We are now shifting from Unipolar world to Multipolar world
-
Changing order
VLADIMIR RADYUHIN in Moscow
The SCO and BRIC summits had a common agenda: working for multipolarity and a revamp of the global economic and financial order.
SERGEI KARPUKHIN/REUTERS
BRIC leaders in Yekaterinburg on June 16. (From left) Presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, Hu Jintao of China, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India.IF there is a bright side to the global financial and economic crisis, it is that the devastating meltdown has spurred the rise of a multipolar world. This reality was fully in evidence in Yekaterinburg on June 15-16, where Russia hosted the overlapping summits of the Brazil-Russia-India-China (BRIC) and the six-member Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) led by Russia and China.
The resolve to reform the United States-dominated world shaped the agenda of both summits. A declaration released at the SCO summit said that global “multipolarity is irreversible”. Likewise, the BRIC summit stated its “support for a more democratic and just multipolar world order based on the rule of international law, equality, mutual respect, cooperation, coordinated action and collective decision-making of all states.”
Both the SCO and BRIC have made great strides in recent years, but while the Shanghai group has been a formally structured regional security organisation since 2000, BRIC, until recently, was just an acronym coined in 2001 to explore the impact of the four fastest growing emerging economies on the global power balance. In the past couple of years, BRIC has undergone a fascinating transformation from an academic concept to a full-blooded global forum.
Exploratory get-togethers of the four nations’ Foreign Ministers on the sidelines of the United Nations led to their first stand alone meeting in Yekaterinburg in May 2007, followed by meetings of their Finance Ministers and regular consultations among their central banks. The 2007 summit institutionalised the group as a global political and economic forum and the Second World’s alternative to the G8.
Much has been said about the four nations having too many differences and precious little in common. Sceptics have pointed out that China’s gross domestic product (GDP) outstrips that of the other three countries combined; that Russia is the world’s biggest exporter of hydrocarbons and Brazil is a major source of farm products and other commodities for the world, and that India is strong in services and China is the world’s manufacturing hub. Russia competes with China for influence in Central Asia and is uneasy about Chinese demographic expansion into depopulated Siberia. India has an unsettled border dispute with China and is nervous about China’s military rise and support for Pakistan.
However, the recent summit showed that the four do have a common agenda – a revamp of the global economic and financial order. A joint statement signed by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese President Hu Jintao called for an overhaul of global financial institutions and sweeping changes to the U.N. to give a bigger role to India and Brazil.
The BRIC states pledged to promote energy and food security, to expand cooperation in “fundamental research and the development of advanced technologies”, and to step up efforts for humanitarian assistance. The statement stressed “the central role played by the G20 summits in dealing with the financial crisis” but made no mention of the G8, sending a clear signal that the era when the world’s richest nations set the global agenda was over. Interestingly, BRIC Foreign Ministers had “expressed desire for continued cooperation” with the G8 a year ago.
The BRIC nations defined their immediate goal as increasing their representation in the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other financial bodies. “The emerging and developing economies must have a greater voice and representation in international financial institutions,” the joint statement said. BRIC’s demand for a greater voice is well grounded. The four nations account for 40 per cent of the world’s population, nearly 20 per cent of global GDP, and almost half of the global currency reserves. Jim O’Neill, chief economist of Goldman Sachs, who coined the term BRIC, said recently that the BRIC nations would overtake the G7 developed economies in terms of GDP in less than 20 years.
Despite their growing economic clout, BRIC nations hold barely 10 per cent of the votes in the IMF, against almost 17 per cent of the U.S. BRIC leaders called for reforming the global finances to diversify away from the dollar. “We also believe that there is a strong need for a stable, predictable and more diversified international monetary system,” the summit declaration said.
VLADIMIR RODIONOV/RIA NOVOSTI/REUTERS
Presidents of the member-states and observer-nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Yekaterinburg for the group's summit on June 15-16. (Back row, from left) Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan; (middle row, from left) Hamid Karzai (hidden) of Afghanistan and Emomali Rakhmon of Tajikistan; (front row, from left) Kurmanbek Bakiyev of Kyrgyzstan, Hu Jintao of China and Dmitry Medvedev of Russia.Medvedev stated that the “U.S. dollar has failed to perform its function” as the main reserve currency, and predicted the inevitable emergence of new reserve currencies even if the process would take time. He said that BRIC leaders had instructed their Finance Ministers and central bank Governors to meet and draw up “the parameters of a new financial architecture.”
Member-states of BRIC are already taking practical steps to reduce their dependence on the dollar. In the run-up to the summit in Yekaterinburg, China and Brazil decided to settle mutual trade in their own currencies without using the dollar, and a day after the summit, the leaders of Russia and China said at a meeting in Moscow that the two countries would work to switch part of their trade from the dollar to the rouble and the yuan.
The decision of China, Brazil and Russia to purchase $70 billion worth of new multicurrency IMF bonds serves the same purpose. India is also expected to join them. Russia further said that it could consider investing its reserves in the financial instruments traded by BRIC states on a reciprocal basis.
The summit in Yekaterinburg was not a one-time affair as the four countries agreed to institute interaction mechanisms. “We have agreed to have close and regular contacts at the level of ministries,” Medvedev said, mentioning the Finance, Agriculture, Trade and Economic Ministries and the central banks. “This work will be coordinated by the Foreign Ministries,” he added. The BRIC leaders agreed to hold their next summit in Brazil in 2010.
Like BRIC, the SCO nations drew inspiration from the global crisis to strengthen their cooperation. At the Yekaterinburg summit, they agreed to enhance trade and investment among member-states and with observer countries. Apart from Russia and China, the SCO unites four Central Asian states – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It also has four observers – India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan. An SCO declaration adopted in Yekaterinburg calls for speeding up large-scale projects in transport, communications, logistics, trade and tourism, and innovation and energy-saving and renewable-energy technologies.
The SCO leaders said their goal was to turn Central Asia into a “transcontinental bridge” between Europe and Asia by building new transport corridors and modernising existing rail and motor roads. They agreed to strengthen the security agenda of their alliance, adopting a “Statute on Politico-Diplomatic Mechanisms of Responding to Situations Threatening Peace, Security and Stability in the Region”. The document has not been published, but it probably addresses the simmering disputes between Central Asian states over energy and water resources.
The SCO also approved a range of anti-terrorist documents: a convention against terrorism; a programme of cooperation in combating terrorism, separatism and extremism for 2010-2012, and an agreement on training anti-terrorist personnel for the member-states. None of these documents has been released so far.
Afghanistan was high on the agenda of the SCO summit in Yekaterinburg, as it was in all previous summits. The SCO expressed “grave concern” over the worsening situation in Afghanistan and decided to “intensify cooperation with the observer-states” and other countries and organisations in combating the growing threats of terrorism, drug trafficking and cross-border crime. Russia moved to further enhance its role in settling the Afghanistan problem. In March, Moscow hosted an SCO conference on Afghanistan and opened transit routes on land to non-military traffic for the benefit of U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Medvedev announced the establishment of a trilateral group with Afghanistan and Pakistan to help resolve the problem of terrorism in the tribal zone. The problem of Afghanistan “cannot be resolved without normalising the situation in several Pakistani provinces and without destroying the terrorist dens there,” Medvedev said after meeting with the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan separately and in a trilateral format. Russia’s demonstrative pressure on Pakistan to curb terrorism was sweet music to Manmohan Singh, who attended the SCO summit for the first time. His presence at the SCO table was a big victory for Russian diplomacy. Indian diplomats acknowledged that the Prime Minister had accepted the invitation in recognition of Russia’s “special efforts”.
At the previous SCO summit in Dushanbe in August 2008, Russia pushed through a proposal to invite the heads of state and government of the observer nations to closed-door summit meetings in order “to allow their views to weigh in”. Russia has long favoured granting full SCO membership to India, which received observer status in 2005 along with Iran and Pakistan. China has so far opposed India’s membership, but Russia has been patiently working to lift a China-lobbied SCO moratorium on admission of new members. At the Dushanbe summit, the SCO leaders set up a commission to work out admission rules. It has since met three times and is reported to have circulated draft rules to the member-states.
SERGEI KARPUKHIN/REUTERS
Asif Ali Zardari and Manmohan Singh met on the sidelines of the SCO summit and agreed to resume diplomatic talks between India and Pakistan.In Yekaterinburg, Medvedev called for speeding up the drafting of admission rules. “The work is going on; instructions have been issued, but we need to get this job done and come up with norms and procedures so that we can set the ball rolling,” the Russian leader said. Hu signalled China’s continued opposition to SCO expansion by failing to mention the subject either in his speech in the plenary session or in post-summit interviews.
However, other SCO members concerned over China’s overbearing presence in Central Asia openly backed the Russian stand. Emomali Rakhmon, the President of Tajikistan, called for completing all formalities for the admission of new members by the 10th anniversary of the SCO in 2010. Even more important was the support from Uzbekistan, which took over the SCO rotating presidency from Russia in Yekaterinburg. “We consider it advisable… to expedite the drafting of documents… for the admission of observer states as full members,” President Islam Karimov said in his speech. “We are all aware this question is not simple, but it must be solved step-by-step.”
Outgoing SCO Secretary-General Bolat Nurgaliyev of Kazakhstan said expansion of the alliance was “inevitable” given the interest of outside countries towards the group. In Yekaterinburg, Sri Lanka and Belarus were granted the newly established status of “SCO dialogue partner”. On the way home from Yekaterinburg, Manmohan Singh said that India was not only looking forward “to increased functional cooperation with the SCO”, but “would welcome” an invitation to join it as a member. “But I am not lobbying for it,” he added. Probably he should if India is not to lose Central Asia to China.
Yekaterinburg marked a new phase in China’s economic expansion in Central Asia. Hu announced China’s decision to give $10 billion in credits to Central Asian states to help them cope with the global economic downturn. Earlier this year, China extended $10 billion in credits to oil- and gas-rich Kazakhstan and a $3 billion credit to Turkmenistan to help it develop new gas fields, and agreed to make a $1-billion investment in Tajikistan to build electricity generation projects. China has thus overtaken Russia as the biggest donor for and investor in Central Asia.
Moscow earlier this year promised over $1 billion in economic aid and credits to Kyrgyzstan and set up a $10-billion anti-crisis fund for Central Asia. But it cannot compete with China’s financial might and this is one reason it wants India to become a full SCO member.
http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20090717261405700.htm
US dollar swings to China commentsBeijing would like to see a diversification of the world currency regime in the future and believes it would be "normal" if the issue props up at the upcoming "8+5 summit" involving the Group of Eight (G8) and the emerging powers... -
After nearly two decades of the U.S dominated unipolar world order, we are now finally entering the transition period to a multipolar world order of multiple poles of world powers.
The U.S dominated unipolar world had been a very difficult era, with multiple wars and conflicts across the globe instigated by the U.S in order to serve their own cynical political ends.
We are now approaching the end of that unipolar world.
We are now shifting from Unipolar world to Multipolar world
Long live the multipolar world order!
Let the U.S. dominated unipolar world order finally come to an end!
-
Will a multipolar world be more stable?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Will a multipolar world be more stable?
more and bigger wars, essentially we're back to pre WWI. competiting resources, re-aligment by ethnicity and resources interest.a bipolar enviornment create a focus conflicts smaller scope.
-
Will a multipolar world be more stable?
Hard to say.
But it would at least be a fairer world.
There is no peace under the U.S dominated world order also.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
more and bigger wars, essentially we're back to pre WWI. competiting resources, re-aligment by ethnicity and resources interest.a bipolar enviornment create a focus conflicts smaller scope.
Yes, I imagine we would be back to the "concert of Europe" type of scenario. Multipolar environment that led to unreasonable alliances. That was how WW1 got kicked off in the first place.
Bipolarity has been argued to be more stable, however, there were also smaller scaled proxy wars fought in certain failed states.
The unipolar world hasn't been around all that long. If we count from since the fall of USSR, then it has existed for just about 18 years. It can be argued to be more stable since the list of civil wars dramatically reduced, leaving mostly conflicts in Africa and former Iron Curtain countries. The Iraq war's effect on the world is also arguable since countries in the region reported unprecedented growth since the war.
To ask for something fairer, one must first define "fair." What is "fair"? Is it utilitarianism or kantianism?
-
Yes, I imagine we would be back to the "concert of Europe" type of scenario. Multipolar environment that led to unreasonable alliances.
But I thought concert of europe was a peaceful era in europe during 1815-1855?
The Iraq war's effect on the world is also arguable since countries in the region reported unprecedented growth since the war.
Terrorism increased.
To ask for something fairer, one must first define "fair." What is "fair"?
Respect for international law. A fairer trading system for starters.
-
I think the most important factor in peace or war is whether the U.S political elite will accept the coming mutlipolar world or will they resist and insist on maintaining their hegemony.
If they resist, there will be conflict.
Right now there is debate in U.S foreign policy circles regarding this issue.
Those who insist on USA global hegemony like the neocons:
In fact, strategic overreach is not the problem and retrenchment is not the solution. The United States cannot afford to turn its back on its international commitments and allies--the allies that helped us defeat fascism and communism in the 20th century, and the alliances we have forged more recently, including with the newly liberated citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our economic difficulties will not be solved by retreat from the international arena. They will be made worse.
In this new era, the consequences of failure and the risks of retreat would be even greater than before. The challenges we face require 21st century strategies and tactics based on a renewed commitment to American leadership. The United States remains the world’s indispensable nation -- indispensable to international peace, security, and stability, and indispensable to safe-guarding and advancing the ideals and principles we hold dear...
http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about.html
And the so called "realists" who proposes a less hegemonic role:
Against the backdrop of an ever-bloodier conflict in Iraq, American foreign policy is moving in a dangerous direction toward empire.
Worrisome imperial trends are apparent in the Bush administration's National Security Strategy. That document pledges to maintain America's military dominance in the world, and it does so in a way that encourages other nations to form countervailing coalitions and alliances. We can expect, and are seeing now, multiple balances of power forming against us. People resent and resist domination, no matter how benign.
We are a diverse group of scholars and analysts from across the political spectrum who believe that the move toward empire must be halted immediately. We are united by our desire to turn American national security policy toward realistic and sustainable measures for protecting U.S. vital interests in a manner that is consistent with American values.
The need for a change in direction is particularly urgent because imperial policies can quickly gain momentum, with new interventions begetting new dangers and, thus, the demand for further actions. If current trends are allowed to continue, we may well end up with an empire that most Americans-especially those whose sons and daughters are, or will be, sent into harm's way-don't really favor. The issue must be the subject of a broad public debate. The time for debate is now....
http://www.realisticforeignpolicy.org/static/000027.php
-
Some other strategies by U.S foreign policy theorists:
A new grand strategy for the United States should be compatible with the nation’s fundamental values and capable of achieving American goals in the world order that will emerge in the decades ahead.
Neither the strategy of US hegemony nor two proposed alternatives, neoisolationism and offshore balancing, meet these tests.
The United States needs to prepare itself for a multipolar world in which it is not a solitary hegemon but rather one of several great powers, even if it is the most powerful for decades to come. And the United States has to prepare itself to cooperate in the interest of security with other major powers either as a member of a great-power concert or as a participant in an alliance against one or more powerful aggressors.
Because similar military capabilities would be required in either a concert of power or a balance of power strategy, this approach can be defined as a concert-balance strategy for a multipolar world...
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/08autumn/lind.htm
Fortunately, one approach has proved effective in the past and could serve America again today: "offshore balancing."
During the cold war, this strategy enabled Washington to contain Iran and Iraq and deter direct Soviet intervention in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. As a Middle East policy, offshore balancing may be less ambitious than Bush's grand design was—no one promises it will lead to an "Arab spring"—but it will be much more effective at protecting actual U.S. interests.
So what would it look like? As an offshore balancer, the United States would keep its military forces—especially its ground and air forces—outside the Middle East, not smack in the center of it. Hence the term "offshore."
As for "balancing," that would mean relying on regional powers like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia to check each other.
Washington would remain diplomatically engaged, and when necessary would assist the weaker side in a conflict. It would also use its air and naval power to signal a continued U.S. commitment to the region and would retain the capacity to respond quickly to unexpected threats, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
But—and this is the key point—the United States would put boots on the ground in the Middle East only if the local balance of power seriously broke down and one country threatened to dominate the others. Short of that, America would keep its soldiers and pilots "over the horizon"—namely at sea, in bases outside the region or back home in the United States....
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177380
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Yes, I imagine we would be back to the "concert of Europe" type of scenario. Multipolar environment that led to unreasonable alliances. That was how WW1 got kicked off in the first place.
Bipolarity has been argued to be more stable, however, there were also smaller scaled proxy wars fought in certain failed states.
The unipolar world hasn't been around all that long. If we count from since the fall of USSR, then it has existed for just about 18 years. It can be argued to be more stable since the list of civil wars dramatically reduced, leaving mostly conflicts in Africa and former Iron Curtain countries. The Iraq war's effect on the world is also arguable since countries in the region reported unprecedented growth since the war.
To ask for something fairer, one must first define "fair." What is "fair"? Is it utilitarianism or kantianism?
(Raison d'états) Reason of States utilitarianism would be more apparent within the regional level especially towards the smaller statehood. Because at regional level the regional players are subjected to less international pressure it can also go the other way round like that of Myanmar shield from international pressure because of regional brotherhood.
i am not sure if we are totally back to multipolar as per pre WWI or we enter into regional blocks. These regional blocks are driven by the recent economics melt down the desire to decouple demand from North America, and competing resources, ethnics and religious differences.
Ironically back in the 90s we were concern about trades blocks now we see the desire to decouple from N.A..
Ultimately the only concern is that since we are dealing by region any conflict arises will see not only realignment of states but a larger scale opponent meet one another which we have not seemed before.
Conventional war would mean a long and costly war, and conventional tools of war alone may not be sustainable to any nation political interest. Eventual use of WMD is the way to go.
-
i am not sure if we are totally back to multipolar as per pre WWI
We are in a transitional period from the U.S dominated unipolar world order to a new world order of multipolar poles of powers.
The question is: Will USA face up to the trends of the times and accept the mulitpolar world and adjust their role in that world or will they resist and insist on the U.S unipolar world?
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
We are in a transitional period from the U.S dominated unipolar world order to a new world order of multipolar poles of powers.
The question is: Will USA face up to the trends of the times and accept the mulitpolar world and adjust their role in that world or will they resist and insist on the U.S unipolar world?
I won't deny that the US's global hegemonic role is being challenged now. But it seems like Obama's administration may not be moving in the direction of "imperialism" anymore.
"And the so called "realists" who proposes a less hegemonic role:"
I read the excerpts of the articles u posted up, and I don't believe that they are indeed "realist" opinions. If anyone would support Imperialism and Hegemony, it would be the Realists!
In any case, the concert of Europe fell apart because the major powers could not agree with each other. The major powers were only concerned with matters that were of their interest, and minor powers pretty much uncared for.
Would all the "powers" see eye to eye in a upcoming multipolar world? Would they be noble instead of eyeing each other in suspicion? Remember, the run up to WW1 was a multipolar world too.
It wasn't terrorism that increased. It was Islamic religious fundamentalism rose to the center stage. Terrorism was equally rampant during the Cold war, with examples such as the IRA being responsible for many of them. I believe it was Reagan who said, "One man's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter."
As for "fairness", when it comes to "International Law" and "Fairer Trading Systems", who decides what the laws and systems are? Are they to be universally applied? At the end of the day, it will be the major powers who will be behind the architecture of theses "liberal institutions", and they will be the major beneficiaries from all the impositions and trading rules. We can throw "fairness" out the window as there can never be "fairness" in a world where demand is always greater than supply. There is always shortage, and with shortage, inequality.
At the end of the day, its still a dog-eat-dog world. And every dog will have to look out for itself, ensuring that they do not get eaten by another bigger dog. To do that, one has to become the biggest dog around. =D
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I won't deny that the US's global hegemonic role is being challenged now. But it seems like Obama's administration may not be moving in the direction of "imperialism" anymore.
"And the so called "realists" who proposes a less hegemonic role:"
I read the excerpts of the articles u posted up, and I don't believe that they are indeed "realist" opinions. If anyone would support Imperialism and Hegemony, it would be the Realists!
In any case, the concert of Europe fell apart because the major powers could not agree with each other. The major powers were only concerned with matters that were of their interest, and minor powers pretty much uncared for.
Would all the "powers" see eye to eye in a upcoming multipolar world? Would they be noble instead of eyeing each other in suspicion? Remember, the run up to WW1 was a multipolar world too.
It wasn't terrorism that increased. It was Islamic religious fundamentalism rose to the center stage. Terrorism was equally rampant during the Cold war, with examples such as the IRA being responsible for many of them. I believe it was Reagan who said, "One man's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter."
As for "fairness", when it comes to "International Law" and "Fairer Trading Systems", who decides what the laws and systems are? Are they to be universally applied? At the end of the day, it will be the major powers who will be behind the architecture of theses "liberal institutions", and they will be the major beneficiaries from all the impositions and trading rules. We can throw "fairness" out the window as there can never be "fairness" in a world where demand is always greater than supply. There is always shortage, and with shortage, inequality.
At the end of the day, its still a dog-eat-dog world. And every dog will have to look out for itself, ensuring that they do not get eaten by another bigger dog. To do that, one has to become the biggest dog around. =D
Or to play off the bigger dogs against each other, seems to be the way Singapore's handling global politics.
-
Not really. Within areas of defense, Singapore is always closely aligned with the biggest dog around; the US.
However, Singapore is always going around generating goodwill and interests in our region, letting people know that they all have a share and a common economic interest. They adopt a rather multilateral approach when it comes to handling regional powers. At the same time, we stay out of their hair over certain sensitive issues.
The US knows that "baseline" that we have, and if I am not wrong, they do not press us to take their positions over their squabbles in Asia. In exchange, we provide logistics and maintenance support for their ships. We make money from that, and they have an assured "friendly" port in neighborhood. Win - Win.
-
Ah Chia, Are you the same Gopalan Nair, the famous lawyer?