A Unipolar America

The United States interests require a prolonged extension of the unipolar moment. Sustaining unipolarity accomplishes two things; it focuses the international system on western liberal ideology and it creates demands for American engagement,[i] which increases stability across the globe. In doing so it reduces the need to focus on any one state, such as China, I realize that this seems paradoxical however, I argue the paradox only surfaces because of a misinterpretation of what a unipolar power really is.  Unipolarity does not change our national security strategy that seeks to spread liberal democratic principles, it is not isolationist rather it recognizes and embraces sovereignty by focusing on the third pillar of American grand strategy identified by Miller; “maintaining a favourable balance of power among the great powers.”[ii] Unipolarity then is really about unilateralism.

Krauthammer describes unilateralism as the clear determination to self-consciously and confidently deploy American power in pursuit of global ends. Unilateralism identifies two major interests, both global: extending the peace by advancing democracy and preserving peace by acting as balancer of last resort.[iii] America’s unique global power allows it to be the balancer in every region, by extension controlling power transitions – such as might be needed with China. We balanced Iraq by supporting its weaker neighbors in the Gulf War. We balance China by supporting the ring of smaller states at its periphery (from South Korea, to Taiwan, even to Vietnam). Our role in the Balkans was essentially to create microbalance: to support the weaker Bosnian Muslims against their more dominant neighbors, and subsequently to support weaker Albanian Kosovars against the Serbs.[iv] 

Extending unipolarity is also in the best interests of the United States because it favors stability through the absence of war on two fronts: the leading state’s power advantage removes the problem of hegemonic rivalry from world politics, and it reduces the salience and stakes of balance of power politics among the major states.[v] Hegonomic theory stipulates that especially powerful states (“hegemons”) foster international orders that are stable until differential growth in power produces a dissatisfied state with the capability to challenge the dominate state for leadership. The clearer and larger the concentration of power in the leading state, the more peaceful the international order associated with it will be.[vi] Thus the argument that it is in the United States best interest to extend as long as possible our unipolar moment.      

[i] Wohlforth, William C. "The stability of a unipolar world." International security 24, no. 1 (1999): 5-41.

[ii] Miller, Paul D. "Five Pillars of American Grand Strategy." Survival 54, no. 5 (2012): 7-44.

[iii] Krauthammer, Charles. "The unipolar moment revisited." The national interest 70 (2002): 5-18.

[iv] Krauthammer, Charles. "The unipolar moment revisited." The national interest 70 (2002): 5-18.

[v] Wohlforth, William C. "The stability of a unipolar world." International security 24, no. 1 (1999): 5-41.

[vi] Wohlforth, William C. "The stability of a unipolar world." International security 24, no. 1 (1999): 5-41.