What Will Follow US Dominance?
Richard N. Haass | Foreign Policy | May/June 2008
The end of the unipolar world is approaching. The unipolar world emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union when the bipolar era of the cold war came to an end. Yet just after one decade and a half of US supremacy, the international system is once again in the face of enormous tectonic change: In his recent essay for Foreign Policy, Richard N. Haass declares we live in a century of nonpolarity. What however distinguishes nonpolarity from multipolarity? National states have lost their monopoly on power. They face increasing competition from above (on behalf of regional and global interstate organizations,) from below (on behalf of militias for instance,) and from the side (on behalf of NGOs and multinational companies.) Traditional multipolarity is therefore no longer relevant. From now on, there is a variety of centers of power, multiple players, and a broad rather than concentrated distribution of power.
The main reason for this is globalization: it has never been so easy for individuals or groups to communicate, produce, invest or travel across borders. All this strengthens non governmental actors whether they are private energy producers, multinational companies or terrorists. The policies of the US also have a considerable share of responsibility in this development. Regardless whether it has been active or passive, the USA has encouraged the rise of alternative centers of power and weakened its own position. The best example of this is energy policy. Since the oil crisis of the seventies, oil consumption in the US has increased by 20% and oil imports by more than half. This has contributed to the price of oil rising from 20 to over 100 dollars a barrel in less than ten years. The consequence is a unique transfer of wealth and influence to the benefit of states with oil reserves. The unsuccessful efforts of western governments to dissuade Iran from its nuclear ambitions, is a clear indicator of the consequences these kinds of shifts in power within the international power structure can entail.
If the USA wants to prevent the nonpolar world from drifting into chaos, it should start by reviewing its energy policy. The only way to recuperate a share of power is to reduce the dependency on raw material imports that the USA and other western countries have developed. In addition, the uncontrolled proliferation of arms and nuclear weapons should be prevented at all costs. For this, defense guarantees may be necessary for states that would otherwise strive to obtain nuclear weapons as deterrents. One thing is certain: nonpolarity complicates diplomacy. In the future, it should be much harder to coordinate collective responses to regional and global challenges. The failed negotiations of the Doha Round may only be the beginning. It is highly probable that multilateralism à la carte will determine the agenda of the future. There will no longer be traditional alliances but selective and situation-specific coalitions which will shape international relations. Politics according to the motto "With us or against us" and this will no longer be the sole privilege of American foreign policy.
This summary was prepared by the Atlantic Community editorial team from "The Age of Nonpolarity. What Will Follow U.S. Dominance" published here in Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy.
Related materials from the Atlantic Community:
- Christoph Bertram: Weak America = Weakened Europe
- Lukas Vitalijus: Rethinking the Status Quo
- Parag Khanna: The Big Three: China, the US, and the EU
