The Falsehood of Monopolar Theory: Commentary

Home>>Opinion

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Wednesday, July 30, 2003

The Falsehood of Monopolar Theory: Commentary

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

With the victory in the US-started war against Iraq, there has emerged in the United States the advocacy of the establishment of new order of a unipolar world, so as to ensure "world peace under American domination". At the beginning, this view began to spread only among the academic circles, but recently, it has been openly promoted by certain American and British politicians, this cannot but arouse people to take it seriously.

At the end of June, Condoleeza Rice, assistant to US President in charge of national security, delivered a speech at the London-based International Strategy Research Institute, which mainly tried to persuade Europe to give up its intention of establishing a multipolar world. She said that "we should" let Europe get rid of the many 'poles' and let it unite around the common goal and common value. She appeals, "then let's abandon the pursuit of numerous new 'poles', and turn our energy to the situation favorable to 'a balance between free forces' as what President Bush said. Her appeal gained response from British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In his recent speech given at the US Congress, Blair said that in the current international politics, there was no theory more dangerous than allowing a number of competitive different poles to balance the US forces.

A careful examination of the theoretical basis of those who oppose multipolarity and stand for unipolarity shows that it seems not so convincing. Rice and Blair share the same reason, in the opinion of Rice, "a multipolar world is a kind of competition theory which brings about the interests of competition, under the worst circumstance, it brings about the value of competition. It is the demon necessary for stopping war, but it cannot promote peace, we'd previously tried a multipolar world, but it led to World War I. Blair said that the multipolar theory was dangerous because what we needed is partnership, not competitive relationship, multipolarity was of significance to Europe in the 19th century, and it was necessary during the Cold War period, but today, like other theories of traditional security, it is the error of the times, that should be cast away.

First of all, it should be said that multipolarity does not necessarily lead to competition, while generally speaking, competition is triggered mostly by unilateral actions. Secondly, competition is not completely a bad thing and does not necessarily lead to war. In the history of international politics, competition and cooperation can always alternate and coexist, this is the normal state of international relations. There has never been precedent in history that indicates that a unipolar world can eliminate competition and avert war. Let's take US new conservatist scholars who hanker after a Roman Empire. For hundreds of years, warfare inside and outside the territory has never ceased. In addition, the causes of war are often complicated and multisourced, it is oversimplified to impute war merely to competition. It's more appropriate to say the last century's world war was the inevitable result of imperialist policies rather than to say that it was triggered by competition. Just as Lenin revealed that "imperialism means war". Because normal competitions between countries can generally be regulated, controlled and guided through coordination and cooperation, thereby becoming a kind of healthy and constructive strength.

The emergence of unipolar theory and new empire theory has exposed the astonishing paradoxical phenomenon in US politics: Domestically, the United States stands for power restraint and takes pride in it. But in international relations, the United States opposes any restraints and despise the United Nations, violates international law, disrupts the democratic principle, runs counter to world people's anti-war wishes, pursues force as supremacy, and seek freedom of unilateral action, some people even openly advocate empire domination over the world. In the face of such sharp contrast, those senior officials and elite who boast of being "standard-bearers of democracy" have failed to make any convincing explanations and comments to the world.

The background for the emergence of unipolar theory is that since the conclusion of the Cold War, the United States has become the sole unrivaled superpower. It easily won the Kosovo war, the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war. So an unprecedented sense of swollen national superiority, the tendency of force being supremacy and the trend of unilateralist thought emerged in the United States, the "new empire theory" became a trend during this period. Exponents of the new empire theory hold that the United States nowadays is an unmatchable super-strong country in human history whether in economic and military, or in cultural terms, this "benevolent empire" should undertake the responsibility for doing everything all by itself, thereby realizing "world peace under the domination of empire".

As a matter of fact, a unipolar world cannot ensure bringing the expected peace and stability for the people. This is because a unipolar force which is free from any restraint and is unwilling to contain itself is bound to head for world hegemony, this is same as a ruler, whose power is free from restriction, is bound to head for dictatorship and autocracy. History has proved that an unrestricted hegemonic country, more often than not, does what it pleases in order to pursue its private interests, takes unilateral actions to the neglect of others' interests, thus posing a kind of threat to world order and stability and becoming a force causing apprehension and disturbance to other countries and upsetting world order. Neither history can prove, nor reality can ensure that a "new empire" unrestricted by the norm of international law will forever be "benevolent" and "just". Therefore, a truly just and democratic international order can only be established on the basis of international law and multilateral coordination and cooperation and cannot be placed on the personal "benevolent" psychology and "moral" concept of the leader of a certain big power. If we believe in unipolarity, one practical problem is that if we cast aside the international mechanism of containment exercised by the United Nations and other big countries, and instead prostrate ourselves before the master of unipolarity, then, if this leader of unipolarity is a dangerous figure who makes a fetish of subduing others by force, then who will guarantee or restrict him from the abuse of power?

Unipolar rule and unilateralism are impracticable because that with the development of economic globalization, transnational problems have been on the increase, the strength of one country, however strong and big, is unable to effectively solve and manage global problems. Take the current most outstanding terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction for example. Could it be that the United States alone can take on everything into its hands? Not to say the solutions of the problems such as environmental pollution, the epidemic of Aids, the smuggling of drugs and transnational crimes.

The multi-polarization of the world is a reflection of the diversity of the world. The world is colorful and varied in posture, and the mode of development is diversified, it should not and cannot be such a phenomenon that when "my flowers blossom, a hundred of other flowers will wither away". The ultimate aim of the advocacy of unipolarity is to popularize US-styled democracy, freedom and the concept of value worldwide by the use of both soft and hard tactics. Imposing a country's concept of value and mode of development on other countries and push through this by force is bound to trigger conflicts with other countries or other civilizations. This can only be the way of causing disorder. The fact is that world multipolarization, as the requirement of history, has brought to view its contour: A unified Europe is rising; the fallen Russia is regaining its vital energy; the ASEAN countries are forging ahead hand-in-hand; India and China are undergoing rapid development; Africa has also begun to take off and march toward unity and self-improvement, only this is the balance favorable to peace and democratization of international relations, and is the development trend of history expected by all mankind.

It should be pointed out that economic globalization has made interdependence become the necessary prerequisite for the development of various countries, no country can stand aloof or outside global cooperation, this is no exception even for the superpower. Global fight against terrorism has shown that it is entirely possible to properly carry out coordination and cooperation between big powers or between multipoles. As long as various countries respect the United Nations, and observe international law and regulations and the rule for common games, it is much easier to handle world affairs. But if a country is allowed to possess privileges, to stand above international agencies and international law and take unilateral actions as it pleases, then it can only lead to world chaos and disorder, and there will be no world peace and stability to speak of.

By People's Daily Online

Questions?Comments? Click here

Taiwan Ties Mar Japan's China Interests: News Analysis ( 36 Messages)

Shortage of Electric Power, an Ordeal for China's Economy ( 4 Messages)

Using "E-mail" Concerns Chinese Purification & National Dignity? ( 22 Messages)

US, China Co-operate to Fight Taiwan Referendum Plan ( 3 Messages)

60 Chinese Senior Officials to Be Trained in Harvard University ( 3 Messages)