Gaza has exposed the limits of US power and opened space for new centres of global diplomacy.
In Gaza, the world has seen the cost of a diplomacy that claims to uphold a rules-based order but applies it selectively. The United States intervened late, and only to defend an occupation the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled illegal. Alongside other Western nations that built multilateral institutions, the US increasingly pursues nationalist agendas that undermine them. The hypocrisy is stark: one set of rules for Ukraine, another for Gaza.
This erosion of credibility marks the structural collapse of unipolar authority, symbolised by the US’s absence from the Group of 20 (G20) in South Africa this past week.
As thousands gather in Qatar over the coming days for this year’s Doha Forum under the theme “Justice in Action: Beyond Promises to Progress”, the failure to prevent genocide demands a reckoning. The imposed ceasefire in Gaza has delivered neither political resolution nor safety for Palestinians. Meanwhile, the future of Gaza continues to be discussed without Palestinians in the room.
This is not an unusual scene. Since the Cold War, international diplomacy has operated on what might be called the master-key model, where one powerful actor unlocks a conflict through political leverage, economic pressure, or conditional aid. Around it grew an entire ecosystem: humanitarian organisations, think tanks, mediators, and consulting firms, often funded by Western states, reinforcing the belief that a call to Washington could solve any crisis.
The ceasefire in Gaza shows that the master key can still turn the lock. The US exerted its influence, and the humanitarian community fell in line to deliver dividends on the deal. A Civil-Military Coordination Center has been set up by the US military to coordinate the delivery of aid and reconstruction.
States have hailed this flawed agreement as a breakthrough. Yet the fact that this master key was used only after two years of total destruction – despite extensive humanitarian diplomacy, and in a way that entrenches an illegal occupation – exposes the moral bankruptcy of real estate diplomacy, most clearly embodied by the transactional approach taken by the current US administration, which ultimately advances a settler-colonial logic.
We are living through what Antonio Gramsci, writing from his imprisonment by fascists in the 1930s, called an interregnum, when “the old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born”. In that void, the “morbid symptoms” of resurgent fascism and ethno-nationalism emerge.
So what remains when a superpower refuses to turn the lock? A world that is no longer unipolar but multipolar is messy and contested, requiring a new approach for those seeking to influence the outcomes of conflicts.
The age of singular leverage is fading, and institutions built for the 20th century cling to outdated maps. As Western power turns inward, those who built their credibility on proximity to it face a crisis of legitimacy.
The United Nations has struggled to assert influence in this shifting landscape, constrained by the politics of its funders and the erosion of trust among affected populations. Yet this transition offers the UN a rare opportunity to renew its legitimacy by aligning with emerging powers, embracing regional partnerships, and championing the equitable application of international law. If it adapts, it could serve as a bridge between the old order and the new. If it does not, it dies.
Amid this transformation, new centres of gravity are emerging in the pursuit of meaningful peace and security. In Doha, a mediation hub has taken shape. Qatar has leveraged its unique political position and diplomatic agility to broker dialogue where traditional power has faltered. Its open channels with actors across divides have made Doha an indispensable node in the global architecture of conflict resolution — even for its critics. South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice and the Hague Group show how legitimacy is shifting — a shift forged in the ruins of a genocide.
Out of this could emerge a new form of political leverage, created through broader alliances and an insistence on accountability rather than dominance and co-option. As the Doha Forum theme suggests, it is a call to move “Beyond Promises to Progress” by putting “Justice in Action.”
However, when nations overwhelmingly voted this month for the UN Security Council resolution endorsing the US plan for Gaza, it demonstrated the fragility of this emerging order. States bowed to American pressure, according to diplomats familiar with the negotiations, proving that economic interests still supersede a resurgent decolonial movement. It was a reminder that multipolarity is not a guarantee of justice; it is only a redistribution of influence.
It does not have to be this way. The Global South can be a geopolitical bloc that builds its own negotiating tables and sets its own terms. The growing assertiveness of the BRICS coalition of economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), and the diplomatic independence of some Latin American governments, already demonstrated this possibility. Ignoring this is ignoring the future. At the recent BRICS summit in August 2025, member states reiterated their push for a multipolar order, challenging the longstanding dominance of Western capitals in international diplomacy.
Diplomacy, whether conducted by states, multilateral institutions, or those who support them, must evolve beyond the logic of the master key. It needs a craft built on ideological honesty and pragmatic engagement. This means confronting asymmetries of modern conflict, rejecting the blanket labelling of entire movements as “terrorist”, and recognising the legitimacy of diverse power structures. Pragmatic engagement requires readiness for multi-door dialogue and engagement with the actors who actually hold power — including regional alliances, armed groups, and civic movements.
Those clinging to a single, crude key will be left behind. Palestinians — and others who have suffered under a unipolar order — will not miss them. The future of peacemaking belongs to those who carry many keys and know which door to open, and when. The age of the master key is coming to an end.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect media’s editorial policy.
