Rethinking US foreign policy in fragmented world Multipolar or multipartnership?

In Foreign Affairs, a detailed analysis underscores a shift in US foreign policy, first envisioned by Hillary Clinton and recently expanded by the Biden administration, towards a "multi-partner" rather than a "multi-polar" world. 

Clinton’s 2009 vision redefined US leadership to include not only states but also nonstate actors, businesses, and civil society, aimed at addressing both traditional security concerns and broader global challenges. This “multi-partner” approach underscores a model where multiple actors cooperate on equal footing, forming diverse, action-focused coalitions to tackle issues ranging from climate change to economic security.

The Biden administration has adapted this framework, strengthening traditional alliances, such as NATO, and creating new diplomatic partnerships like the Quad and AUKUS. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has framed this approach as a coalition of “partners in peace,” blending competitive and cooperative strategies to safeguard US interests. However, the analysis critiques Biden's strategy as tilting too heavily toward geopolitical competition, suggesting that future administrations could recalibrate this approach by emphasizing cooperation on existential threats and welcoming a more decentralized, inclusive diplomatic network.

The article explores potential approaches of a hypothetical Harris administration versus a second Trump administration. It suggests that Harris would likely enhance Biden’s multi-partner strategy to address global threats, while Trump might pursue selective, transactional partnerships to lighten the US burden without a significant commitment to broader global challenges like climate change.

A critical issue raised is the legitimacy of partnerships with nonstate actors. Traditionally, states have represented their people within international frameworks, but the article argues that partnerships involving diverse stakeholders, like Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), could expand effectiveness and legitimacy. The multi-partner world model demands accountability for achieving specific, measurable goals, such as those set by Sustainable Energy for All, which has improved access to energy for 177 million people. The success of such partnerships, according to the article, lies in their concrete outcomes rather than their procedural legitimacy, differentiating this model from more conventional, statist diplomacy.

The article further contends that this multi-partner approach aligns well with an evolving global landscape, where many countries, such as India, prefer “multialignment” over exclusive alliances. This strategy, it argues, could allow the United States to remain influential without necessarily leading every initiative. By supporting decentralized, goal-oriented partnerships, Washington can foster resilience among allied nations and actors who are increasingly assertive in setting their own agendas.

The analysis concludes that a multi-partner world—characterized by practical, purpose-driven alliances—offers the US a survival strategy for the complex challenges of the 21st century. This model, as Foreign Affairs suggests, not only encourages shared responsibility but also maximizes the US's strategic influence, leveraging the dynamism of American institutions embedded within global networks. Thus, a multi-partner approach could redefine power in the international order, prioritizing collective action and agency over traditional metrics of military and economic might.