In Gaza, the world witnessed the cost of diplomacy that claims to uphold a rules-based order but applies it selectively. The United States was slow to intervene, intervening only to defend an occupation that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) deemed illegal. Like other Western countries that have built multilateral institutions, the United States is increasingly pursuing nationalist policies that undermine them. The hypocrisy is obvious. Some rules are for Ukraine, others for Gaza.
This decline in credibility signals the structural collapse of unipolar rule, as exemplified by the United States’ absence from the Group of 20 (G20) meeting in South Africa last week.
As thousands of people gather in Qatar over the coming days for this year’s Doha Forum, themed “Acting for Justice: Beyond the Promise of Progress,” accountability for failing to stop the genocide will be asked. The ceasefire imposed in Gaza has brought neither a political solution nor security to Palestinians. Meanwhile, the future of Gaza continues to be debated without the Palestinians.
This is not an unusual sight. Since the Cold War, international diplomacy has operated on what is known as the master key model. In this model, one powerful actor unleashes conflict through political influence, economic pressure, or conditional aid. A whole ecosystem of humanitarian organizations, think tanks, mediators, and consulting firms grew up around it, often funded by Western countries, reinforcing the belief that a call to Washington could solve any crisis.
The ceasefire in Gaza shows that the master key can still turn locks. The United States used its influence, and humanitarian organizations aligned themselves to benefit from the deal. A Civil-Military Coordination Center was established by the US military to coordinate aid delivery and reconstruction.
Countries have hailed the flawed agreement as a breakthrough. But the fact that this master key was only used two years after total destruction, despite extensive humanitarian diplomacy and in a way that entrenched illegal occupation, exposes the moral bankruptcy of real estate diplomacy, most clearly embodied in the transactional approach taken by the current US administration, which ultimately promotes a settler-colonial logic.
We are living in what Antonio Gramsci wrote from his fascist imprisonment in the 1930s, the Interregnum, when “the old world is dying and a new one is struggling to be born.” In that vacuum, the “pathology” of resurgent fascism and ethno-nationalism emerges.
So what remains if the superpowers refuse to unlock it? A world no longer unipolar but multipolar, fraught with turmoil and conflict, requires new approaches for those seeking to influence the outcome of conflicts.
The era of singular leverage is ending, and institutions built for the 20th century cling to outdated maps. As Western power turns inward, those who have built trust through their closeness to the West are facing a crisis of legitimacy.
The United Nations is struggling to assert its influence in this changing landscape, constrained by the politics of its donors and declining trust among those affected. However, this transition provides the United Nations with a rare opportunity to renew its legitimacy by working with emerging powers, embracing regional partnerships, and championing the fair application of international law. If adapted, it could serve as a bridge between the old and new orders. If you don’t, you’ll die.
Amid this transformation, a new center of gravity is emerging in the pursuit of meaningful peace and security. A mediation hub has been established in Doha. Qatar has used its unique political position and diplomatic agility to mediate dialogue in a region where traditional powers are at an impasse. Doha’s open channels with actors across the divide make it an essential node in the global architecture of conflict resolution, even for its critics. South Africa’s cases before the International Court of Justice and the Hague Group demonstrate how legitimacy is changing, and that change is being built on the ruins of genocide.
From this, new forms of political influence could emerge, generated through broader alliances and claims of accountability rather than control or collaboration. As the theme of the Doha Forum suggests, it is a call to move “beyond the promise of progress” by “transforming justice into action”.
But this month, the fragility of this new order was exposed when countries overwhelmingly voted in favor of a UN Security Council resolution supporting the US Gaza plan. Diplomats familiar with the negotiations said countries bowed to U.S. pressure, proving that economic interests still trump a resurgent decolonization movement. It was a reminder that multipolarity does not guarantee justice. It’s just a redistribution of influence.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The Global South could become a geopolitical bloc that builds its own negotiating table and sets its own terms. The growing assertiveness of the BRICS economic union (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the diplomatic independence of some Latin American governments already point to this possibility. To ignore this is to ignore the future. At the recent BRICS summit held in August 2025, member states reiterated their commitment to a multipolar order and challenged the long-standing dominance of Western capital in international diplomacy.
Diplomacy, whether conducted by states, multilateral institutions, or those supporting them, needs to evolve beyond the logic of master keys. It requires technology built on ideological integrity and practical commitment. This means confronting the asymmetries of modern conflicts, refusing to blanketly label entire movements as ‘terrorist’, and recognizing the legitimacy of diverse power structures. Practical engagement requires preparation for multifaceted dialogue and engagement with actors who actually hold power, such as regional alliances, armed groups, and civil movements.
Those who cling to just one poor key will be left behind. Palestinians and other peoples who have suffered under the unipolar order will not miss them. The future of peacebuilding belongs to those who hold many keys and know which doors to open and when. The era of master keys is coming to an end.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
