Ikenberry's article about America as a unipolar empire based on liberalism was rich and intriguing. While the US may a unipolar actor that is more open, rule-based, and norm based than any other unipolar actor in history, as Ikenberry is writing this piece in 2004, he sees that much of the world is unsettled. The world is unsure if American unipolarity is a good thing, or if it puts other states at risk if they step out of bounds so to speak.
My how things have changed since Ikenberry's article was written almost 13 years ago. Democratic statemaking and overthrow of regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan proved much harder and more costly than expected. These experiments of a more neorealist imperial exercise were not rousing successes that increased the power and influence of the US. Does this mean that we are witnessing a decline in unipolarity or has America already lost it's unipolar status?
The failures, or at least non-successes in Iraq and Afghanistan showed just how challenging a war against terrorism, a "threat that merges from failed and hostile states in the periphery" (Ikenberry, p. 618), turned out to be. The preemptive attacks against terrorism have spread the American military thin in some ways, and hasn't led to a guarantee of domestic security, or security for our allies. Lack of leadership and decisive action in Syria has seriously called into question whether America has the unipolar ability to bring all regimes to heel, and if it does, whether Americans will exercise this power.
Amidst the security and legitimacy challenges of terrorism, the North Atlantic alliance, a key underpinning of American unipolarity according to Ikenberry, is also under threat. The key security community which supported a unipolar power is less reliable than before and increasingly under threat. Russia's forays into NATO member states and less than active responses by NATO have shown that the alliance may not be as water tight as it seems.
The Obama administration's leaning on multilateral institutions in new and bigger ways, may have undermined American unipolarity to an extent. If President Obama's foreign policy was a shift from the 2004 American that Ikenberry captures, the next four years may be an even larger shift. President Elect Trump may be a rejection of the "liberal strategy" and "the realist grand strategy" that Ikenberry refers to (p. 622) A withdrawal from our alliances and a rejection of the idea of American engagement in the exercises of global peace and security would be a rejection of one of the pillars of American unipolarity.
I'm not sure if America was unipolar in 2015, it seems like the shift from unipolarity started in the early 2010's. But I would predict that Trump's presidency results in a shift from American unipolarity. Whether a multipolar, or unipolar just not with America at the helm (China? Russia? Some alliance?), is making America great again or not is up for debate...
(This blog is also a test in how many times you can use the term unipolar in one thought process. Ha!)
Erica, I love your test of unipolar usage for one. And for two I love that you are asking about unipolarity as it is a pet concept for me as I have studied the U.S. and Russia since 1991. I would submit to you that until there is another viable pole for a portion of the world to revolve around the world will continue to remain unipolar. I would further argue this construct does not detract from Russia or China's aims in the world, as both benefit from the provision of U.S. military security for international commerce and the economic benefits of trade with the U.S. (more in the case of China there). So, until there is a viable alternative 'lifestyle' / idea which will rally countries the U.S. is likely to remain the sole pole of the world order.
ReplyDelete