One World, Many Powers

By David Ignatius

Taken from: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070505/OPINION/705050447/-1/LOCAL17

Angeline Chua, Political Expert

My Reflections

The article states that we are in the transition phase from a “bipolar” world - where the Soviet Union and the United States as the two major global powers controlled the globe during the days of the Cold War - to a “multipolar” world, where major powers now include China, France and Britain. The United States no longer stands alone. This has contributed to globalization as influences from all the major countries have been widespread across the world.

However, a multipolar world poses greater difficulty to the maintenance of peace and stability across the globe. It is also harder to finalize major decisions with more varied opinions and different points of view. It becomes less likely to get things done as a result. An example is issues pertaining to global warming, where in order to improve the condition of the environment, international cooperation and unanimous commitment to reduce dependence on fossil fuels is required. According to the article “Global warming can be controlled – but only if nations act now, UN told” from Times Online, scientists and politicians agreed that “the world needs to act quickly” in cutting carbon emissions, “increasing nuclear capacity from 16 to 18 per cent of world energy supply and increasing renewables such as wind, solar and tidal power from 18 per cent to between 30 and 35 per cent.”

However, as the article “One World, Many Powers” has pointed out, the system of multilateralism still lacks organization. It is not yet confirmed which country or community is prepared to emerge and rule as an influential power.

Is the Muslim world a pole? If so, who will lead it -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan? Can the Muslim nations of the Middle East put aside their traditional rivalries and act responsibly in resolving a crisis? That's what the meeting of Iraq's neighbors this week is testing. An exhausted America finally seems ready for a multilateral exit strategy from Iraq, but are the neighbors able enough to deliver it?

Allow me to compare the system of global powers to the board of directors of a company. Being among the major global powers is similar to being part of the board to head a company. The difference is this ‘board’ of major powers is leading the world. In a company, nearly all the members of the committee share the same agenda for the company, merely different views. Multilateralism however, means that different countries that possess completely different sets of value systems and ambitions come together to lead.

The issue at hand is competency. According to the article, this may mean being able to “put aside… traditional rivalries and act responsibly in resolving a crisis”. It is extremely important that a country or community’s competency in all aspects (be it social, economic or trade) is taken into account before its emergence as a global power as this would greatly impact the future of the world.

Most of the major nations are on the cusp of political change. The United States is the most obvious example: George Bush will leave the White House in less than two years, but to whom? Big changes are coming in France and Britain, too. Gaullist foreign policy will outlive President Jacques Chirac, just as the Atlantic alliance will survive the departure of Prime Minister Tony Blair. But both moorings will probably be looser -- adding additional drift. And what should we expect from a post-Putin Russia -- assuming he follows through on his promise to retire next year?

The article also acknowledges the challenge posed by political changes to this transition to a multipolar world. However, for nations to constantly evolve politically is a norm, and it is almost impossible to have all the major nations not experience such changes.

The key is to be able to build up multilateralism in the midst of these changes. If the world continues to wait for the right opportunity to receive multilateralism, then a multipolar world would never come. We need to take the brave step forward, after acknowledging the need for a new system, to receive and embrace multipolarity.

Other Sources: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1749932.ece