Tweet
So what grants more peace and stability in the end? A uni-polar world with only one superpower or a bi-polar (or even multi-polar) world with several "power poles"? Or have both systems just different "types" of characteristical conflict lines, with their own potential for instability and wars?
Obviously we now live in an uni-polar world. Only one superpower means more stability (so a common pro argument) etc. because several big powers with colliding interests lead automatically into a conflict, possibly into a cold war (with the danger of turning into a hot war) between those powers. If there´s however only one superpower, it can enforce its vision of a world order, which would mean more stability (if we like the kind of world order is another question).
When we look at the cold war between USA and USSR one could also say that those two powers limited eachother effectively over decades without the big bang and created stability in this way. And a single superpower may be able to enforce its interests, but this doesn´t mean that different interests are gone - they are just "covered", because everyone else is unable to confront the only superpower.
All irrelevant, since we have now only one superpower? But what should be the goal for the rest, should countries like China, Russia or even the EU try to level the power gap between them and the US as best they can? Even if they do not reach total equality in all terms - serious efforts would at least require reaction from America, perhaps question the USA´s status as No. 1. and could enable those countries to strenghten their own positions against the US.
I even think a bi- or multi-polar world could work without major conflicts between the powers, but only if all share a common vision of international law (which isn´t the case currently), if they all act within a system of international "framework" (here I considered to post UN instead, but I think this is not the best example
). This seems to work excellent within the micro-world of the EU, where wars seem impossible between the members, but can it work for the world?
Obviously we now live in an uni-polar world. Only one superpower means more stability (so a common pro argument) etc. because several big powers with colliding interests lead automatically into a conflict, possibly into a cold war (with the danger of turning into a hot war) between those powers. If there´s however only one superpower, it can enforce its vision of a world order, which would mean more stability (if we like the kind of world order is another question).
When we look at the cold war between USA and USSR one could also say that those two powers limited eachother effectively over decades without the big bang and created stability in this way. And a single superpower may be able to enforce its interests, but this doesn´t mean that different interests are gone - they are just "covered", because everyone else is unable to confront the only superpower.
All irrelevant, since we have now only one superpower? But what should be the goal for the rest, should countries like China, Russia or even the EU try to level the power gap between them and the US as best they can? Even if they do not reach total equality in all terms - serious efforts would at least require reaction from America, perhaps question the USA´s status as No. 1. and could enable those countries to strenghten their own positions against the US.
I even think a bi- or multi-polar world could work without major conflicts between the powers, but only if all share a common vision of international law (which isn´t the case currently), if they all act within a system of international "framework" (here I considered to post UN instead, but I think this is not the best example
). This seems to work excellent within the micro-world of the EU, where wars seem impossible between the members, but can it work for the world?
Comment