New World Disorder

5 May Washington Post commentary - New World Disorder by David Ignatius.

Quote:

---

... The nuclear strategist Herman Kahn pondered this problem in a 1983 essay on "multipolarity and stability." Kahn made his name by "thinking about the unthinkable" -- namely, the consequences of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. But he recognized that the bipolar world of the Cold War had an inherent stability. The two superpowers understood the rules of the game, and because the dangers of conflict were so great, they learned to discipline themselves and their respective allies.

A multipolar world eventually would be stable, too, Kahn argued. He hypothesized that by 2000, there would be seven economic giants -- the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Germany, France and Brazil -- and that they would gradually work out orderly rules. The problem was the transition. The moment of maximum danger, Kahn warned, would be in moving from a bipolar to a multipolar world.

We are now in that process of transition, and it's proving just as volatile as Kahn predicted. American power alone is demonstrably unable to achieve world order; we can't even maintain the peace in Baghdad. But no multilateral coalition has emerged as an alternative. The United Nations, the nominal instrument of collective security, allowed itself to be run out of Iraq by a terrorist bomb in the early months of the war...

---

Although I have only just begun reading the book, the argument presented in this article seems to track that of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations." It certainly does seem as if we're headed to multipolarity. Maybe we are headed toward something like the 18th and 19th centuries where nations of roughly equal power did battle. Maybe the strategy and tactics will be different, but this seems possible.

Is multipolarity necessarily a bad thing assuming the US can retain enough power to prevent or deter an attack that could defeat us? Maybe one of you history buffs out there can enlighten me on the comparison with the 18th and 19th century world. Were the great powers of that time in any real danger of being conquered by their rivals? Could a modern day repeat of that actually help the US in its effort to at least stabilize the world?

A lot of the theory behind this comes out of Wallerstein's World Systems Theory. Generally speaking, a multi-polarity is, actually, somewhat more stable that a unipolar arrangement but it all depends on the "rules of the game" that are agreed upon by the major players. That's where I see the danger.

Marc

If the world is moving toward multipolarity, how can the US capitalize on this? It multipolarity actually a threat to the US? I see China and a resurgent Russia as rising powers and potential threats that will certainly form part of this multipolar world order (perhaps the EU as well). Can a non-nation state (or a coalition of such entities) also form a part?

Hi LawVol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LawVol

If the world is moving toward multipolarity, how can the US capitalize on this? It multipolarity actually a threat to the US? I see China and a resurgent Russia as rising powers and potential threats that will certainly form part of this multipolar world order (perhaps the EU as well). Can a non-nation state (or a coalition of such entities) also form a part?

---

In many ways, I think we are moving back to a power balance closer to that of the late 17th century with the US playing the role of Hapsburg Spain (I'm sure Steve will correct me :D).

Is it a threat to the US? Hmm, I'd have to say that that depends on how you define "threat". Certainly the Pax Americana is a thing of the past. And, as with Spain, the economic might of the US is considerably weakened (it's a side effect of outsourceing and an increased Lorenz curve). Will it destroy the US? I doubt that.

Certainly non-state actors are becoming increasingly important. I expect that they will pretty much replace states as the main actors on the global stage by 2070 or so.

Marc

I have posted this audio interview with General Gavin before but here it is again March of 1972 when he was CEO of Artur D. Little in Boston,Mass. He believed there would be 5 power centers US,China,Japan,Europe,Russia and it looks like he is going to be right as he was about so many other things. Also he thought the US should "break up into regions" because Washington was to out of touch with reality to govern properly. But enough talk listen for yourself.


http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/csdi/a8185.html

marct-can you elaborate on the Hapsburg Spain analogy? I'm outside my lane on that one. In any event, if power is to be diffused wouldn;t it seem prudent to move to a strategy involving less reliance on military might? I have visions of power centers ganging up on us much like the European wars for empire. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

I have posted this audio interview with General Gavin before but here it is again March of 1972 when he was CEO of Artur D. Little in Boston,Mass. He believed there would be 5 power centers US,China,Japan,Europe,Russia and it looks like he is going to be right as he was about so many other things. Also he thought the US should "break up into regions" because Washington was to out of touch with reality to govern properly. But enough talk listen for yourself.


http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/csdi/a8185.html

---

Yes sir,

This speech by LTG Gavin was indeed groundbreaking. I recall him predicting multi-polarity & "economic bases of power". He was correct. Also he decried the danger of "transideological MNCs".

As a business leader myself I take the lesson that a corporation, like a man, can be good or evil.

It was US regionalist thought on the good man's part, but I don't know if he supported a "break-up" of the union, as it were. He said we needed to essentially update the Constitution. This took guts to say but I agreed with him as regards application of automation & accountability in limiting bureacracy.

My father & I developed a programme of methodology to improve governance at the Federal level with the IBM 5100 as the base line for eliminating graft & largesse. Fairness algorithms were developed & a sense of right & wrong was morally offered.

I also agreed with the LTGs desire to replace the JCS with a staff in order to alleviate inter-service rivalries.

So.... multi-polarism is the way of the world, even in the Pentomic/Thermonuclear age, to use those two old terms. I wouldn't say that its inherently more or less perilous than the dual superpower arrangement which held at its heart the prospect of much larger first strikes.

Also I assert that reports of the USSR's demise have been greatly exaggerated by her assets in the Western Media. All the way back to the Ukranian Genocide of 1932-33 & earlier, the newsmen of the west have been Moscow's best friends.

Now they want us to forget all about the Soviet threat as if its gone away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

I also agreed with the LTGs desire to replace the JCS with a staff in order to alleviate inter-service rivalries.

---

They didn't replace the JCS, but there is the Joint Staff. Those inter-services rivalries are alive and well. Only way those will ever simmer down is if the services stop having Title 10 procurement authority and a Joint Staff gets control of the purse strings (never), and probably not even then.

Anyway, when I was in IR grad school, it was taught that a bipolar state system was inherently unstable, it was only the factor of MAD that lent the Cold War its stability. A multipolar system was considered to be much more stable.

I was never comfortable with that concept, though. I understand there are historical periods in particular places where there is more "stability" (i.e. peace or at least not-war) than others, but the term tends to connote the accepted meaning from the physical sciences, which makes people think that you can more or less engineer a stable state system, and then said system will stay stable. Certainly the actions of international actors can influence their relations to a degree helpful or unhelpful to stability, but I think it is quite limited, and in general the state system and international stability are quite beyond the conscious control of its actors, and that striving to build some sort of stable order is a fool's errand. Better for the actors to act in ways that try not to provoke their neighbors, and leave it at that.

I was exposed to too much "realist" and especially "neo-realist" IR theory in school and I hated the whole thought world they built up. Much of it did not even rise to the level of being wrong. It was simplified to the point of caricature, and looked at too few things to be of any value. There was always this idea that they possessed this formula to stable world order and that if only you (world leaders) applied their calculus, we would live in that stable world. Events happen, and we live with them; maybe the "multipolar order" will be stable, and we'll enter a period of relative calm and stability where no one or two powers dominate all the other major actors, or maybe it will be unstable and wracked by strife. Either could happen (or neither!) and are historically precedented, and whatever outcome we are presented with will be due to a whole host of factors, few of which have much to do with configuration of the international state system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

Yes sir,

This speech by LTG Gavin was indeed groundbreaking. I recall him predicting multi-polarity & "economic bases of power". He was correct. Also he decried the danger of "transideological MNCs".

As a business leader myself I take the lesson that a corporation, like a man, can be good or evil.

It was US regionalist thought on the good man's part, but I don't know if he supported a "break-up" of the union, as it were. He said we needed to essentially update the Constitution. This took guts to say but I agreed with him as regards application of automation & accountability in limiting bureacracy.

My father & I developed a programme of methodology to improve governance at the Federal level with the IBM 5100 as the base line for eliminating graft & largesse. Fairness algorithms were developed & a sense of right & wrong was morally offered.

I also agreed with the LTGs desire to replace the JCS with a staff in order to alleviate inter-service rivalries.

So.... multi-polarism is the way of the world, even in the Pentomic/Thermonuclear age, to use those two old terms. I wouldn't say that its inherently more or less perilous than the dual superpower arrangement which held at its heart the prospect of much larger first strikes.

Also I assert that reports of the USSR's demise have been greatly exaggerated by her assets in the Western Media. All the way back to the Ukranian Genocide of 1932-33 & earlier, the newsmen of the west have been Moscow's best friends.

Now they want us to forget all about the Soviet threat as if its gone away.

---

Bullmoose, break up was probably a poor choice of words on my part. He wanted to establish several federal regions under federal governors who were more attuned to regional needs as opposed to only Washington politicos. He talked about it in his last book Crisis Now.....appropiate title. He was one of the most fascinating people I have ever met.

I think it's important to note that the last multi-polar "era" ended with the World Wars. The ascedence of German power unbalanced the system established at the conclusion of the Napeolonic Wars (though it. There are also some assumptions inherent in any kind of measurement of polarity -- first, that states are security-focused; second, states are the dominant powers in politics; and third, that the organization of the international political system has a direct and major impact on state policy and decision making. All of those assumptions can be challenged. Realism is a sound theory if kept within its left and right limits. But as Stevely noted, those limits can be severely restrictive.

I'm more inclined to accept the omni-balancing theory that domestic factions leverage all aspects international relations for domestic gain. So to answer the question, IMO the utility of a multipolar world for the US will depend upon how effective the US can and is willing to take advantage of it. And that in turn will depend upon the characteristics of the political arena here at home.