An interesting point. I was not thinking in terms of serious military
competition among core powers. If one accepts the arguments in Ruggie's
Multilateralism book, there was a multilateral revolution in the global
system in 1945 which changed the way international politics would operate
thereafter - greatly advancing norms of consultation, cooperation, and
diffuse reciprocity and providing an excellent environment for a massive
expansion of international law. Among the achievements of this order were
increasing management of military conflict and the increasing
liberalization of the world economy - two of the goals of liberal
internationalism. For years multilateralism was in many ways a facade for
heavy-handed American agency in both areas. Now, true multilateralism and
truer multipolarity seem to be with us and I was just wondering what the
implications might be. In some areas the liberal internationalist project
continues - land mine controls (a global civil society effort?),
international war crimes tribunals, neoliberalization of East Asian
economies. But in others there seems little consensus or united action on
what are considered American manias - the 1998 Iraq crisis, punishing
India and Pakistan. I mention the 2000 American elections because one of
the goals of Rooseveltian liberal internationalism and multilateralism was
to at least get America engaged with the rest of the world on an
institutionalized basis, and we were, particularly as long as it was on
our terms. A President Gingrich would have different ideas in this new
context.
On the other hand, my guess is that the multilateral revolution was real,
and that in spite of truer multipolarity, the northern "zone of peace"
that so many speak of would not fragment. My own work on the post-Cold
War era describes it as a "liberal moment" similar to those after WWI and
WWII, but now one which may be ending or mutating considerably.
Daniel Green
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, christopher chase-dunn wrote:
> Dan Green wonders if multipolarity will return. It is likely to, but
> not right away. Real multipolarity means contending core powers with
> serious military capability. By the end of the next K-wave upswing ( in
> the 2020s) this kind of world could reemerge. It is a future that it
> would be better to avoid.
> Chris Chase-Dunn
>