Furthermore, Rousseau questions why man shall be subject to other masters even with tranquility established. Supposing a state is a magnified individual, as Plato did, and states are in a society of nations, which is not anarchic but governed through rules and structure, then for Rousseau, why should states be subject to other master states? And what do states gain, even those who enjoy tranquility under the hegemony of other master states, if this tranquility is associated with misery? Rousseau’s view can provide the basic logic for creating an image for the structure of international order that is built on the core-periphery dependency structure that suggests an inferior–superior relationship, where the first is subjugated by the second. So if Rousseau is correct about man–man relationships in a state/society structure, the same can be applied among states. If the structure of the order is built on slave–master relationships, suspecting a form of dependency or even subjugation, states shall raise the question, even with tranquility and peace achieved—and not like the case of Palestine, where their lands are robbed—what they gain out of this order where they have to be subjects to other master states and sacrifice their liberty and independence. States in the global south who have suffered from colonialism and then subjugation and hegemony by Western states, who played the role of the masters, superiors, or core states in the structure of the international order, began to raise these questions about why shall our nations be subject to the Western nations as masters, or even any of the rising powers, why shall the structure of the international order should be established on subjugation, the rising voices of the global south in the world had made it clear that our nations will not accept such structure in any form of international order in the future, and in order to break away from this subjugation, the global south shall struggle to achieve its final stage of liberty by establishing a new order that is not based on subjugation or dependency structure but rather of plurality not polarity. Rousseau suggested sacrificing the natural liberty in favor of the conventional liberty that is agreed upon between all members of the society and serving the general will. The question here is, does the general will exist in the international order? It is not easy to imagine that the whole world agrees on the general will for all, for the national interests contradict, but this argument can be challenged by assuming that even individuals’ interests contradict, but still a general will can exist for the good of all. Some form of general will is possible to exist among states in the international order, and it is not the so-called universal values imposed by Western great powers, but rather the consensus of all nations that peace and tranquility are serving the interests of all. Since the international order of post-World War does not reflect this “international general will,” and the global south is not well represented in the structure of the order and its institutions, and only the “will of the few” is represented, then again, this order begins to lose its legitimacy, and states begin to refrain from respecting its rules, which are not serving this general will, and accordingly the global south in Africa, Asian, and Latin America begins to struggle for its independence from the subjugation of the mastery of the hegemonic powers, and create a new “consensual international general will” that serves all states in plural structure, including the west as equal among equals. This struggle by the global south states is the causal mechanism for the evolution of international order. This struggle is not a civilizational clash between the West and the non-West, as Huntington suggested; it is a struggle between those who play the role of the masters and those who are subjugated by them, where the superior states, core, or so-called developed resist the positive change that the inferior, periphery, or so-called developing states are trying to bring to the international order by eliminating hegemony, not only Western hegemony but any form of future hegemony by any other actor. In doing so, the global south is protecting the West itself from falling into the hegemony of other potential powers, whatever their names or civilizations are. Then it is not a clash between the United States and China for the hegemony of the world, but rather a struggle of liberation of the global south to break free from the subjugation of any hegemonic powers, whether the United States or others, and make sure that the new international order would not repeat the mistakes of the previous international regimes where they have been subjugated by greater powers. Since it is not a civilizational clash between the West and non-West, then this evolution process and struggle is not targeting Western civilization itself or its values and is not aiming at demolishing it and making it inferior to the global south’s view and values for the purpose of achieving hegemony over it. It is not a clash over hegemony but rather a struggle for coexistence. This struggle of the global south aims at reconstructing the international order and its structure not on the basis of core-periphery, subjugation, or polarity, but rather on plurality, and it does not suggest an inferiority of Western or liberal values to the others, as some Western scholars like Fukuyama wanted the world to be after the fall of the Soviet Union in the process of the evolution of the international order, or as Gilpin argued for achieving hegemonic stability under the supremacy and superiority of the West. Because there will be no stability or tranquility, which is the “international general will,” as long as there is hegemony, for under hegemony, the subjugated nations will continue to struggle against that hegemony, making it is impossible for nations to rest in peace, which is the general will of the nations of the world. So, under the new international order, Western civilization is not suggested to be inferior or to follow others’ values but to be equal among equals; the same applies to other great powers like China or Russia. Global hegemony in all its forms will be eliminated.