After the end of the Second World War, the pervious multi-polar system was substituted with a bipolar one. The Cold War was the rivalry of two opposite great powers with strong economic, military, political and social influence throughout the world Varisco However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, much debate on future world politics arose. Mearsheimer predicted a multipolar system as it was in the s Welsh He argued that international politics would now be centered by the interplay of West and non-Western civilizations and thus lead to conflict. In contrast to these assumptions and theories, Krauthammer developed a theory which he called the unipolar moment.
|Published (Last):||25 October 2007|
|PDF File Size:||13.70 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
But there will constantly be new threats disturbing our peace. All that is left is preventing an invasion of the Florida Keys. The new unilateralism defines American interests far beyond narrow self-defense. In particular, it identifies two other major interests, both global: extending the peace by advancing democracy and preserving the peace by acting as balancer of last resort… The promotion of democracy multiplies the number of nations likely to be friendly to the United States, and regional equilibria produce stability that benefits a commercial republic like the United States… Critics find this paradoxical: acting unilaterally for global ends.
Why paradoxical? One can hardly argue that depriving Saddam and potentially terrorists of WMD is not a global end. Unilateralism may be required to pursue this end… What is the essence of that larger interest? Most broadly defined, it is maintaining a stable, open, and functioning unipolar system. The problems of cost and wearing down U. Krauthammer is now hawkish about the Iranian nuclear program. The unipolar moment is, in his view, being lost, not by overarching ambition, but by the timidity of the Obama administration:.
This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat — accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum. Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It is now. But we can work to make it not so by following the Chinese example of investing in clean energy research. Or we can continue to burn wood and oil like Neanderthals.
It is not our oil in the middle east: it belongs to the people there who are living under police states that we support because their tyrants who we seal defense deals worth billions with…. Live frugally within your means: no foreign adventurism.
Another solution: bring back the draft so that the congress reluctantly takes back its duty of declaring wars from the executive branch. I largely subscribe to the Krauthammer view. In fact, I have written numerous times on this very issue. The problem with the approach advocated by President Obama with respect to global stability is his assumption that other powers can or will fill the vacuum left by a U.
Certainly, nature abhors a vacuum so many assume that either another power or a concert of like minded global institutions will fill in the gaps left by a declining America. However, even if this holds universally true, it does not define the time frame for such a new balance to emerge nor does it take into consideration the damage done in the interim period of anarchy. I disagree with Mr. Talking in terms of a power vacuum abroad and a dilemmas to do with hegemony is setting up the argument incorrectly and betrays a misunderstanding of our founding principles.
It is in a profound sense, un-American. This is wrong. When did this self-perception change in America? When did we go from being a nation leery of intervening abroad, to one that has almost destroyed itself doing so? The true American spirit was anti-military, anti-colonial.
If it was pro-defense, it was most certainly more isolationist and anti-offense. Here is James Madison — a real American — who was quite explicit that he did not want an overgrown military branch:. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended.
Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. So I am against power projection abroad mainly to secure oil, little else. Friedman, Jim Harper, and Christopher A.
The result is a public that believes what terrorists want people to think: that they are global supervillains who can wreck American society unless we submit to their demands.
The attempted bombing in Times Square demonstrates again the tensions between media and political demands to ratchet up fears and the focused, methodical, investigatory work that counters terrorism. In Terrorizing Ourselves: How U. Counterterrorism Policy Is Failing and How to Fix It, leading scholars and analysts dismantle much of the flawed thinking that dominates U.
They demonstrate that polices inspired by the specter of indomitable terrorists are self-defeating, leading to needless war, wasted wealth, and diminished freedoms.
The authors offer alternative counterterrorism and homeland security strategies, ones that play to American confidence rather than fear, while making us safer. Preble is a keen and skeptical observer of recent U. He documents how the possession of vast military strength runs contrary to the original intent of the Founders, and has, as they feared, shifted the balance of power away from individual citizens and toward the central government, and from the legislative and judicial branches of government to the executive.
Possessing vast military power in order to further other objectives is, he asserts, illicit and to be resisted. Preble views military power as purely instrumental: if it advances U. If it does not-if it undermines our security, imposes unnecessary costs, and forces all Americans to incur additional risks-then our military power is a problem, one that only we can solve.
And, I think the political order of the world in the coming decades will, to a great degree, be dictated by how the US handles difficult and super-power-wanna-be regimes like Iran today. And, I leave you with the following article that takes a very critical look at the problems caused by American isolationism prior to WWII and how it relates to how the US should deal with Iran today.
Just much much less interventionist. This should not be happening:. I appreciate the comments above. My point, however, is that American isolationism, at least military isolationism, helped to create the circumstances that led to World War II a conflagration with no equal in history though by no means was the only or even most important cause. This is NOT to say we should be stupid and over committ. Indeed, I am a believer in diplomatic flexibility before all. However, diplomatic flexibility can only be believable when married to the potential though not necessarily actual deployment of force.
The desire to substitute legal frameworks for power did not work in the interwar period of the 20s and 30s. It will not, ultimately, work now. Greg, I appreciate your comments. We cannot be the United States of the World. Or at least modify the Constitution to reflect that change.
A similar argument is used a lot, particularly around the efforts for the eradiction of nuclear weapons. The argument posits that some factor nuclear weapons; USA global hegemony is resposible for curbing great power warfare in the post-WWII period, and thus if we take that factor away we can expect to return to an era of great power warfare.
The argument is compelling, but I am not sure it is correct. The other day I observed a bridge being constructed. The process involved constructing a temporary support structure, followed by the pouring of concrete. Once the concrete had completely hardened, it was able to support its own weight and the temporary supports were removed. I wonder if the norm of peace between the great powers in the international system is not something like this.
In the last half of the 20th century, the threat of nuclear war operated like a temporary support structure — forcing peace where there would otherwise have been war. However, over time the norm against war has hardened; at some point, the norm becomes self-supporting, and we can safely remove the temporary support structures. I suspect that a lot of the neocons but also Clinton i.
NATO expansion were all about locking in the unipolar moment. But could there have been a deeper unipolar illusion? Maybe the real unipolar illusion was based on two points a the unipolarists overestimated the political affects that US military power could have on world politics i. Iraq etc and b the US economy was the mother of all bubbles, so the unipolar moment was economically unsustainable hence an illusion. In the s two questions were asked 1 what to do with American primacy?
The neocons answered 1 and wall street answered 2. The results are now in. So the unipolar illusion burst and the bubble burst and Obama has to deal with the consequences. Strategic arms control is one consequence of this, one might argue. I think this whole unipolar thing is very important, either way.
It certainly seems to correspond with US activities in Iraq. And essentially, it is a conservative administration which has changed the mood music.
So the talk is better. The images of the administration are better, the reasonable looks. The fact that the healthcare bill was actually drafted by someone who used to be an insurance lobbyist says it all. So the big problem for Obama is that if you do nothing and promise that you would bring about some changes, you will not have people coming out to vote for you again.
The US is down to 50, troops in Iraq, with a monthly pullout program to reduce them to 10, by Nov The chances of a renewed SOFA there after that date now seem negligible. Furthermore, the US also now seems prepared to concede significant influence to Iran there, unless they have placed their faith entirely in Iraqi nationalism transcending all, which seems a little unlikely.
There is a certain reality to all this that seems inescapable to me.
The Unipolar Moment
Ever since it became clear that an exhausted Soviet Union was calling off the Cold War, the quest has been on for a new American role in the world. Roles, however, are not invented in the abstract; they are a response to a perceived world structure. Accordingly, thinking about post-Cold War American foreign policy has been framed by several conventionally accepted assumptions about the shape of the post-Cold War environment. Second, that the domestic American consensus for an internationalist foreign policy, a consensus radically weakened by the experience in Vietnam, would substantially be restored now that policies and debates inspired by "an inordinate fear of communism" could be safely retired. Third, that in the new post-Soviet strategic environment the threat of war would be dramatically diminished. All three of these assumptions are mistaken. The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar.
Please Consider Donating
But there will constantly be new threats disturbing our peace. All that is left is preventing an invasion of the Florida Keys. The new unilateralism defines American interests far beyond narrow self-defense. In particular, it identifies two other major interests, both global: extending the peace by advancing democracy and preserving the peace by acting as balancer of last resort… The promotion of democracy multiplies the number of nations likely to be friendly to the United States, and regional equilibria produce stability that benefits a commercial republic like the United States… Critics find this paradoxical: acting unilaterally for global ends. Why paradoxical? One can hardly argue that depriving Saddam and potentially terrorists of WMD is not a global end. Unilateralism may be required to pursue this end… What is the essence of that larger interest?
To compete and thrive in the 21st century, democracies, and the United States in particular, must develop new national security and economic strategies that address the geopolitics of information. In this century, democracies must better account for information geopolitics across all dimensions of domestic policy and national strategy. This process has to be examined in the context of the current strategic competition between China and the U. Journal Article - The National Interest. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA Quarterly Journal: International Security.
Greg Djerijian asks whether America's "unipolar moment" is waning. The real issue here is that the unipolar moment prophesied by Charles Krauthammer in was always somewhat illusory. The true unipolar moment came not in , but in , when the United States enjoyed something like half of the world's economic output and a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Since that time, the long-term trajectory of US relative power had been distinctly downward. The collapse of the USSR bumped it back up, but not back to anything resembling levels and didn't alter the long run trajectory. Nor should this be a surprise -- sustaining the status quo would have been impossible and would have entailed miring the vast majority of humanity in a permanent state of economic misery. It's worth remembering that Robert Keohane's book on what happens to U.