다극체제와 무극체제의 구분
Multipolarity vs. Nonpolarity
연구공간 자유 (www.TheInstituteForLiberty.com)
다극체제와 무극체제의 구분
Distinguishing "Multipolarity" from "Nonpolarity"
: A Starting Point to Reduce Global Uncertainties
Sang Hyuck LEE
(Ph.D. in Internatonal Law / Texas MBA)
(sanghyuckleephd@gmail.com)
Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Affairs, described the defining feature of the 21st century as a change of turning into “nonpolarity”—i.e. “a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power”[1]—which is understood as an emphasis on non-state actors and no-political powers. On the other hand, Niall Ferguson, professor of history at Harvard University, used the term “apolarity” instead.[2] In a similar context, during the presentation on “Managing Globally in a Time of Uncertainty”, Mohan Kharbanda also resorted to the term “nonpolar” rather than “multipolar” to describe the current global uncertainties. However, a relevant and necessary solution to reduce global uncertainties cannot be envisaged, without departing from such idea of “nonpolarity” or “apolarity”[3] which is far from the reality in the current global community.
To begin with, contrary to what some liberals or utopians expect—i.e. alleged weakening of some basic functions of nation-states due to globalization, nation-states have shown remarkable resilience or persistence.[4] Theoretically, the term “poles” means great powers which exercise huge and defining influence on the international system—i.e. “polarity”. Based on the number of poles or great powers, the international system may be categorized into unipolarity, bipolarity or multipolarity. Thus, the term “nonpolarity” or “apolarity” is based on the assumption that nation-states no longer exercise such huge influence on the international system. However, it is not true. It is necessary to draw a clear difference between “the decline of the US” (from the only superpower—i.e. a unipolar power—into one of great powers in multipolarity) and “decline of the nation-state” (the basic unit of the international relations since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648).
In addition, liberal or utopian expectation on increasing influences of non-state actors, especially international organizations—e.g. the UN, the WTO, etc.—which even surpass those of nation-states, is still far from the reality. Theoretically, the owner or the real subject of an international organization is not the organization itself but the member states. The term “international” (inter + nation + al) itself shows clearly that an international organization is just a product out of the relation among nation-states. Also, empirically, there have been numerous cases when international organizations became helpless or useless in front of national interests. Think about the inaction or silence of the UN Security Council over the 2008 Tibet Crisis[5] in front of national interests of China which enjoys veto power. Another example is Chinses trade restrictions, in violation of WTO rules, which was imposed on Korean products/services solely because of the US deployment of THAAD on the Korean Peninsula.[6]
Moreover, as opposed to what some liberals or utopians anticipate, multinational corporations (MNCs) have not escaped or surpassed the influences of nation-states. Literally, the term “multinational” (multi + nation + al) corporations means companies with or involving more than two nation-states. Instead, some scholars use the term “TNCs” (trans + nation + al + corporations) to highlight the idea that the operation of such companies goes beyond the control or influence of nation-states. Others intentionally use the term “global companies” to denote the concept that such companies operate in a brand-new global community not in the traditional international society—i.e. the Westphalian system based on sovereign nation-states.[7] Quite clearly, companies are still under the influence of nation-states. For example, just after the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Samsung Electronics declared its plan to construct a new factory to manufacture home appliance in Texas, submitting to his outspoken threats of imposing high rate of BTAs (border tax adjustments) on imports.[8]
In conclusion, in pursuing a real solution to reduce global uncertainties, it is a starting point to distinguish “multipolarity” from “nonpolarity”. Especially from the perspective of Americans or those who are accustomed to “Pax Americana” or “Unipolarity” led by American superpower, it may be not easy to tell the difference between “the decline of the US” and “the decline of the nation-state”. Yes, Pax Americana is over.[9] However, it is not the end of the game nor the beginning of a new game.[10] It is just another continuation of the same game—i.e. “a continuous struggle for power”, as Hans J. Morenthau contended.[11] Even though it may not be a panacea, the policy to spread liberal democracy is still a good way to reduce current global uncertainties, as argued in my previous article. The collective power and collective will of liberal democratic countries, preferably mobilized by one of the great powers like the US, is a requirement or precondition to pursue such policy.[12]
[1] Richard N. Haass, “The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance” The Foreign Affairs (May/June 2008).
[2] Niall Ferguson, “A World Without Power”, The Foreign Policy (October 27, 2009).
[3] Theoretically, such idea was suggested based on liberal or utopian perceptions over the impacts of globalization on the state—i.e. the decline of state or the demise of the state. For example, see Martin van Creveld, “The Fate of the State” (1996) available at http://www.dnipogo.org/creveld/the_fate_of_the_state.htm (accessed July 2020)).
[4] Samy Cohen, The Resilience of the State: Democracy and the Challenges of Globalization (2005).
[5] See “Tibetan Riots Spread Outside Region” The New York Times (March 16, 2008) available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/world/asia/16iht-tibet.4.11148124.html (accessed July 2020).
[6] Bruce Harrison, “China Means Business in Economic Challenge over THAAD” Voice of America (March 16, 2017) available at http://www.voanews.com/a/china-means-business-in-economic-challenge-over-thaad/3768596.html (accessed July 2020).
[7] See Andreas Osiander, “Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth” International Organization (Spring 2001) available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3078632.pdf (accessed July 2020).
[8] “Samsung Is Reportedly Considering Building Another U.S. Factory” Reuters (Feb. 01, 2017) available at http://fortune.com/2017/02/02/samsung-us-manufacturing-trump/ (accessed June 2020).
[9] Roger Cohen, “Pax America Is Over” The New York Times (Dec. 16, 2016) available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/trumps-chinese-foreign-policy.html(accessed July 2020).
[10] See Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (1992) or “The End of History?” The National Interest (1989), available at https://www.embl.de/aboutus/science_society/discussion/discussion_2006/ref1-22june06.pdf (accessed July 2020).
[11] Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1938) available at http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/notes/Morgenthau%20-%20Struggle%20for%20Power%20and%20Peace.pdf (accessed July 2020).
[12] See Robert Kagan, The Return of History and the End of Dreams (2008).
