How Many Poles Does the World Need, 1, 2 Or More?

For several years now, the United States has been the only truly Great Power in the world. The question before us, We the People, that is, as well as our government, particularly the next administration, is not simple.

The real question is not, "Can the US remain as the unchallenged Great Power?" or "Can the US continue as the only country with the mixture of hard (military, economic, population, resources) and soft (cultural appeal, technological innovation, educational capacities, diversity, creativity) power aspects to exercise global leadership?"

No. The real hard questions are these. Do We the People and the next administration that we elect have a collective, realistic, and creative vision for how the world we would like to live in will be in the years ahead? Do we have the capacity for leadership which is both flexible and resolved enough to achieve that vision? Do we have the political will to meet challenges to our leadership with both humility and certainty?

There is one other question. It's the question that is probably the most difficult to ask. It is surely the hardest to answer. When other states oppose us as they assuredly will, what should we do?

Get a grip on this. None of these questions are academic. None are hypothetical. None are irrelevant to the reality of our future. They all need to be asked--and answered--by any of us who are both informed about and engaged with the larger world.

The US is already being challenged. The uni-polar world with the US as the only Great Power is quite unsatisfactory to other governments.

Recall that in an earlier post the Geek pointed out that the Russians are fed up with not being treated as a Great Power by the US. Moscow wants respect. It wants to be consulted. It wants Russian views heard and, at least in part, heeded.

(True it was reported the other day that New Jersey has a greater GDP than Russia. But, does New Jersey have ICBM's, hydrogen bombs, a large army or extend over more than a quarter of the globe's surface? Money isn't everything let alone the only thing when measuring the Great Power status of a country.)

The Geek also wrote recently upon the ambitions of the Peoples' Republic of China to limit American freedom of action. The PRC also desires a much freer hand in Asia including the right to take back Taiwan without US hindrance. Beyond that, Beijing wants access to markets and advanced US or European technology without impediments. And, it has a powerful set of weapons including more than a trillion dollars of foreign currency reserves to back its play.

The European Union has shown itself more than slightly reluctant to follow American leadership as have many of its individual members. As the EU becomes more integrated, as it is most likely to do, and as it expands, again as is most likely, its collective hard and soft power features increasingly entitle it to Great Power status. The growing integration of the EU politically so that the entity is sovereign in foreign policy is not likely in the short- or mid-term, but it remains a source of potential challenge even so.

Then there are the Islamic countries. Islam is simultaneously a religion and a geo-political ideology. The thrust of the ideology is expansionist. The expansionist goals, including the establishment of a Global Caliphate, may seem risible at the moment. The enormous crowds of true believers in Indonesia and Palestine which cheered the call for the Global Caliphate this past week may have been premature in their enthusiasm. Still, the ideological matrix of Islam has a powerful appeal. Within the Islamist minority of Islam, there are more than enough who are willing to die in the process of killing, as yesterday's suicide attacks in Kurdish Iraq demonstrated. A handful died in order to kill hundreds.

The mainstream media have been slow to get it, but the remarks yesterday at the annual meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization by both the Iranian president and the Russian leader got their attention. While the Iranian gave a typical rant, this time directed at the planned US installation of anti-missile missiles in Central Europe as a partial defense against Iranian intermediate range rockets, Vladimir Putin placed the real deal front and center.

Putin alleged that a multi-polar world would provide for the security and interests of all countries. Given that the statement was made in the context of joint Russian-Chinese "anti-terrorist" wargames, it was clearly not an idle comment. Given that Iran, India, Pakistan, and other states were present as observers, the statement would not have fallen on deaf ears or minds all that satisfied with the status quo.

The Geek is prepared to argue with Mr Putin on the basis of history. Recent history, that is. He is ready to remind the Russian, who appears to have a very short memory, about the Cold War and the periodic blunders on both sides that cost lives and threatened nuclear war. If that is security in the interests of all countries, one has to wonder how well oriented in time and place the Russian president is.

The Geek is also prepared to contend, again from history, to the leaders of the various observers that the secondary players in a bi-polar or multi-polar world may win less in the short-term by playing one Great Power against another than they lose in the long term.

Finally, he is willing to take on Beijing by reminding the Chinese Mandarinate that it takes more, much more than dollar reserves and a rapidly modernising army to be a Great Power, as it takes more than coercion alone to gain, and, more importantly, to maintain global leadership.

Indeed, the Chinese need look no further back in time than the year 2000. They need only look at the current American administration to see the limits of coercion in action. Going it alone and envisioning a US military posture greater than that of any combination of opponents sounded exciting to many a few years ago. However, the reality of trying to outdo the mythical Atlas and carry a fractious world on our shoulders has paled in appeal.

How many political poles does the world need? Looking back as the Geek normally does, the answer seems to be one. One pole is enough--as long as the pole is not a blunt and heavy stick waved by a bully.