1  

Nathan  Anderson INTS3702 Dr. Lewis Griffith 5-30-2012 Bipolar Anarchy: The Consociational Future of International Security Civilization is entering a new age in international security. After WWII, the world

went into an era where the main security threat to the west was a state actor – the Soviet

Union. Nuclear weaponry was both the new threat and the new deterrent, and a sort of

malignant bipolarity was the norm. This sort of bipolarity was demonstrated by two

combating ideologies: Western and Marxist. The truth is, since the conference at Breton

Woods, the creation of the League of Nations, the IMF, and the World Bank, American

hegemony at the end of the Cold War was seemingly inevitable. In this time, the United

States has essentially colonized space and has created an unprecedented sea presence that

might never be matched.1 Despite the fact that the US has become the de facto leader in

policy standardization, globalization has created a new world with new security threats.

Credit expansion (most would argue over-expansion) and differing economic ideologies

(i.e. the American tendency to spend and the Asian tendency to save) have created

economic imbalances that have expounded over time. Meanwhile, nuclear weaponry has

become functionally useless. While economic interconnectedness is the norm around the

globe, China and the US are the two emerging hegemons that will be the focus of the

security debate for the foreseeable future. Gone are the days of state security threats, and

a new era has emerged where global criminal networks and failed states have become the

chief threats to functioning society.

                                                                                                               1  Dr.  Kevin  Archer  at  the  Korbel  School  has  essentially  argued  that  it  would  take  China  at  least  50  years  to  catch  up  to  the  United  States’  offensive  capabilities  if  they  should  make  a  commitment  to  do  so.    

  2  

At the 2006 World Economic forum, Condoleezza Rice encouraged world leaders

to embrace China as a co-hegemon,2 and she declared that China should be welcomed as

a “responsible shareholder” regarding international security. China, with it’s own

problems – aging population and a fertility rate far below the replacement 2.01, will still

act as a counter to western power because of its massive economy and military

manpower. Indeed, the future of security for the western world is predicated on a new

type of state-regulated global civil society that will not create a global identity, but an

understanding of threats and a bipolar structure aligning states with western or eastern

society. Suddenly the Peace of Westphalia is relevant again, only this time global anarchy

has taken a consociational face through bipolar governance. The sooner developing states

associate with global hegemonic presences, the better off they will be. There will be a

new standardization of security, and that standardization will be an international reality

that is seemingly dominated by western military presence like NATO, and economic

symbiosis between global hegemons. Indeed, NATO controls 17 of the world’s 22

aircraft carriers,3 and while no nation truly matches Asian military manpower, the US and

allied nations are clearly built for an offensive global presence.

It should be clear that the consociational future of globalism is not a rejection of

pluralism, but merely a proliferation of east and west, and states will self-determine based

on this organic global structure. There will be no global identity, and the key elements to

providing global security in the future will be accepting conflicting ideologies in a true

free trade system, accepting the state’s role in international affairs, a realization that

                                                                                                               2  Condoleezza  Rice  addresses  the  World  Economic  Forum:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTwP4n7_8XM  3  http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/  

  3  

poverty and failed states are the responsibility of the developed world, and an organic

and relative standardization of values proliferating an understanding of new threats.

Accepting conflicting ideologies in a true free trade system Globalization has empowered both states and non-state actors. States now have

the ability to coordinate security policy for a hegemonic good through military might.

However, military might may not be the end-all be-all of international security. The Cold

War has left the world with lose weapons, and globalization has empowered networks

seeking unconventional methods of terrorism – without state representation and without

borders.4 Open  borders  will  be  essential  to  the  consociation  argument,  as  the  lack  of  

a  global  governing  body  means  social  and  economic  values  can  and  will  transcend  

borders.  However,  this  creates  a  new  threat:  the  ability  for  rouge  groups  to  organize.  

The  answer  to  combating  such  groups  is  not  an  easy  one.  History  has  shown  that  

simple  conflicts  in  ideology  can  be  tough  to  overcome,  but  the  good  news  is  that  the  

threat  is  transnational,  and  fighting  this  threat  will  be  an  international  effort.  If  the  

Cold  War  united  the  free  world  to  combat  the  Soviet  Union,  then  new  threats  have  

almost  created  a  new  global  solidarity  in  fighting  common  enemies  that  collectively  

threaten  transnational  state  security.    

  Realist  theory  has  triumphed  because  combating  terrorism  and  rouge  states  

is  indeed  in  the  interest  of  bipolar  international  anarchy,  which  should  start  to  level  

economic  disparity  in  the  long  run.    Neoclassical  economic  theory  embraces  

equilibration  theory.  That  is,  markets  will  eventually  equilibrate  based  on  trade  

imbalances:  exports  follow  wealth  while  manufacturing  follows  cheap  labor.  This  

                                                                                                               4  Joyner/Parkhouse,  Nuclear  Terrorism  in  a  Globalized  World,  p.68  

  4  

works  in  the  long  run,  as  China’s  continued  development  has  created  an  increased  

quality  of  life5  and  even  started  to  send  manufacturing  back  to  the  developed  

world.6  The  world  economic  system  is  simply  too  integrated  for  state  actors  to  act  

against  their  own  self-­‐interest.      

Accepting the state’s role in international affairs

The next step in addressing the future of international security will be accepting

that this is an international reality. The three steps that the bipolar hegemons will have to

take – even in the interest of self-preservation – will be addressing the root causes of

criminal networking, unification against state threats, and accepting the fact that failed

states are the developed world’s problem.

“People’s lives become a lot more expendable in the interest of security and

comfort.”7 Perhaps economic equilibration needs a push, and this is where support for

free trade and open borders come into play. Perhaps the biggest threat to global security

is China’s currency manipulation that threatens equilibration. Nevertheless, China has

amassed massive amounts of wealth – albeit concentrated at the top –while laborers

continue to make low incomes while living in a low cost of living situation. This is why

the ability to cross political, social, and geographical boundaries is the best way to

catalyze an internationalist peace. Essentially, if states are to adopt a new understanding

of threats, they need to understand where the threats come from, and anti-west sentiment

can be addressed through goodwill. The argument is not essentially an argument for

forced proliferation of democracy, but rather meeting international needs symbiotically.

While poverty and destitution might be enablers of terrorism, international criminal                                                                                                                5  Fallows, James. The $1.4 Trillion Question. Atlantic Monthly, 2008. 6  Koerner,  Brendan  Made  in  America:  Small  Businesses  Bucking  the  Offshore  Trend,  Wired  Feb  2011  7  Dr.  K.  Archer,  Korbel  School  

  5  

networks, different as they may be, are not responses to poverty, but rather a product of

fundamental opposition to statism. Islamic fundamentalists, for example, do not regard

the state, but rather the Caliphate, as directed by the Ummah. However, the appeal of

joining an Islamic terrorist group or international drug cartel is compounded by poor

economic conditions.

Further, using the example of human trafficking, criminal activity is emboldened

by a lack of national cooperation. Not having an understanding of threats makes it easier

for people for lose their state identity and essentially become invisible blips in global

civil society. This is perhaps the best hyperglobalist argument. Since it has been

established that a global reality is unfavorable, it behooves responsible state actors to

standardize understanding of threats in the interest of functional necessity, as well

pressuring rogue states to behave responsibly lest they be cut off from the international

economic network. There has also been recent talk in congress of eliminating financial

aid to rouge states like Pakistan. Eliminating aid to Pakistan the state is probably a good

idea when the Taliban has gained levels of legitimacy in providing for the Pakistani

people, and all evidence supports the notion that Pakistan might be supporting terrorism,

or at the very least not doing enough to combat it. Most Americans can attest that citizens

don’t care if their nation is considered an international pariah when their needs are met,

and that is where goodwill becomes part of the security strategy as it is interconnected

with realist state interest.8 It behooves states to become fully vested in making people

aware of where their aid is coming from, whether or not local governments carry the

notion.

                                                                                                               8  See:  Charlie  Wilson’s  war.  The  end  game  is  vital  in  dealing  with  potential  new  threats.  

  6  

State threats can come from legitimate governments. Two legitimate state threats

are Iran and North Korea, two nations that are generally panned by their geographic

neighbors.9 North Korea is the ideal example. This nation has seemingly been able to

completely isolate itself from the global civil society.10 The west has enough footage on

the most secretive nation in the world to give a general idea of the lives that North

Koreans live: starving, famished and destitute. With this information, we have enough

reason to initiate policy beyond the simple politics of communist-era trade embargos

and/or sanctions, and truly unify the west (and east, for that matter) for the sole purpose

of freeing the North Korean people. Internal and external pressures will eventually

introduce the North Korean people to the global market.11

Revolution  doesn’t  happen  at  the  peasant  level.  This  is  especially  true  in  

North  Korea,  where  those  who  aren’t  in  the  North  Korean  elite  are  marginalized,  

and  are  neither  organized  nor  strong  enough  to  revolt.    The  world  is  entering  an  end  

of  history,12  but  the  end  of  history  won’t  come  from  an  appeal  to  western  values,  but  

an  increasingly  top-­‐down,  consociational,  bipolar  international  global  structure.      

 

A realization that poverty and failed states are the responsibility of the developed world  

Realism and this international reality is precisely why it is in the collective

interest of states to address non-legitimized governments in states that are breeding

grounds for international criminal activity. Society and governments should be addressed

                                                                                                               9  Iran,  for  example,  might  be  unified  against  Israel  but  the  Shia  majority  and  the  Persian  ethnicity  create  their  own  problems  in  dealing  with  other  Middle  Eastern  States.  10  Part of this has to do with the moment that the state gained its legitimacy – at a time when global isolation is possible. 11  Boynton,  North  Korea’s  Digital  Underground,  The  Atlantic,  April  2011,  p.  58  12  Fukuyama,  Franicis  The  End  of  History,  Harper  1993  

  7  

separately. If revolution doesn’t happen at the peasant level, than foreign aid/sanctions

might not serve their purpose of uniting and encouraging/discouraging governments in

the interest of joining a bipolar world. States should understand that if they wish to

participate in this bipolar world, they will only do so on the terms of the states providing

services (such as goodwill, aid, trade, protection). One would be hard-pressed to think

that Pakistan wants the Taliban in their backyard, but its just part of a complex web of

national interests without regard for international participation in a hegemonic structure.

The  United  States  is  the  hegemon  for  western  society    

  An organic and relative standardization of values proliferating an understanding

of new threats is inevitable because the world is more anarchic than most would believe,

it’s just that sovereign states will yield to greater powers for their own self-interest. The

United States has paid for its role as a global hegemon though military expenses,

soldiers’ lives, and less emphasis on domestic affairs. But from the age of nuclear

deterrence, we’ve seen that peace has essentially come from states protecting their own

interest. Evidently, states have been made aware of game theory in that destruction has

become a zero-sum game. Sure, some global commons issues such as global warming

exist - and the security threats that arise from this will be addressed as they arrive13 - but

despite this, states will align themselves with a global hegemon in the interest of state

preservation.

                                                                                                               13  There  is  certainly  a  threat  that  comes  from  an  influx  of  displaced  refugees.  This  further  compounds  the  argument  that  addressing  global  warming  is  best  done  by  preparing  states  for  the  future  effects  of  climate  change,  rather  that  making  the  drastic  economic  commitment  to  try  and  stop  climate  change.    

  8  

For example, if the US has effectively colonized space and have essentially

become the de facto manager of the “space” commons, most states have elected to fall

into order with US policy. It’s simply far more convenient than any alternative. Again,

the issues with the commons will be rouge states and non-state actors, which is precisely

where international pressure should lie. While global governance in its purest form is

impractical, hegemonic influence will essentially become said global governance. Few

international agreements have been reached, and the US typically sits out on the ones that

have (like Kyoto and the ICC), but nations continue to look to the US for guidance in

security and global economic issues. The US has more power than these global

institutions, because it maintains its global sovereignty. When the US fails, other states

fail and that is bad for all interested parties.

It is much easier to govern a bipolar world than a purely anarchic world, because

states better understand their own society and economic needs. And the future will be

dictated by communication between the two global hegemons, with the US directing the

west and China dictating the east. Other countries, such a BRIC countries, may enter the

fold further into the future, but their best interests are served by participation in this

hegemonic structure in the immediate future.

Since new threats are either non-state actors, or states that have been ostracized

from the international community, the future of international security will rally around

common threats regardless of social norms. The world is far too integrated economically

for any state to sustainably isolate itself the way North Korea (perhaps the biggest state

threat) has. Citizens in emerging states today have had the luxury of seeing the benefits of

an international system, and this transcends local and global governance. States who buck

  9  

universal human rights or support terrorism will be ostracized as international pariahs,

and as such, will be cut off from the global trough. The next fifty years will see rational

state actors following through with self-interest, succeeding to the two global hegemons.

The US should support a “responsible” China in order to bear some of the international

security burden. Both states should address terrorism at its root cause and make criminal

networks the responsibility of the states that facilitate them. The US and China’s

economic integrations and collective self-interest will allow for a standardization of

security policy and, rather then developing a new global identity, will rally around

common enemies to accept the commonality of threats.