The Balance of power
If history has been able to establish one fact it�s this: Empires don�t last very long. The ancient Egyptians saw it happen and so did every empire that emerged between them and the period of British dominion over most of the world. The trouble with unilateralism and imperialism is just that. The nature of its authority, when the world can only best be defined as �global�.
Herein lays the problem with defining global power. There are several forces at work that maintain the checks and balances of the global system. On one hand you have economic and military clout. On another, social and humanitarian issues that need immediate addressing. Further down the road exist the unmentionables, rogue states and the free radicals (to borrow a medical term): the Osama Bin Ladens of the world.
So who decides which of the above forces has the largest say?
I might be raising some hackles here, but in the end I�m only stating what�s obvious. The best contemporary example of a real super power is the United States. American policy has been consistent with this age old expression iron hands in a velvet glove. The velvet glove being the significant economic advantages that one gets to benefit from if you side with them. The iron fist: the significant military force it can bring to bear if you don�t. It�s not a perfect model. For all their tirades about free trade and living the American dream, the US has become increasingly protective and insular. Recent moves to introduce legislations against outsourcing cannot harbour well for them if the �open up your economy first, before we help you� argument is used.
Here�s the problem with America. They�ve been plagued by almost ritual foul ups in the foreign policy department. Looking back at the last fifty years, American foreign policy can at best be described as un-integrated, short sighted and self indulgent manoeuvres. It certainly appears to be the case that past actions seem to come back and bite them in the butt for want of a better word.
Renowned journalist and writer Humphrey Hawksley paints a grin picture in his book Dragon Fire, where he discusses the emergence of an alternative power due to America�s inability to commit itself wholly.
Maybe we really do see nation states as individuals. This is an argument I�ve raised before. The arrogant and overbearing millionaire businessmen, the benevolent humanitarians & the country cousins, followed up by the also rans.
Quite another complexity in itself when you consider how diverse each country really is within its own borders. The world today is much like any group of individuals. It takes all kinds to make one and each group manages to balance out its own power either through internal politics or by clearly democratic processes. The balance of power that seems to exist today is ironical enough. It is seemingly run by the champions of democracy, but what really drives it is back room, authoritarian negotiations. The deepest pocket wins.
Self indulgent? Short sighted? You decided.