Summary: Strategic Alliances
Unilateralism versus Multipolarity
Heinz Brill
"Strategic Alliances", in the sense of harmonizing the activities of two or more players at a given moment in time, in order to reach certain political goals, is a technical term which was coined by Henry Kissinger, when the USA and China assumed diplomatic relations after the end of the Vietnam War. The term has been widely used in international politics since the presidency of Bill Clinton, but has, nevertheless, remained ambiguous. Today numerous "strategic partnerships" are competing with one another, trying to influence the international order.
During the time of the East-West conflict, the basic structures of world politics were characterized by a triangle of competitors - USA, USSR, China - and one of collaborators - USA, Western Europe, Japan. With regard to security policy, Washington and Moscow were the two focal points of a bipolar system. This bipolarity came to an end with the demise of the Soviet Union and was replaced by a de facto hegemony of the United States.
This resulted in a new "unipolar" world order which, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, has been actively pursued by Washington since the end of World War II. In doing so, the USA has placed great importance on its relations to the powers in Eurasia, in order to prevent the formation of an alliance directed against itself. The inventors of US post-Cold War foreign policy are now holding senior positions in the George W. Bush Administration. They are global unilateralists, who advocate strong US involvement focusing on US national interests, and favor unilateral US actions undermining international law.
While the US wants a unipolar world order, the great regional powers are striving for a multipolar system. In particular, Russia intended to form a strategic triangle with China and India, already during the Yeltsin era. As a reaction to NATO east- enlargement, Russian Foreign Minister Primakov developed his concept of a multipolar world in the late 90s, which was eagerly taken up by Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister Igor Ivanov.
China, which supports Russia in this respect, views itself as an Asian super power aiming at strengthening the UN and undermining American hegemonic plans. India takes a similar position, although New Delhi is cautiously approaching the USA, possibly trying to broaden its sphere of influence in Asia along with China, but without Russia.
In Europe it is primarily France that opposes the United States’ hegemonic role. Therefore Paris is pushing for European integration, the creation of a European defense identity, and strengthening the will for European selfdetermination. Much more than Great Britain or Germany, France takes an ambivalent stance toward the only super power.
Since the terror attacks of 11 September 2001, a new pattern in US foreign policy has become apparent, which resembles something like a "hubandspokes” system, with the US being at the hub, while Europe, Russia, China, India, Japan, or the Middle East function as spokes which may be used for making politics as needed. In this way Washington is able to prevent secondary powers from uniting against itself. The US not only takes on the socalled "rogue states” on a global level, but also regionally organizes its resistance against the "axis of evil”. In the Middle East the US has been very successful in forming an alliance with Turkey and Israel.
In any constellation, the structure of the international order and the interplay of forces are determined by number, strength, and objectives of the dominating powers, their relationship to one another and to other states, as well as by the formation of groups and alliances. The strife for hegemony during the East-West conflict era has been replaced by conflicts of nations that justify their actions with the legitimacy of defending one’s own national interests. This represents a challenge for the alliance policy of all states.
Ihre Meinung/your opinion/votre opinion:
