From the Unipolar Moment to a Multiplex World

A Publication of the MacMillan Center, Yale University 

Saturday, July 5, 2014

New World order emerges, one that requires cooperation and ability to build regional ties
YaleGlobal, 3 July 2014

Read the entire essay at: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/unipolar-moment-multiplex-world
Excerpts from The End of American World Order:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/end-american-world-order

Editor's  Introduction: The speed of communications, travel and globalization in general has transformed international relations. World order is no longer unipolar or multipolar; it is more like a multiplex theater than a chessboard, argues Amitav Acharya, in an article based on his new book, “The End of American World Order.” The professor of international relations at American University in Washington writes: “A multiplex world comprises multiple key actors whose relationship is defined by complex forms of interdependence.” Such interdependence comprises trade, finance and production networks as well as shared vulnerability to transnational challenges such as climate change. The United States remains essential in addressing transnational challenges, yet must accommodate a wide range of players including rising powers, institutions and corporations as well as new approaches and plotlines. Acharya suggests that stability can be ensured by shared leadership and improved regional relationships with development assistance, conflict resolution, restraint and empathy. Cooperation and strong regional ties among the wide range of players, not necessarily based on territory, can project strength. – YaleGlobal

Text: 

WASHINGTON: The unipolar moment in international relations is over. The new world order will be neither bipolar, the United States and China, nor multipolar, but a multiplex.

A multiplex world is like a multiplex cinema. American political scientist Joseph Nye describes the current international system as a three-dimensional chessboard. The top layer is military power which is still unipolar. The middle is a multipolar economic layer with the likes of the European Union, China and the other BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa. The bottom layer consists of transnational non-state actors operating largely outside of government control.  

In the real world, the military and economic elements of power are not separable. And chess is a game of conflict. As Nye himself would readily admit, today’s world has plenty of cooperation.

The multiplex cinema is more apt – several movies running in different theatres within a single complex. Hollywood style includes thrillers and Westerns with violence, crime, ruggedness and heroism as prominent themes. Bollywood fare offers passion, tragedy, song and dance. Kung fu films produced in Hong Kong and Taiwan play next to patriotic and propaganda films from communist China. No single director or producer would monopolize the audience’s attention or loyalty for long. The audience has a choice of shows.

Read on at: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/unipolar-moment-multiplex-world

Reprinted: Jakarta Globe, http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/unipolar-moment-multiplex-world/

            Reprinted: The Nation (Bangkok), http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/From-the-unipolar-moment-to-a-multiplex-world-30237750.html

            Reprinted: The Epoch Times, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/790551-from-the-unipolar-moment-to-a-multiplex-world/

UNIPOLAR NO MORE: THE OBAMA DOCTRINE AND THE EMERGING POWERS

June 19, 2014 Amitav Acharya

The dramatic advance in Iraq by the extremist group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) poses perhaps the most serious test of the Obama Doctrine as outlined first by President Barack Obama at West Point on May 28, then by his National Security Susan Rice at Center for a New American Security in Washington, D.C., on June 11.

The Obama Doctrine has two aspects: The first and the more well known (and critiqued) concerns the selective use of force. In the president’s words:

…let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it: when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger….On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake, when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us, then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such circumstances, we should not go it alone.

But for those interested in the future of international order, the second element of the Obama Doctrine is no less important. This has less to do with American power, and more with U.S. leadership in world affairs. In fact, it is the logical corollary to the first. If the United States is to be selective (critics would say too selective) in using direct force, then diplomacy and leadership must take on an ever-more important role.

Let me be quite upfront. I am a supporter of the first element of the Obama Doctrine. But I do have serious concerns about the second element, which is marked by vagueness and contradictions.

On the question of leadership, the president had an Albright-esquepunchline: “Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.”

How realistic is this pledge? It faces at least three major challenges.

Read More at: http://warontherocks.com/2014/06/unipolar-no-more-the-obama-doctrine-and-the-emerging-powers/