Avoiding Chaos

The world has been teeter-tottering on the edge of a New World Order for some time. This started with the collapse of the Soviet Union and was reinforced by the subsequent claim of the United States to be ruler of the World. ("Ruler of the world" is usually expressed as "the sole remaining superpower" or, sometimes, hegemon.) It is turning out that having a one, global hegemon is not such a good idea.  To examine this issue, let us play Dr. Ferguson's 'what if ...' history game.

Had the cold war continued, would the United States have invaded Iraq? Even at the close of the Cold War, the United States was restrained by its Arab allies in the Gulf War (1990-91). Having driven Iraq out of Kuwait, the "Coalition" stopped, leaving things at the status quo ante. Subsequently, Shi'ia rebels against the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein were not assisted, affirming two things:

1. the United States was not going to intervene further to change the balances of power within Iraq and the Middle East;
2. The United States was more fearful of the rise of another Arabic Islamic Republic (as in adjacent Iran) than dealing with the bloody dictator Hussein.

During the Clinton Administration, Iraq's sovereignty was gradually reduced by "no-fly" zones and other military activities. Iraq's northern territory was essentially ceded to the Kurds (who are Shi'ia), and the central regime's power in the south (Shi'ia Basra) was weakened. Many of the gruesome practices of Hussein's Stalinist regime were reduced or eliminated. The Clintonites did not, however, feel empowered to go further than they did; they felt compelled to consult with NATO and the UN. Perhaps that was "Cold War Thinking," a hangover from Cold War days.

With the selection of the Bush Administration, all that changed. Neo-conservatives in this Administration feel no constraint on their activities. George W Bush once again made it plain (in the Presidential debate) that he does not think the United States need consult with anyone about what it does. The intellectual and emotional shackles of the Cold War are gone. Seeing itself alone and unchallenged, the United States proceeds to do whatever it wishes.

Coming back to 'what if ...' questions: would this be so, if the Soviet Union were still the other superpower?

I doubt it makes much difference which party is in power in Washington. We have seen that most Establishment Democrats supported, even hastened to support, the Republican President's uniltaeral policies. As the saying goes, 'Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

So, I propose the contrary 'what if ...':  Would not the world be better off with more than one hegemon? The old Third World non-aligned nations used the Cold War competition to bleed the superpowers. Neither superpower was willing to swat the parasites for fear of starting an unwinnable war with the other one. Having more than one contestant in the hegemon race reduced the ambitions of both of them, even if it warped the affairs of lesser States.

It's not too late to bring back the Soviet Union. Maybe Putin's Russia will be a stronger player than anyone realizes. But, if not, there is China, and then India, which are budding collossi. Maybe the international balance of power places more secure limits on would-be hegemons, because they fear the consequences of unregulated behavior more than they doubt their own wisdom.