Jacque Chirac strongly believed that a multipolar world was best: for France, certainly, but also for the world. Was he right? What is the best global system, in terms of stability?
My initial thoughts on the pros and cons of each:
Multipolar
Pro: Geopolitics is no longer a zero-sum game: the gains of another power are no longer an automatic loss for other powers, as the gaining power is a current or potential ally of the other powers. Thus, each other individual power is less threatening, and there is less incentive to respond with force to the actions of others.
Con: History. The multipolar European system of 1500-1945 was a series of wars broken up by rests to rebuid populations for the next slugging match. OTOH, I am not certain whether the historical model still applies in the era of (at least potential) total war.
Bipolar
Pro: Adventurism is risky, as it may spiral into total war. To put it simply, MAD (either conventional or nuclear) enhances stability.
Con: Zero-sum run amok. Every gain by the other power is a loss for you, to be prevented if at all possible.
Unipolar
Pro: The status quo benefits the hyperpower, which has an interest in preventing any conflicts.
Con: Continual resentment and challenges by aspiring powers, leading to potential conflicts at almost any time.
A world with several regional powers could suffer from imperialist adventures without some kind of resistance to that, such as prohibitive cost. A rough parity between great regional powers would help, but of course there are no guarantees. Hot wars could still explode. And balance of power would continue to shift both within & between regions, sometimes violently.
Unipolar & bipolar worlds, on the other hand, could have constant tensions. This could be insurrectionist resentment against the pole(s), as we see now against the USA. Bipolarity without collusion between the poles could mean “cold” war between the poles, which would, if the 20th Century is a guide, actually be hot in places, where proxy wars are fought over places not solidly in either pole’s bloc.
All global power distributions are “unstable” in that those with less power covet the power of the stronger & vie for higher status. History never really ends.
So, do I have any conclusions? Well, there is this:
Offhand, I think Chirac may be right for worlds with more than three poles, in that global power is more distributed, so the whole world need not choose between marching with one of two major camps or claiming an especial variety of “neutrality.”
Sorry, that was unclear; I’m thinking this out as I type, & I changed what I was saying midsentence.
A tripolar world can likely be stable, but if one pole becomes weak, it may be treated as a weaker cousin to the two major poles, or even carved up between them. If multipolarity is more stable than bipolarity, than the more poles the better for total global stability, in the sense of avoiding a world war.
However, more poles mean more points of potential collapse, so that hypothesis seems to come with a caveat. More poles mean closer to continual flux, so there will be instability everywhere, but it may be localized.
I don’t feel confident that multipolarity is more stable, but I think it is necessarily more desirable, due to a less concentrated allocation of power.
I think that they are all unstable. Including the unipolar world; you have people/nations trying to rebel against or rise to the stature of the hyperpower, and you have the hyperpower crushing them preemptively or in it’s own interests or as an example to others. As in Iraq. Even at it’s best, a unipolar world only brings peace if the unipower wants peace.
As well, there’s more to stability than “no war” ( which our unipolar world hasn’t managed anyway ); there’s the problem of the hyperpower trying to maintain it’s position by preventing change, which can prevent the solution of problems. Which in turn leads to long term decay, not stability. US hegemony hasn’t lasted long enough for this to happen much of course, but given long enough I think it would. The stability of a culture in the long term is like the homeostatic stability of an ecology, not a rock or machine; stasis leads to decay, not stability.
Thought this thread had dropped like a lead balloon, never to be seen again. Thanks for the responses.
A corollary to this point is the question of whether a unipolar world is even sustainable in the medium or long term; Paul Kennedy’s concept of “strategic overreach” teaches us (if we believe him) that a hyperpower’s interests will inevitably exceed that power’s available resources to address those interests.
Given that, is my “unipolar” option a mirage? Assuming that the Iraq war has either exposed or caused America’s inability to act as the hyperpower, the only period in world history that was unipolar lasted roughly eleven years.
For France I would have to say…sure, he’s probably right. France can still pretend to be a world power in a multipolar world after all.
For the world? I’m unsure if this is the case. Historical examples abound where eventually multipolar powers clashed…with pretty devastating effect. I think we can look at the multipolar world of Europe in the past and see how the conflicts got more and more vicious and the toll in death kept rising.
As for bipolar, I think the historic example of the Soviet Union vs the US (including the Warsaw Pact in the Soviet sphere and NATO and the western powers in the US)…well, while it may have been a precarious balance, judged by the previous 100 years prior to the Cold War, the world was a relatively peaceful place. The wars were smaller and the death toll was much lighter.
I’m not sure when there has ever been a true unipolar world. Maybe at times during the British Empire days…but even then I’m not seeing it. Rome maybe? If we count ‘the world’ as essentially the greater mediterranian region. I don’t think that kind of hegemony is possible for ANY power…not in absolute terms. Influence wise, the US is about as unipolar as anyone has gotten…and I’d have to say, despite things like Iraq the world seems to be a MUCH more peaceful place than the previous century…even the period of the cold war. Compare Vietnam and Korea to the death toll in Iraq/Afghanistan…let alone WWI/II during the European multipolar period. Compare, say, the Punic wars or the period before true Roman hegemony in the Med to the Pax period after Rome became dominant. Look at China as a local hegemonic power in Asia and compare that to when China was less dominant and other powers were in more parity (i.e. a unipolar vs multipolar period)…I think historically things are less stable and wars more vicious, wide spread and wider in scale when you have a true multipolar world.
I think all the responses were on the mark, especially Der Trihs’. The very concept of “poles,” ie concentrations of power and wealth, leads to instabilitiy. Actually, everything leads to instability, and it’s the more small-scale mechanics (eg economies, relationships, powerful individuals with power to lose) that really determine what happens. Der Trihs also pointed out that it’s not just about war, there’s all sorts of other components (social, economic, cultural, or that catch-all: change) that are at stake.
Frankly, the question strikes me a bit as in-the-box thinking from an era that’s passed. It’s maybe even no surprise that France should be asking it.
p.s. the concept of “poleness” is highly depenent on scale. A country whose policy deals solely with its neighbor might be living in a two-pole world. A region with many powers may be multipolar. Whatever the “pole effects” may be, they are doing their magic, simultaneously and in parallel, on the scale of US vs World, Red states vs Blue, Iran vs all the countries that are next to Iran, etc. Perhaps this idea has value, but applying it would be as subtle as anything else.
Just some thoughts… isn’t life a balance of anabolism (building up) and catabolism (tearing down?)
In nature things have to have a kind of stability but still be adaptable.
What about evolution, where things must change in changing situations or die?
I don’t believe in eternity but I do believe in infinity. I don’t believe in a final answer.
Under different circumstances different setups may be more desirable. At the current time I believe a multi polar world consisting of the U.S., Japan, China, India, Russia, the EU, the U.K, and (in time) some confederation of South American states would be ideal. This is chiefly due to:
Oppenheimer’s children.
Economic interdependencies.
The high cost of violence.
Point three refers to the fact that it’s a post colonial world. Classic imperialism is dead. The enormous amount of resources it requires can not be shouldered and sustained by even the most powerful of states. The perceived bounties don’t exist anymore and are chased behind the scenes nowadays in deals which, however immoral, are really boring to read about.
Imperialism is also not good for your image, an important consideration in the modern age. The zeitgeist has moved rapidly since the late ‘60s. People demonstrate against France’s hijinks in Africa, China in Tibet, Russia in Chechnya, etc. Millions of people around the world, including here in the U.S., demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq months before it even happened. That’s unprecedented.
One problem with this setup is that the various poles can take advantage of areas which have no effective poles of their own. Various powers are and have been picking at the carcasses of the Middle East and Africa for some time.
The biggest problem is entangling alliances. Any actual hot war, however unlikely, could be catastrophic for humanity. What do you do when the enemy of your friend is your other friend? A world war but with every continent having nuclear arsenals isn’t a pretty picture.