New World Orders Essay, Research Paper

New World Orders

In fifty years will all the countries on earth finally be at peace with one another? Will we have found a solution to conflicts we as a country face today? The answers to these questions are unclear to be sure. Although peace is what most countries would agree to be most beneficial, it is hard to imagine a world in which there no longer exists reasons for nations to fight amongst themselves. After having read The New Geopolitics-2050 of the July 31st The Economist, I understand a little more clearly the shape of things that might come.

Neorealist or Liberalist/Idealist, which path lies in front of us? Some say that in fifty years the world s geopolitical structure will be one of unity. With the recent unprecedented trend towards democratization the gist or core of how governments operate will be the same. Globalization in turn will begin to dissolve national borders and eventually lead to a New World Order with only one residing governmental body. Idealists would love to believe that this is the way things will turn out; One world, Peace, Love, and Unity. Democracy and Capitalism will be the supreme rulers of this new civilization. But where does culture and nationalism fit in? Surely they don t just fade away into the night. In a world of no borders there can be no nationalism or separate cultures because we will have created a global melting pot with only one culture. Obviously this Liberal/Idealist views has some very serious shortcomings. People will not readily give up their cultures or nationalism for the sake of peace.

What alternatives then are we left with? Neorealism seems the most appealing to me. Huntington s theory that the world will be divided into centers of power (multi-polar) seems to be where we might be headed. Maybe Uni-Multi-polar will be more accurate, one superpower with several other greatpowers. It is highly unlikely that any other country will surpass the United States leading role in a mere fifty years. More to the point, while other nations grow in power and wealth, and doing it at a faster rate than the U.S., they still will not have achieved what America has.

This unimultipolar globe works well because it still allows room for conflict to occur. Nations will be able to keep their culture and sense of identity. While the chances for peace will have increased significantly with democratization, there will no doubt be some skirmishes here and there. What will we be fighting about then? The age old reason for war of course, it s us vs. them! The idea that wars are primarily the result of difference between politico-economic systems is a natural fallacy of the late 20th century .the issues [that will be fought about in the next 50 years] will be who gets to be top dog in the region (The Economist, 7).

Moreover, we will begin to see a slight shift in power out of the state s hand and into other bodies such as intergovernmental organizations (NATO, UN) and multinational corporations. After all money does make the world go round right? As mentioned previously capitalism and democracy are what is important in this model as well. Though not all countries will have the same exact idea of what these two things entail. Some might be more democratic than others, the sleeping giant comes to mind, but most likely everyone will have a solid grip on capitalism.

This curtailed power of the state does not mean that drops out of the leading role in international relations. States are still the head administers of military power. After all, when the ____ hits the fan that s all that really counts. Our government will still have the power to tax us. No outside entity will be able to save us from that. Therefore states will maintain their central position in geopolitics, just with increasingly important other participants as well.

While we now see democracies emerging everywhere we cannot become placid and hope everything will turn out fine. The process of becoming a democracy is an arduous journey. If we do not be wary, something crazy could happen. Look at the turmoil the former Soviet Union has fallen into. Organized crime has reached epidemic proportions. It also isn t too hard to picture a scenario where some rogue terrorist faction gets their hands on a nuclear weapon. No, democracy is not for those with a weak stomach. It can teach hard lessons along the way. Even the U.S. had its civil war. The same thing is happening in the Balkans right now.

We, along with a few other long-standing democracies, must do what we can to ease the transition into democracy. Offering what guidance and support we can without hurting our relations with the Atlantic alliance (Europe and the US). Keep in mind China who will also be a main player in all world events from here on out. With their emerging presence onto the geopolitical scene it is essential that the west maintain a healthy association with them. It would be troublesome to find ourselves engaging in a serious economic war with them.

Now it is easier to see where we might be half a century from now. Several large powers will emerge but they will not be concentrated in one place. Instead we will see the Asia-pacific rim, the west, eastern Europe or Eurasia, Islam, and maybe a couple more as the main power centers on the globe; all in all a fairly evenly distributed power structure. It will indeed be an interesting game to see how everybody jockeys for position in the coming half-century, and on into the next millennium.

Works Cited

 The New Geopolitics, The Economist July 31st 1999

 The End of History? Francis Fukuyama, National Interest June 1989

 The Clash of Civilizations? Samuel Huntington, Foreign Affairs 1993

 http://www2.gasou.edu:80/student/gsi02613/