THE CUSP OF ANOTHER MILLENNIUM can spur reflection on the future as well as the past. Which alternative futures should we nurture? Which should we try to avoid? Before attempting to answer those question, we must start with the facts of international life today - global interdependence, the forces of globalization, and the existing pyramid of power.Global interdependence means that states are mutually vulnerable - in military, economic, public health, and other terms. Our close proximity permits us to hurt or to help one another.(f.1) Still, we have choices. We may claim and seize values for ourselves at the expense of others or create values with others for mutual gain.(f.2)Networks of global interdependence reinforce the importance of states, but many transnational forces ignore and transcend state borders. Some - knowledge, values, skills, and tastes - are intangible. Others - drugs and viruses - are tangible. All are spread by transportation and communication technologies - airplanes, ships, modems, satellite broadcasting, electronic banking. Transnational forces can integrate humanity or divide it. Modems can be used by the Ku Klux Klan as well as by Human Rights Watch. Neither the forces of Jihad nor those of McWorld bode well for democracy.(f.3)Within this flux, however, there is also a pyramid of power. Many thousands of non-state actors crowd the world stage, but states remain the most weighty actors and form a hierarchy of power. At the end of the 20th century the world is unipolar. It combines a single superpower with successive levels of great, medium, regional, and rising powers. Only the United States possesses great military, economic, scientific, political, and cultural strengths; even its physical setting, resources, and distance from potential foes is unmatched. The great powers in the second rung are strong in some domains but pre-eminent in none.(f.4) Each lacks important assets. A united Europe could be strong in most realms (though never able to match the United States in physical setting), but Europe's potential remains far from fulfilled. The strengths and weaknesses of other potential powers such as Kazakstan and Brazil depend on a host of factors difficult to predict - from the price of oil to climate change.Heirarchy of Power in the 1990sSuperpower: United StatesGreat Powers: Japan, China, Germany, RussiaMedium Powers: United Kingdom, France, India, ItalyPotential Great Powers: European Union, Kazakstan, UkraineRegional Powers: Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan.Let us stretch our minds across the first quarter of the twenty-first century and focus on six possible scenarios. Each assumes that technology continues to reduce distance and time, that many means of locomotion and of destruction become cheaper and more widely acceptable, and that mutual vulnerabilities increase. The first five scenarios assume that governments dominate the world scene; the sixth that the processes of globalization elicit world governance by combinations of national, international, and transnational agents. Each scenario blends elements of conflict and mutual gain.To maximize credibility, let us portray each scenario as a fact rather than as what 'could,' 'would,' or 'should' be. The most familiar scenarios - those closest to the pyramid of power in the 1990s - are listed first.I UNIPOLAR STABILITYUnited States hegemony is rooted in tangible and intangible assets that show no sign of weakening - a splendid geographical setting occupied by a diverse and well-educated population with freedom to create.(f.5) The unipolar world continues for decades. It proves to be the most peaceful, stable, and prosperous era in human history. It is a world in which most states deal with global interdependence so as to generate mutual gain. It begins to embody the principle: From each according to her or his ability, to each according to her or his need. …
Read full abstract