Navigating Global Insecurity: AI, Multipolarity, and the Urgent Need for International Cooperation

The current state of international politics resembles a collective drift towards peril, marked by three deeply concerning trends. Firstly, artificial intelligence is amplifying both existing and novel threats on a global scale. Secondly, no single state possesses the power to unilaterally enforce order. Thirdly, mirroring historical periods of global crisis, geopolitical blocs are solidifying, with international cooperation increasingly perceived as a sign of weakness. These factors create a fertile ground for a repetition of history's most devastating outcomes.

While much attention has been directed towards the potential for conflict between the United States and China due to shifts in hegemonic power, the reality is more complex. We are instead approaching an international order devoid of a single hegemon, characterized by competition among multiple states and regional blocs for influence. This marks the dawn of genuine global multipolarity.

Artificial intelligence is further destabilizing existing power structures. On one hand, it grants unprecedented access to information and innovation, making humans feel almost godlike. On the other hand, it disempowers individuals and states, introducing new threats and exacerbating the difficulty of containing old ones. Even powerful nations are struggling to translate their power into effective control, as evidenced in the military sphere. The proliferation of inexpensive drones and AI-assisted targeting has disrupted traditional military hierarchies. For instance, the United States, despite its formidable military, has been unable to compel Iran to capitulate, and Russia's unsuccessful invasion of Ukraine demonstrates a similar inability of a stronger state to achieve its objectives.

New technologies are also highlighting this loss of control in other critical areas. Future pandemics could emerge from clandestine laboratories, posing a deadlier threat than COVID-19. Devastating cyberattacks might originate from unassuming locations, and advanced AI systems could potentially escape human control. AI could also lower the barriers to nuclear weapon development, and biological weapons could proliferate undetected. These threats transcend national borders; if one state implements effective safety measures, malicious actors can simply relocate and operate from elsewhere. A state with overwhelming military and economic might may still be powerless to prevent a pandemic, thwart a cyberattack, or contain the spread of dangerous technologies.

Strategies predicated on peace through strength, regional dominance, and zero-sum power dynamics are proving to be ineffective and costly, akin to using heavy weaponry to combat mosquitoes. Yet, many nations are doubling down on these very approaches. Some leaders are prioritizing AI supremacy and digital dominance, viewing negotiations for mutual constraints through international law and institutions as naive or counterproductive. Such strategies are, at best, ineffective and, at worst, could imperil humanity. This echoes the warnings of past generations: "Do not fall for it again." Given the historical repercussions of unfettered national ambition combined with weak international rules and institutions, these warnings should be heeded. However, many appear unable to rise to the challenge, partly due to a tendency to underestimate risks that accumulate over time. A 1 percent annual probability of global catastrophe, while seemingly small, translates to a roughly 63 percent chance over a century—an unacceptably high level of risk.

While military strength will remain essential, the only viable path to genuine security in this new era of multipolarity and artificial intelligence lies in robust international institutions and laws. Global standards must be established and enforced, and international organizations must be empowered to monitor, inspect, and report on activities within national borders. Governments will need to engage in regular sharing of sensitive information. The new global imperative must be peace through cooperation, not out of altruism, but as the sole means to achieve lasting security.

Fortunately, foundational structures already exist. Institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Health Organization (WHO) retain significant authority and legitimacy. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has demonstrated the effectiveness of international monitoring in verifying compliance even in highly sensitive domains.

Recent developments offer glimmers of hope. Last year, the WHO adopted a Pandemic Agreement to enhance global preparedness for preventing and mitigating future health crises. The UN General Assembly recently ratified the BBNJ Agreement, the first significant global treaty in a decade, aimed at protecting biodiversity in the high seas. Furthermore, the UN Security Council has signaled its commitment to addressing AI-related security challenges; during a high-profile debate in September 2026, numerous governments and leading AI developers advocated for stronger global governance and more effective international oversight mechanisms. These are encouraging indicators.

However, global frameworks are receiving insufficient investment at a time when the opposite is urgently required. Norway has prioritized addressing this issue, defining respect for international law and effective multilateral institutions as a core national security interest. As a major financial contributor to the UN, Norway is leveraging its position to advocate for enhanced effectiveness. While Norway alone cannot alter the course of international politics, collaborative efforts through cross-regional coalitions with like-minded nations can yield substantial results. A recent example is the joint Call for Action launched in September by Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store and Finnish President Alexander Stubb to establish global oversight and control over advanced AI models, an initiative that has garnered support from countries worldwide and could serve as a catalyst for concrete international action.

In a multipolar world without a single governing authority, the paramount challenge is to reconcile multipolarity with multilateralism. Building effective institutions in the absence of imposed order is inherently difficult. However, just as previous generations surmounted profound obstacles, so too can we. The catastrophic experiences of the First and Second World Wars ultimately led nations to unite under shared legal principles and institutions. It is my conviction that states will eventually recognize this as the only viable path forward. The critical question remains whether this realization can be achieved without enduring another global crisis of world-war-like proportions.