True

[tagryn]

from http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html

People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe.

Comments

[tagryn]

Problem is, if the U.N. actually did start living up to its mandate as a democratic institution, with power to enforce those values, a lot of nations that *don't* share that vision would probably withdrawal from it - that happened to the League of Nations before WWII. A UN without universal representation of nations loses a lot of its legitimacy across the globe, I think..."just another damn American puppet" would be heard a lot.

The unipolar world has been a good thing for democracy overall, I think - the increase in number of democratic nations has been steadily rising, for example. However, encouraging the stronger democracies like India and Japan, not to mention the EU, to actively take responsibility for their own national interests and defense would share out some of the pressures which the U.S. exclusively bears right now, and while their decisions may not be 100% in line with what the USA wants, I think that route is more sustainable (and safer) in the long-run.