The U.S.-Led Global Order vs. the Multipolar Global Order

The U.S. national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, who is indeed at the center of a unilateral approach regarding U.S. diplomacy and the former prime minister of Russia Yevgeny Primakov, who is a little-known heavyweight behind the foreign affair polices of Russia, fiercely debated through articles of a magazine on the changes in international order witnessed after 9.11. Condoleezza Rice advocated for the U.S.-led world order while the former Russian prime minister strongly argued for a multipolar world order, displaying their sharp differences on world views. Their articles with starkly different opinions will appear in the latest issue of Russia in Global Affairs, a foreign diplomacy magazine jointly published by the Russian daily Izvestia and the U.S. bimonthly magazine Foreign Affairs. Izvestia provided a glimpse into their fiercely-debated articles which will be released in next month`s issue.

▽ The theory on the multipolar world order would only trigger fiercer competition between powerful nations.

In her article entitled The Multipolar World Order is the Logic of Competition, Condoleezza Rice argued that the current singular global order is the results of the integrated efforts of powerful nations. She explained that it is the U.S.- centered single global order that has overcome confrontations and conflicts among powerful nations that can be traced to the 17th century when the nation state began to be established.

In the current global order, the democracy-driven alliances such as the U.S. and Europe that try to safeguard the freedom are at odds with the evil forces that impose their own will to others. Against this background, she argues, the cooperation of powerful nations with the shared interests and value is the sure way to prevent regional conflicts.

Citing the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, the security advisor argued that the international community should be structured around only one pole that pursues freedom, peace and justice. She talked down the mulipolar international world order as a concept that intensifies competition among powerful nations. She said that never in the world`s history has a multiple world order brought about world peace.

▽ Unilateral global order can not guarantee the world peace

In his article entitled The World without a Superpower, the former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov refuted Condoleezza Rice saying that the U.S.-led unilateral global order is making the world a less secure place. He supported his argument citing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The go-it-alone attitude of the U.S. in these two wars failed to bring stability to these regions and the war against terrorism has not succeeded. He said in his article that two models in the global order have emerged after 9.11. One force tried to cooperate with others through the U.N. to deal with a common threat and promote stability around the globe while the other force tried to ignore the U.N. resolutions and opinions of many countries through unilateral decisions. He targeted the U.S. in this observation.

He argued that the multipolar world order does not mean constant conflicts and the unilateral global order can not put an end to regional conflicts. The world has developed the multipolar system since the Cold War. He cited as the best example of this Europe, which started from economic integration to achieve political and military integration. Power in the international community will be shared by China and Russia, said the former Russian prime minister. He said that “it is outrageous to think that the U.S.-led global order would be the best model for the international community.”

Ki-Hyun Kim kimkihy@donga.com