Would America benefit from a multi-polar world?

It seems nearly undeniable that the US's worldwide popularity has fallen sharply since the US led Invasion of Iraq (I know some of you might not have heard of this, It doesn't get much discussion time )

Many people perceive the US as an Imperialist nation, wantonly bullying the world and throwing around its power (in a way that was acceptable 100 years ago, but now is not "okay"), a nation which disregards international law when it sees fit. Many people perceive the US as the greatest threat to international stability.

However, contemplating the eventual rise of a new Superpower (be it China, India, Russia, the EU, what have you), I can't help but wonder if the new balance of power that would emerge from such a development would be the very best thing possible for America's international standing.

It would take the pressure off of America as the (booming voice) World's Lone Superpower (C). I think Americans are fundamentally uncomfortable with power politics. We like to play by the rules and have other countries like us. When we go to war, we usually need a "moral" reason, so the government leads us along by bellowing things like "freedom" and "democracy".

A rise in power of China (which, as most of us know, is underway, but God knows where it will end) might throw the Authoritarian nature of the Chinese superpower into sharp contrast with the more benign nature of US foreign policy (assuming the Chinese try to assert global power and aren't simply concerned to fiddle around in East Asia) and remind everyone of the Cold War days when we actually looked good.

A rise in power of say, the European Union, would provide America with a powerful and probably likeminded ally with similiar values and shared cultural history. Assuming that the EU develops a European wide military, I would say that the USA and EU allied together would be capable of balancing the threat of a resurgent China.

A rise in power of India, which is a Democratic nation, might provide America with a useful balance (not to mention a huge manpower source) against the rising Chinese threat.

Of course, all of these changes would require America to fundamentally acknowledge that it is no longer world hegemon.

 

For many years I was of the opinion that an important result of the Iraq war would be to expose the limits of America's superpower status, that over the long term it would encourage an unstated multinational effort to contain the geopolitical and military influence of the U.S.

It hasn't happened that way. Now, I'm right most of the time about almost everything, but I wasn't right about this. Yes, the Iraq fiasco has exposed the limits of the U.S. military as an occupying force in an unhospitable foreign setting. But so what? It's also made it absolutely clear that there is no other game in town, nor will any other game emerge anytime soon. Maybe in 25 years. Eventually, China will have the industrial capacity to build up its armed forces to superpower status, but it's not there yet and won't be for a while.

So, to sum up, there's no sign of any return to a "balance of power" world geopolitical scenario. There is as yet no viable counterweight to American power.

 

Yes, you are absolutely correct about the lack of an alternative. For the West at least, this relationship was cultivated by design though.

And I would echo your "so what" attitude. I just can't help wonder about all the importance placed on Iraq as a foreign policy based operation.

Didn't Korea also illustrate the limit of the US's superpower status? After 58,000 combat deaths on the US side, it resulted in a partitioning of a country, gave rise to the worst rogue nation in post WWII history, and a 50 year, long term US military presence.

How about Vietnam, and its numerous illustrations?

Even the first Desert Storm, and its resulting check in the "win" column, demonstrated policy limits.

The point is that since the end of WWII and the rise of the US as a superpower, and then lone hyperpower, there have been examples every decade for the past 60 years of the limitations of such status. Even so, no one else has wanted to step up, or is capable of stepping up and assuming the role.

 

In short, the world puts up with our blunders, even if they're on the scale of Iraq, because we anchor the world order and provide a level of stability that no one else can provide.

 

Can't disagree with that sentiment at all...

 

Now, I'm right most of the time about almost everything

And about War of the Worlds .

 

*********! I can't believe you remember that. Ok, so I'm right some of the time about one or two things.

 

Yes, but if it were to occur, would that be more beneficial to either America or the world (or both) or would it hurt things?

 

Yeah, most of this discussion is mildly OT.

I don't think anyone is really of the opinion that the US is going under in the next 50 years or so, but even so, it doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

 

Actually according to the BBC the World views the US more positively and depending on the result of the upcoming election it might increase in the coming years.

Anyway I truly wonder at the moment if China is going to become a world power same with India due to rising food prices and oil e.g. limited natural resources. Its like catching up with the lead scorer in hungry hungry hippo with limited balls.

 

And as we all know the US wins on account of balls.

 

As I said, the U.S. anchors the world order. I don't know if that's good or bad, because I don't know what will replace it when U.S. power goes into relative decline as it probably already has begun to do and in any case eventually must do. Will it be a balance of competing powers between China, India, Western Europe and North America? Will it be a more highly fractured world than it most certainly already is? Will western civilization fail entirely?

 

Spengler certainly seemed to think so.

 

Not only would the United States not benefit from a multipolar world, but the WORLD would not benefit from a multipolar world.

When several nations have nuclear weapons, a unipolar world is the safest option, particularly a single world government.

Note that this is not to state that a single government would be a good and just government. Personally would oppose the world being turned into a single state--though primarily on religious grounds rather than secular ones.

A multipolar world with numerous powers armed with the ability to destroy all human life on Earth while space colonization is not feasible is a recipe for disaster. In contrast, if there had to be governments with nukes, then a single state would reduce the risk of human annihilation considerably. As is, the United States and Russia have over a thousand nukes. China could have over a hundred while India, Pakistan, the UK, and France could have dozens. Israel has a few. In a multipolar world, dueling powers could lob a huge number of these weapons at each other.

In a single state, nuclear power would be regulated and monitored by a single government. At most, some would be criminals could bribe nuclear workers for radioactive material and try to produce a bomb or two. Thousands of bombs would be unfeasible. (Ironically, this seems a very Galactic Empire type argument). There could be little 'burps' of violence, but not warfare that threatens the survival of the human race.

And as science progresses, and nanotechnology and genetic modification come into their own, the government will become more authoritarian and freedom will be curtailed. In the future, fabricating a virus--a biological one--could be easier than creating a computer virus today, and humans would be killed, not computers.

 

I think there's very different ways of looking at whether or not one country is a superpower. Obviously, the military perspective is the first that comes to mind, I think. But how likely are we to really see military confrontations between countries that have nuclear capability? It could so easily escalate into WW3 that I think chances are cooler heads will prevail. As for the global conflicts that are likely to take place, the U.S. has been rather overextended fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, by most accounts. If some new trouble spot required some sort of immediate military intervention, the U.S. might not be able to do much. On economic matters, on the other hand, the U.S. is obviously going through a rough spot, although this can in turn reverberate across the globe. Still, the economic power of Asia and the European Union, if they work together, probably could be a formidable counterpoint to U.S. economic policy.

Having said that, I think there's an emerging consensus within the G7 countries that a weak dollar isn't likely to benefit anyone.

 

History is doomed to repeat itself.

Why should the 'New Superpower' be any different from the United States? I find it absurd that people can think if a new superpower arises it will be stable.

 

We also have to remember deomgraphic trends. Supposedely Europe and Russia will be mostly Muslim in the next 50-100, and the United States will becoming mostly Catholic Latino. The overcrowding in China and India could push them to expand their territory, perhaps India overflowing southern Asia and taking Pakistan, with China purchasing Siberia and the eastern half of Russia. A real power could finally emerge in Africa, we could have mining and energy colonies on the Moon. There could be a supergenius who creates something no one expected, another Einstein or Darwin. A nation could build an advanced defense system that makes itself safe from any nuclear attack. Advances in robotics, cybernetics, genetic enginering. An asteroid collision, an engineered plague. There are a lot of factors that could go in to the making of the 21st century, and the balance of any superpowers. I don't think anyone can tell. Who could have predicted backwards Russia and isolationist America would become superpowers in 1900, the decline of European powers and rebirth as a European Union, the invention and power of nuclear weapons, or the fall of the Soviet Union?

I predict America could benefit from a mutlipolar world as long as it realized this and adapted, instead of being blinded by pride or patriotism when the decline comes. The key is diplomatic cooperation, trade, and continuing to inspire and innovate.

 

Not only would the United States not benefit from a multipolar world, but the WORLD would not benefit from a multipolar world.

Thrawn is right. A multipolar world will just mean one will eventially try to get an advantage over the other. Sooner or later, someone is going to pull a gun, so to speak.

 

Are you seriously buying into that crap? Not going to happen. All the Eurabia doom-scenarios aside, it's just fearmongering by xenophobic extreme-right wing elements in European politics. Don't trust le Front National, or that [...] of a Mussolini. (I would think the name would give it away, haha.)

Aside from that, we are already living in a multi-polar world, even if you are unwilling to accept it. Russia is resurgent and not willing to be bullied, I think the disputes around the energy suplies and NATO are sufficient proof of that. Or how about the fact that all our leaders are perfectly willing to pretend that Chechnya isn't happening. The EU is economically as powerful as the US is, it's just a fact. Not in a good way, by the way, the EU is a neo-liberal vehicle and if I were a 3th world government, I wouldn't trust it. It's going to be interesting to see what the CD&V is going to do about that in 2010, they're pledging they're going to fight for a mroe 'social Europe' , on the other hand, they can't even keep it real around here. Leterme, hah.

The US might have power projecting capapbilities that outmatch any other, we all know that invasions and land grabs are something of the past, at least for us sitting in our cozy 1st world computer chairs. Now, maybe Kenya vs. Somalia or something would be another matter, but even there it's not going to change too much. I don't think America would particulary benefit of a multi-polar world, but then again, there are more countries than the US, right?

acting like the US being the dominant power is a safe guard against nuclear holocaust, it kind of makes me laugh.

 

If this is the premise on which you base your argument then I disagree.

Many political scientists, having grown up during the Cold War, view a Bipolar World as the most inherently stable of all.

In a Unipolar world with a power that is unchallenged, but not powerful enough to enforce universal peace, you have the prospect of the unipolar state 1. using its nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation, 2. using its military without fear of serious challenge.

In a bipolar world, you have two main powers who keep each other in check, and prevent the other from using force in a very direct way. The threat of MAD prevented nuclear weapons from ever being used, and there were no large scale wars during the Cold War.

 

But plenty of proxy wars. The bipolar nature of the cold war didn't prevent the Vietnam war or the invasion of Afghanistan. A military superpower is going to be sorely tempted to use its military power to achieve political ends. This seems true whether it is balanced by another superpower or not.

 

These proxy wars had limited consequence for the world as a whole - compared to the two massive wars that were more or less directly a result of the multipolar state of affairs preceeding them.

 

I don't think anyone will benefit from a multi-polar world while we hold nuclear weapons. That seems to be the direction things are going in, so hopefully I'll be dead or close to it before that world emerges. 2050s right?

I think the USA benefited overall from a bipolar world because it was able to use its military power against a widely perceived enemy without drawing serious outcries of being imperialist. It was much easier to project power by claiming to counter Soviet influence. Projecting power in the "War on Terror" has just made it look like a bully.

I'd also argue that NATO worked a lot better while the Soviets were around. All I read now about NATO are articles heralding its decline. It hasn't really made the transition from anti-Soviet alliance to anti-terrorist, because of the much more controversial nature of hunting down terrorists in other nation's territory in the first place.

 

In a Unipolar world with a power that is unchallenged, but not powerful enough to enforce universal peace, you have the prospect of the unipolar state 1. using its nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation, 2. using its military without fear of serious challenge.

Naturally this is going to depend on the nature of the unipolar power in question, but both of these scenarios are ultimately more remote than the threats of a multipolar world.

First of all, using nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation carries a stigma; and while that stigma may not be efficient deterrance, it has to be asked if such an act would seriously be in the power's favor in a cost benefit analysis.

In terms of the second point, fear of a serious challenge or not may not necessarily stop a power in a multipolar world either. The world was multipolar pre-WWI and pre-WWII, as well as pre-French Revolution. This did nothing to stop the armies from marching; in fact, they marched more often than today.

Essentially, the main benefit of a unipolar world is that if a power is unchallenged, it behooves it to keep things as they are. If a country defies it, it COULD send in it's military... but again one has to weight the cost benefit analysis. Why would a unipolar power literally take over the world when it has everything it wants already?

 

Exactly. And I think the invasion of Iraq has to be understood in that context. I continue to believe that the invasion was a tactical mistake, but in view of the largest possible strategic context, the invasion can be read as an effort to return the Middle East to a pre-UN sanction, pre-Saddam, pre Iran-Iraq war, pre-Iranian revolution status quo of stability, including of course the critical issue of promoting the stability and reliability of oil markets. Military action in Iraq was the continuation of more than a generation of military interventionism in the region to promote stability for oil producers. The end of the Soviet Union changed the political cost-benefit analysis of what was viable militarily for the U.S. to undertake but did not necessarily revolutionize U.S. strategic interest or involvement in the region.