LENTERAMERAH – The unipolar era is approaching its end. At least that is the view of Dr. Shoaib Khan, Visiting Faculty at the Centre for Central Eurasian Studies, University of Mumbai, and Founder and President of ALFAAZ Education and Cultural Society, Mumbai, who has spent years researching Russia, Belarus, BRICS, and the transformation of the international order.
In this exclusive interview with LenteraMerah.com, Dr. Shoaib Khan explains why he sees multipolarity not as a theory, but as an emerging geopolitical reality. From BRICS expansion to the concept of the Eurasian Charter, he outlines how new centers of power are gradually shaping the future of the multipolar world.
Many Indonesian readers may not yet be familiar with your work. Could you tell us how an Indian academic came to develop a strong interest in Russia, Eurasia, and the emerging multipolar world?
I was interested in International affairs around the world right from my college days when I was a student. Those were the days when Iran- Iraq war was at its peak so was Sri Lankan civil war against LTTE ( Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam). Besides developments in Africa, Latin America and in my own region South Asia and nearby South East Asia and far East. Soon after my graduation in early 1990s I witnessed the fallout of Communism in Eastern
Europe and the disintegration of Soviet Union. I was a regular listener of Radio as Television development took place lately. In my city Bombay there was hardly any Studies on international relations separately so I had to pursue for Area Studies and had joined our Centre for Central Eurasian Studies, University of Mumbai from where I completed my Masters degree in combination with department of Civics and Politics from our University, then I went on to complete my Master of Philosophy and Philosophy in Doctorate from our Centre. Now I am a Faculty in the same department.
You currently lead the Russian House International Relations Club (RHIRC) in Mumbai. At a time when relations between Russia and the West are at their lowest point in decades, why do you believe it remains important to maintain dialogue and discussion through RHIRC?
Yes I think so, our RHIRC (Russian House International Relations Club) is in the initial stages, we are working and do have plans to organize more conferences and discussions with other colleges and educational institutions, besides with other Consulates in the city. Russian House has been playing an important role in the last several decades since the Soviet era as a connecting bridge between Russia and India in many fields. I hope so in the near future our club will be able to host some important talks and discussions with other diplomats and representatives of countries in our city.
BRICS continues to expand with new members and growing international interest. In your view, is BRICS evolving into a genuine global force, or does it remain primarily a forum for political and economic cooperation?
I agree with the first part of your question. There are clear signs that BRICS is becoming a significant global power. As attention is on conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and rising tensions between major world powers, a major shift in the global order has been happening quietly. Large developing countries are now having more influence in global economic matters and are starting to create alternatives to Western-led institutions.
At the heart of this movement is a formal group of nations called BRICS+. This group has five original members—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—as well as five new members who joined in January 2024 or were invited: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Together, these ten countries produce and export about 40% of the world’s crude oil. They also contribute to one-quarter of the global GDP, two-fifths of global
goods trade, and nearly half of the world’s population. If another dozen countries that have applied for membership, such as Thailand, Vietnam, and Bangladesh, join, the group’s share of global GDP would rise to one-third. Until recently, the BRICS group wasn’t a major focus for U.S. administrations.
Even under the Biden administration up to 2023, there wasn’t much active interest or concern about BRICS’s economic strategies or geopolitical role. However, with President Trump’s return to the White House in 2025, countering the bloc’s efforts to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar has become a key part of his foreign policy. He has openly warned BRICS nations that they could face tariffs of up to 100% if they continue to use alternatives to the U.S. dollar in trade. This increased U.S. opposition reflects a major shift in the global importance of
BRICS. The development of BRICS, the changes in global politics under Trump’s leadership, the impact of the de-dollarization push, and how India is handling its strategic and economic interests within the group are all important aspects of this transformation.
Many observers speak about the emergence of a multipolar world. From your perspective, is the transition toward multipolarity genuinely taking place, or does it remain more of a concept than a reality?
I think the term “concept” here is more about people who live in their own dream world. Multipolarity is a real reality today. The world order model has changed a lot since the end of the Cold War. It started as a bipolar system between the US and the Soviet Union, then shifted to a unipolar world after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, making the US the only global superpower. Following the 2008 financial crisis, the world has moved into a more complex multipolar structure.
Right now, we are seeing the rise of many new and diverse global powers that can influence both global markets and international governance. While multilateralism is becoming harder to achieve, it has never been more important. Diplomacy is having a new and important role. This is a world that is becoming more multipolar.
Over the past twenty years, many people have started to question whether American dominance is lasting and whether a multipolar world is actually forming due to ongoing changes in global power distribution.
Factors such as China’s fast-growing economy and military strength, Russia’s comeback as a major global player, the expansion of the BRICS group, the growing influence of middle powers, and signs of reducing reliance on the US dollar and possible institutional reforms are all part of this shift.
Analysts are debating whether the unipolar world has truly ended or if the international system is still in transition. They find that while the US still has strong positions in many areas, the spread of power among several centers suggests that a multipolar order is developing gradually rather than suddenly replacing the unipolar order.
Experts have looked at different areas where this change is happening, such as the economic growth of China, the geopolitical comeback of Russia, and the increasing influence of regional and plurilateral groups like the European Union, ASEAN, and BRICS.
The results show that even though the US still has structural advantages, its ability to dominate unilaterally has decreased. Instead of a stable multipolar world, the current order is one of transition and conflict, marked by strategic competition, fragmentation of institutions, and selective cooperation, which has major impacts on international governance and stability.
In addition to Russia, you have also followed developments in Belarus and participated in international forums involving Belarusian representatives. In your opinion, what aspects of Belarus are most often misunderstood or insufficiently known by the international community, including in Indonesia?
International views of Belarus are often oversimplified by political news, hiding the fact that it is a highly urbanized, tech-savvy, and culturally unique country. Many misunderstandings focus on economic issues and the idea that Belarus is just another part of Russia. While Russian is widely spoken, there is a strong and unique Belarusian culture, history, and language that existed long before the current borders were drawn.
The Republic of Belarus stands out as an exception in Eastern and Central Europe. Unlike other countries in the region, which have, to some extent, moved towards Western alignment, Belarus has revived old values and traditions.
It’s worth noting that Belarus might not be as well-known in Western capitals if it weren’t for its neighboring countries that are part of NATO and the EU. Since 1999, when Poland joined NATO, the Atlantic Alliance has had a direct border with Belarus. Soon, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania will all become part of the EU.
Ukraine has been trying to balance its relations between the Euro-Atlantic community and Eurasia. Given its strong military and pro-Russian stance, Belarus has the potential to influence European security significantly.
Belarus is rarely included in major political or academic discussions in Europe or the US. This is shown by the limited number of books that focus on Belarus’s current developments and politics. Very few academics pay much attention to Belarus. The EU has acknowledged the need for experts who specialize in the country.
Experts have tried to examine the internal situation in Belarus, its foreign policy, and how it could affect European security. They have also looked at the specific strategies that European security organizations use regarding Belarus. When I participated in the II and III Minsk international conferences on Eurasian Security, I realized how much Belarus is gaining in international importance.
Walking the streets and markets of Minsk, there was no sign of economic difficulties, especially considering the war happening in neighboring countries and its effects on daily life. This experience made me start writing a book titled “A Strategic and Geopolitical Aspect of Belarus,” which is still in its early stages.
If you could share one message with Indonesian readers about Russia, Belarus, Eurasia and the ongoing transformation of the international order, what would it be?
Now that I’m an expert in Eurasian Studies, I want to share a message with my Indonesian friends. Indonesia is a key country in Southeast Asia, located between the Indian Ocean and the Asia-Pacific region. Similarly, Russia and Belarus are important in the Eurasian region. Russia, Belarus, and the broader Eurasian area form a major geopolitical and economic group that plays a key role in shaping a multipolar world. Together, they control important supply routes, have large natural resources, and have military alliances that help counter Western influence and shape global energy markets and regional security.
Indonesia has long-standing historical ties with countries in the Eurasian region. In my view, students in Indonesia should take more interest in studying Russia, Belarus, and the broader Eurasian region. I believe some Indonesian students are already studying at Russian universities, though I’m not certain about Belarusian ones. Also, the media in Indonesia should give more attention to this region.
Eurasian Studies mainly focus on strategic issues, promoting research on Europe, Russia, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Slavic regions. It covers a wide range of political, economic, and security issues related to the region. Because of its strategic location, the Eurasian region remains important for many countries due to its rich hydrocarbon resources, economic potential, and key geographical position.
The European part of Eurasia is well connected to global supply and value chains, while other parts of the region show growing promise with increasing interest from various countries. Even though there are challenges like sanctions, internal disputes, and poor infrastructure in some areas, the region still has strong potential for growth and development, which is a reason to be optimistic.
Some analysts argue that the Eurasian Charter represents a normative response to the current fragmentation of the global order—drawing on a vocabulary of sovereignty, non-interference, and civilizational diversity. Do you see these values as resonating with the spirit of the 1955 Bandung Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement, even though the geopolitical context of 2026 is fundamentally different?
Yes, I agree with that. Right now, the spirit of the 1955 Bandung Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement isn’t really there anymore, so the Eurasian Charter is playing an important role in bringing countries together in this world of multipolarity.
The Eurasian Charter and the Bandung Spirit are two different geopolitical frameworks that are separated by many years, but they share common goals like multipolarity, regional sovereignty, and standing up against external domination.
The Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century is a new diplomatic effort that’s mainly supported by Belarus and Russia. It aims to create a comprehensive security and economic system across the entire Eurasian supercontinent. A lot of this idea was discussed at the II and III Minsk International Conferences on Eurasian Security, where I was involved.
The Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century, proposed by Belarus, aims to unite and bring together the countries of Eurasia for the benefit of all its nations and people. This initiative could help Eurasian countries build a regional order with effective cooperation in areas like security, economy, humanitarian efforts, and other fields. This is especially important now because globalization is breaking down, and regionalism is on the rise.
Unlike past failed attempts to bring together parts or all of Eurasia for the benefit of non-Eurasian powers, the Eurasian Charter is a regional effort led by Eurasian countries themselves. Given how much Eurasia influences global events, this Charter could help connect the region with others through positive partnerships and create a fairer global order.
Eurasia, Charter, diversity, multipolarity, supercontinent, Eurasian countries, order, institutions, security, development. The initiative connected with Belarus has recently gained a lot of interest.
It’s an idea to create a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. This idea was first mentioned at the International Conference on Eurasian Security in Minsk in October 2023, where Belarus proposed developing the Eurasian Charter as a guide for their own unity and shared progress. This initiative didn’t just come out of nowhere.
It was created based on real geopolitical needs and hopes from the ground level. It also builds on Belarus’s long-standing effort to encourage the world to recognize different paths toward development. This call was first made by Belarusian President Alexandr Lukashenko at the United Nations Summit in 2005. The idea of diversity was introduced during a time of global uncertainty, which followed the so-called Unipolar Moment characterized by unilateralism and ignoring international law. So, through this initiative, Belarus sought to help others in building a fair international order where nations could live in peace and achieve their goals.
Today’s world is even more uncertain than during the Unipolar Moment. In fact, it’s more unstable than the world was four decades ago. Even though the Soviet Union and the United States had different ideologies and political differences, they managed to live in a kind of balance that provided stability and predictability for peace and development.
The problems that came during the Unipolar Moment – wars, conflicts, serious violations of international law, and large-scale displacement of people – are still present today because Western countries continue to use unilateral approaches in their foreign policies.
Against this background, Belarus introduced the idea of the Eurasian Charter. This initiative is based on many of Belarus’s previous efforts, including President Lukashenko’s recent call for a global security dialogue in the true spirit of San Francisco. These initiatives all aim to contribute to making the world and, specifically, Eurasia, a safer and better place.
Belarus has established a formal roadmap for the Eurasian Charter heading into UN negotiations in September 2026. In your view, what would a genuinely inclusive Eurasian Consultative Mechanism look like—and what conditions must be met for this mechanism to be recognized as legitimate by the international community?
In my opinion, a truly inclusive Eurasian Consultative Mechanism would work as a decentralized, non-dominant “network of networks,” bringing together existing sub-regional groups like the SCO, EAEU, and ASEAN. This system would enable all major powers in the region to discuss issues like security, economic cooperation, and transportation without being forced to take sides in larger global conflicts.
This mechanism must clearly support the basic ideas from the UN Charter, such as respecting each country’s borders, treating all nations as equal, and not interfering in their internal matters. All decisions should be made with agreement from all member countries, instead of being controlled by one dominant power.
Policies should be clear, reliable, and follow established global agreements, like those set by the WTO. To be fair and recognized, the mechanism must accept the idea of “equal and indivisible security”—meaning that the safety of one country shouldn’t come at the cost of another. This helps prevent the system from being seen as a military group against the West or a group that excludes others.
The Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity for the 21st Century is planned to be introduced in September 2026 at the United Nations headquarters in New York during the high-level meetings of the 81st UN General Assembly.
This charter aims to create a security system led by the region itself, without outside Western involvement, based on the idea that “Eurasian solutions should be used for Eurasian problems.” It will not allow any single country to use force without talking things through, and it will require discussions to prevent conflicts and ease tensions across the region.
Eurasia needs a new way forward, based on a principle that has been mentioned since the 1975 Helsinki Final Act but never properly put into practice: the indivisibility of security.
No country in Eurasia should try to secure its own interests by harming others. No external force should be allowed to divide one Eurasian nation against another. Also, no regional conflict should be used as a way to gain geopolitical advantages. The Charter will not be just a general statement.
It is meant to be a real plan for action—a strategy for our supercontinent, covering areas like security, economy, technology, culture, and more. To do this, we imagine the Charter setting up some new organizations that don’t duplicate existing Eurasian institutions. These could include a Conference on Security and Cooperation in Eurasia, a small team based in a neutral location, a way to resolve disputes, and regular confidence-building activities that involve military discussions. These ideas should be discussed and agreed upon together. ***
