06-21-2003, 07:20 PM
Unipolar would be a US hegemony that eclipsed the various and sundry squabbles around the globe, and rendered the UN and every other regional organ irrelevant.
That has NOT happened.
Multipolar is the model. Bipolar was driven by US/West vs USSR/East attempts at global hegemony, with some lesser included cases. The draw down after the Cold War was in anticipation of that. What was a bit unexpected by some was the the bipolar devolution would be so bloody. Trouble is, some of us saw it coming and no one listened. Some of us recognized even then that bipolar was a poor illustration, given that China has always been on its own side. :) At the very least, the Third World created a third pole in the circus tent.
The Current Poles:
The Subcontinent
China
Europe
US
Islamic World (and ideological pole more than a geographic one)
That's five. I'd call it a Hexa-polar world.
The strength of any given pole should not be measured in military might alone.
Combine a few more factors, to include economic strength and potential, population, diplomatic ties, ideology, and you'll see that 'unipolar world' hardly describes the current state of play. Armed might is a subset of political power.
If it were a unipolar world, the UN would have meekly bowed to US demands and the second resolution would have passed 15-0. That would have been an example of unipolarism.
That has NOT happened.
Multipolar is the model. Bipolar was driven by US/West vs USSR/East attempts at global hegemony, with some lesser included cases. The draw down after the Cold War was in anticipation of that. What was a bit unexpected by some was the the bipolar devolution would be so bloody. Trouble is, some of us saw it coming and no one listened. Some of us recognized even then that bipolar was a poor illustration, given that China has always been on its own side. :) At the very least, the Third World created a third pole in the circus tent.
The Current Poles:
The Subcontinent
China
Europe
US
Islamic World (and ideological pole more than a geographic one)
That's five. I'd call it a Hexa-polar world.
The strength of any given pole should not be measured in military might alone.
Combine a few more factors, to include economic strength and potential, population, diplomatic ties, ideology, and you'll see that 'unipolar world' hardly describes the current state of play. Armed might is a subset of political power.
If it were a unipolar world, the UN would have meekly bowed to US demands and the second resolution would have passed 15-0. That would have been an example of unipolarism.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete