What we need is a world in which the hegemon becomes conscious that for the first time in history, it is under no threat -- there is no conceivable military enemy that could destroy it -- and that the simplest way to perpetuate it's privileged position is by institutionalizing peace. That it is its interest to perpetuate peace just as it is in its interest to perpeture free trade. Except peace is more unequivocally a good. And for the first time in human history, entirely within our collective grasp. Michael Pollak
------------
While I agree with the latter points that it is in our interest to have peace and peace is entirely within collective grasp, I don't agree with the former point, that we need a hegemon to recognize there is no threat. We had that period between roughly 1989 to 2002 and the US did absolutely nothing to promote, secure, sustain, or institutionalize large scale peace.
First the US deformed, dissembled, and distorted the many international agreements, treaties, and power relations that were critical to world peace. Then the US systematically exploited that devolving ten year lull to increase its own power and effectively manipulated a series of local conflicts and economic disadvantages to its own military and economic advantage through the very international institutions that were supposed to secure both military peace and some measure of economic equity.
The US state, its power elite and its broad masses are simply not to be trusted ever again to manage an international peace. We had our chance and we took absolute advantage of it, following the maxim that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In this dark passage, the US has been shown to act exactly like every other empire and monolithic state in human history. The world now understands, as it should have all along that no single power can be allowed to achieve even the self-deluded semblance of universal hegemony.
It should now be obvious that coalitions of regional power must be formed in quasi-formal bodies sufficiently stable to both mediate and challenge the US in its economic, social, cultural and military power. There is simply no other alternative that will bring back international relations directed toward mutually assured peace and equity through mutually assured destruction. Yes, the old containment policy, involuted to contain the threat of the United States. Clearly that is now the challenge to the rest of the world.
Michael's argument that WWI and WWII were brought about by a balance of powers is not accurate in detail. It was the relatively rapid devolution of those balances and their inherent illusions that resulted in WWI. (See: The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848-1918, Taylor)
First the key devolution was the relative fall of France in relation to the relative rise of Germany, with the marginalization of Austria and Russia, and the presumed hegemonic position of Britain as a consequence.
Second, the key illusion was British hegemony. In fact that hegemony depended on and directly derived from the imbalance of power between France, Germany, Austria, Russia and Turkey. Britain on its own was not a hegemon. Rather it shifted its alliances to position itself as a dominant and mediating power with a partner and any partner would do. This relationship in turn conferred mutual benefit by alternately giving lesser powers similar and temporary elements of hegemony in particular spheres of interest and influence.
Returning to current history, it should be apparent that the US has adopted something similar to the British position of a century ago. The US is not a hegemon, but rather a self-deluded dominating power that requires some regional power with which to form alliances in order to appear dominate. So for example, it links up with Mexico to manipulate Latin America, Japan or China to manipulate Asia, and either the UK or Germany to manipulate the EU and by extension Russia. In the Middle East it shifts between Israel and Saudi Arabia. In Africa it would like to link with South Africa. But all these informal alliances are breaking down, primarily due to the single sided advantages pursued by the US to the detriment of its partners of opportunity.
So the world tried the US as hegemon and it didn't work. Time to reform alliances specifically to exclude the US. I am virtually certain that is a point of near global unity.
Chuck Grimes