This is the second in a series of articles focused on key foreign policy challenges for the next U.S. president. The articles will run between now and the general election on Nov. 5.

In an interview with NBC News in 1998, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called the United States “the indispensable nation.”  The comments were made in reference to America’s unprecedented leading world role at the time, specifically in containing the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. In the ensuing 25 years, as China, Russia and multiple regional powers across the globe have increasingly flexed their respective geopolitical muscles, the indispensability of American power has receded. 

As a consequence of this fact, the next U.S. president will be faced with a multipolar international arena, much different than the unipolar circumstances that Albright navigated in the 1990s, or the 40 years of Cold War bipolarity that preceded the Clinton administration.  So what does this mean in practice? 

Although the United States, by most economic and military criteria, is still the predominant power in the world, that power is much less effective than in the past. This is due to several factors, including China’s inexorable rise, Russia’s re-emergence as a great, albeit revanchist, power; various regional forces – Brazil, India, Iran, South Africa and Turkey -- seeking their place on the world stage; and an American public that is understandably exhausted with seemingly interminable foreign adventures since the 9/11 attacks.

Against this backdrop, the next president will be confronted, most importantly, by both China and Russia continuing to expand their power and influence, primarily on the Eurasian continent, but also across sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. To counter this autocratic onslaught, the United States will be forced to cooperate with a broad spectrum of governments, some democracies (Australia, Japan, France), some flawed democracies (India, Indonesia, Turkey) and even communist dictatorships (Vietnam). As noted foreign policy commentator and professor Hal Brands stated in a recent column in Foreign Affairs magazine, “Across Eurasia, Washington needs illiberal friends to confine illiberal foes.”

Washington must recognize that the “you’re either with us or against us” motto of the immediate post-9/11 era will not fly in today’s current, multipolar reality. Mid-level powers such as Vietnam, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, all important in their own ways to key U.S. national interests, will be with us sometimes and against us on other issues.

Leaders in these and other regional centers, though still cognizant of America’s interests and values, must balance that with a respect for the unique power exigencies of their regions. Take Vietnam, for example, where the country’s leadership has adopted a “bamboo diplomacy” to expand relations with Washington while simultaneously maintaining stability with China, its oft-overbearing, dominant neighbor to the north. Forcing Hanoi to choose between the United States and China would likely be counterproductive to America’s interests in the critical South China Sea littoral zone. 

Turkey provides another case in point, where President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan buys Russian armaments, stirs up trouble in the Caucasus and strongly opposes U.S. policy in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Turkey remains an important North Atlantic Treaty Organization member, and occupies a fundamental geographic space linking Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Furthermore, for all its flaws, Turkey represents a moderately stable democracy in a region of the world in serious need of that type of governance. Consequently, America would be strategically shortsighted to turn its back on Ankara. 

Managing the new multipolar world will thus necessitate a level of flexibility and foresight not required since before the Cold War. There will be a case-by-case aspect to foreign policy coalition-building in the future as the Turkeys, Brazils and Saudi Arabias of the world become less susceptible to American intimidation, while still accepting the broad contours of the post-World War II international system Washington has built. 

This new era doesn’t mean that the age of allies is past. On the contrary, given America’s receding relative power, Washington’s allies will be even more important in countering the main threats -- China, Russia and Iran -- to our liberal-democratic way of life. The occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. must, therefore, accept that all of America’s allies will not always be with us on every issue. Keeping his or her eyes on the geopolitical forest, not the sometimes-recalcitrant individual trees, will be a prerequisite for the next president’s successful handling of this multipolar world.

Robert Beck of Peterborough served for 30 years overseas with the United States government in embassies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. He now teaches foreign policy classes at Keene State College’s Cheshire Academy for Lifelong Learning.