New World Disorder

[SWJED]

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

... 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...

[LawVol]

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?

[marct]

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

[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?

[marct]

Hi 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 ).

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

[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