Foreign Policy article: America is so afraid of a multipolar world

published by the American Foreign Policy magazine

concluded that the United States is "very afraid" of the multipolar world, and is striving for a unipolar system that no longer exists.

He said that a multipolar world serves America's interests more than any other system.

The author of the article, Stephen M. Walt, Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, began his article by saying that, as soon as the United States moved from the darkness of the Cold War to its gentle glow in the so-called unipolar moment, a variety of scholars, analysts, world leaders, Russia, China, and leaders of emerging powers such as India and Brazil, began Even some of America's important allies, such as Germany and France, express their desire for a multipolar system.

A broad global desire for multipolarity

But America's leaders, Walt argues, do not agree with the broad desire of world leaders and states to create a multipolar world.

He added that prominent academics have argued that unilateral US leadership of the world is "essential to the future of freedom" and good for both it and the world.

The writer confirmed that he himself had previously contributed to this view.

Therefore, the writer explains, the administration of US President Joe Biden is currently working vigorously to inflict a military defeat on Russia in Ukraine, and is striving to stifle the rise of China.

Restoring unipolarity may be impossible

The writer commented that there is nothing to guarantee the success of these efforts, and even if they succeed, it is likely that the restoration of unipolarity will be impossible, and will end in either a bipolar world (the United States and China as two poles), or an unbalanced version of multipolarity where the United States is in The first place among a group of unequal major powers (China, Russia, India, perhaps Brazil, and perhaps a re-armed Japan and Germany).

What kind of a multipolar world would that be?

International relations theorists are divided on this question.

Classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau believed that multipolar systems are less prone to war because states can re-align themselves to contain dangerous aggressors and deter war.

Structural realists such as Kenneth Waltz or John Mearsheimer believe the opposite, that bipolar systems are more stable because the risk of miscalculation is low, and that the inherent flexibility of a multipolar system creates greater uncertainty and makes it more likely that a secondary force will believe it can change the situation. the current one before others unite to stop him.

After the writer reviewed some of the views of theorists in this field, he gave his personal opinion, which says that multipolarity is good for the United States, provided that it realizes the repercussions and adjusts its foreign policy appropriately.

Before presenting his opinion, the writer calls on everyone to realize that unipolarity was not good for the United States, in which Washington focused on strangling many small countries, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, and two costly and ultimately unsuccessful American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some ill-advised policies that led to a number of failed states, a financial crisis that dramatically changed US domestic politics, and the emergence of an increasingly ambitious China.

Multipolarity serves America's interests

In his defense of the benefit of multipolarity for America's interests, the writer says that it creates a world in which Eurasia contains several major powers of varying strength.

These countries are likely to view each other with caution, especially when they are geographically close together.

This situation gives the United States a great deal of flexibility to adjust its alliances as needed, just as it did when it allied itself with Stalinist Russia in World War II and when mending relations with Maoist China during the Cold War.

The ability to pick and choose the right allies, he added, was the secret ingredient to past US foreign policy successes: its position as the sole great power in the Western Hemisphere gave it the "free security" that no other great power had, and made it a particularly desirable ally whenever a serious problem arose.

He went on to say that in a multipolar world, other major powers will gradually take greater responsibility for their own security, thus reducing the global burdens on the United States.

India will build its military strength as its economy grows, and peaceful Japan has pledged to double its defense spending by 2027.

Prepare for a multipolar world

He made it clear that even if multipolarity had negatives for the United States, trying to prevent it would be costly and possibly futile.

So, instead of engaging in a pointless effort to roll back the clock, Americans should start preparing for a multipolar future.

He also added that, ideally, a world of unbalanced multipolarity would encourage the United States to move away from its instinctive reliance on hard power and coercion and give more weight to real diplomacy.

He concluded by saying that assuming the United States remains the first among the unequal in a multipolar system, Washington would be in an ideal position to play other major powers against each other, and it could allow its partners in Eurasia to shoulder more of the burden of their security.