Feb 13, 2012
After Unipolarity
Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations (and panelist at CSIS's big 80th birthday bash for Zbigniew Brzezinski last week), has a piece in the Financial Times today that's catnip for grand strategists everywhere. The question of what the international system will look like with the relative decline of U.S. power is IR speculative fun of the highest order, and Haas throws a lot of different characters into the mix - including Fortune 500 companies, China, international organizations, and media outlets. He argues that we may be looking at non-polarity instead of multi-polarity, and that interacting with the rest of the world may in the future be even more difficult than now (no more "with us or against us" simplicity - for better or for worse). *UPDATE* This New Yorker article, too, looks at similar issues. Check out the quick run-down on Asian political dynamics near the end.
- 's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Dang, I've used up my FT
Dang, I've used up my FT article views for the month. Okay, commenting on the post and not the article.
If non-polarity means states like the U.S. and China don't have more pull than other states, I don't buy it. Are non-state actors increasingly important? Sure, but I don't think they individually match the influence of a great power just yet.
On interacting with the rest of the world being more difficult? Maybe, depends on how we mean "more difficult." I'd grant more complex certainly and harder to predict. However, I think the present simplicity is often contrary to U.S. interests and I think a less predictable more complex world can provide great incentives for cooperation.