Peiman Salehi – Political Analyst & Writer

Beyond Multipolarity

By Peiman Salehi  |  Published: September 16, 2025

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Beijing, held alongside a military parade and ambitious economic discussions, attracted wide international attention. Many commentators framed the event as proof of the US’s decline and China’s rise. Across the Middle East and Global South, this binary view was often repeated: Washington losing primacy, Beijing preparing to take its place. Yet for Africa, such framing is unsatisfactory. It risks reducing the continent to a passive observer rather than a political actor. The true significance of the SCO summit lies in its lessons about multipolarity, the cracks in Western dominance, and the opportunities—or risks—these cracks create for African agency.

Africa’s relationship with global financial institutions has long been marked by asymmetry. Structural adjustment programs from the IMF and World Bank dismantled social protections, privatized public goods, and left economies vulnerable to external shocks. Dollar dependence further tied African markets to US monetary policy, exposing them to crises beyond their control. Within this context, SCO’s discussions of new mechanisms—local currencies, a potential development bank, and coordination with BRICS initiatives—signal possibilities for alternatives to Western-dominated finance.

Still, history urges caution. External powers have often offered partnership while deepening dependence. China’s Belt and Road Initiative brought infrastructure but raised concerns about debt sustainability. Russia’s security engagements in Africa raised questions about sovereignty and accountability. Multipolarity, if reduced to replacing one patron with another, risks repeating past mistakes. The key question is whether African states can act as active negotiators rather than passive recipients.

South Africa’s position in BRICS highlights this dilemma. Pretoria could serve as a bridge—bringing African concerns into BRICS and shaping SCO-related initiatives. It could advocate for equitable infrastructure financing and more stable financial mechanisms. Yet, critics note that South Africa often prioritizes elite interests over broader African needs. Whether it advances continental agency or its own influence remains an open question.

Amitav Acharya has described the future global order as an “archipelago of powers.” For Africa, this metaphor suggests that the continent is not condemned to choose between Washington and Beijing. Multipolarity offers flexibility—but also fragmentation. Without coordination, African states risk being divided and courted piecemeal. With unity, they can demand better terms; without it, they will negotiate from weakness.

Recent experiences underscore these stakes. Zambia’s debt default exposed both the promise and limits of multipolar finance: multiple creditors offered leverage, but lack of coordination prolonged the crisis. Kenya’s reliance on Chinese infrastructure loans brought highways but also intensified debates about dependency. These cases illustrate that multipolarity is neither inherently liberating nor oppressive—it depends on African choices.

SCO’s emphasis on local currencies resonates strongly in Africa, where the dominance of the dollar is often felt as coercion. Trading or borrowing outside the dollar system could mean greater sovereignty. But this also raises concerns: will new institutions serve human development, or replicate extraction under new management? Multipolarity opens the door to justice, but does not guarantee it. The burden lies with African agency.

Civil society must play a role. Too often, debates about multipolarity are limited to elites, while ordinary people bear the costs. Activists, unions, and social movements must press governments for transparency, accountability, and fair terms—whether in dealings with the West or with new partners. Without such pressure, multipolarity risks serving new elites while leaving inequalities intact.

The SCO summit carried powerful symbolism: missiles on display, leaders shaking hands, declarations of solidarity. But the symbolism most relevant to Africa is subtler: recognition that Western hegemony is no longer absolute. Cracks have appeared. Whether they become pathways to emancipation or renewed dependency depends on Africa’s ability to act collectively and strategically.

Ultimately, the choice is stark. Africa can fall into another cycle of dependency, swapping one patron for another, or it can seize multipolarity as an opening to assert its own priorities. History is not predetermined. The future will be shaped not only in Washington or Beijing, but also in Pretoria, Lagos, and Nairobi. Multipolarity itself is not liberation—but it may offer the opening through which liberation can be pursued, if Africa insists on writing its own script.

— Peiman Salehi, Political Analyst based in Tehran

Note: This article was originally published by Africa is a Country .