retain its instruments, but those instruments do not guarantee submission.
The defining question of this new global era is whether power will continue to dictate the rules of international life, or whether nations will build a more representative order founded on sovereignty, mutual respect, and meaningful cooperation.
The future will not be determined by military and economic strength alone. It will also depend on legitimacy, resilience, alliances, and the capacity of nations to shape their own destinies.
Africa and Cuba must be ready to help shape that future.
“There can be no political independence unless there is economic independence.”
— President Fidel Castro, UN General Assembly address, September 26, 1960.
