Why the Replacement of the Mono Polar World will Likelier be Bi Polar than ‘Multi Polar’
1991 saw the end of the USSR and of its Warsaw Pact military mirror-image of America’s NATO military alliance against Russia, and of its communism, and then the mono-polar world-order started, of uncontested U.S. sovereignty over the planet’s nations, which mono-polarity is now ending. But what will replace it?
Andrew Korybko, an analyst I much respect, has argued that it will be replaced by “multiple-polarity”; and, on 2 March 2023, he headlined more specifically, “Towards Tri-Multipolarity: The Golden Billion, The Sino-Russo Entente, & The Global South”. He argued there that the “poles” will be America and its allies, versus China and Russia and their allies, versus India and its allies (which he asserts would be India’s “kingmaker role in the New Cold War between them [the other two ‘poles’] over the direction of the global systemic transition enabled the rest of the Global South to rise in India’s wake, thus revolutionizing International Relations by accelerating the emergence of tri-multipolarity”).
However, a three-polar structure is no more stable in its forward movement than is a three-wheeled vehicle, which tends to overturn on curves, unlike either a four-wheeled vehicle or a two wheeled one. A three-wheeled structure can be created but will likely overturn at some point in its non-straight-line course and become replaced by a bipolar structure, which is to say, by an opposition between the two opposite ends along a straight line. Adding a third dimension — making it three-dimensional instead of two-dimensional — creates unnecessary complications that are not applicable in this matter of ideology, and that can then revert to the opposition between actual opposites, which don’t require the additional, third, dimension (as-if there were no opposite to “right,” and no opposite to “left” — which clearly is false). So: I disagree with Korybko on this.
But what ARE the two “opposites”? What are the “poles”? In ideology, what is the actual meaning of “right” and of “left”? Korybko’s theory doesn’t address any such geometrical question, but simply assumes that there aren’t any opposites that are involved in the definition of “pole,” and that there can consequently be any number of “poles”— and maybe even that whatever the”poles” are is unconnected to ideology and could even be entirely arbitrary and therefore change, from time to time, perhaps even randomly. Does the term “pole” have any meaning in such a situation?
The topic in the present matter is international relations, not any nation’s internal relations; it is international instead of intranational; and, so, the poles here are entirely about beliefs concerning international law, and not at all about beliefs concerning any particular nation’s intranational or internal laws.
On April 13th, I headlined “China & Russia Lead World Toward Achieving the Type of U.N. that FDR Had Been Hoping For”, and described the four chief distinguishing features that separated U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s well-thought-out anti-imperialistic plan for the post-WW-II world, from the equally well-thought-out pro-U.S.-imperialistic plan (though by the advisors of) his immediate successor Harry S. Truman, for an all-encompassing empire by the U.S. to control all international relations and ultimately replace the very weak U.N. that Truman himself designed for that purpose — to be weak so that it could ultimately become replaced by that all-encompassing U.S. empire. As I summarily exemplified there, in the case of China’s ideology, which in this regard is identical to Russia’s ideology, both of those two Governments exemplify FDR’s anti-imperialism, whereas the U.S. Government, ever since 25 July 1945, exemplifies Truman’s pro-imperialism. It seems to me that India and all other “developing” or “Third World” or “BRICS” countries will have to make a choice between either the anti-imperialism of China and Russia or else the pro-imperialism of America and its allies such as in NATO and AUKUS.
Fence-sitting might work temporarily for nations such as India, but ultimately they will need to replace their tricycles by bicycles, during the curves that are likely to be coming.
In other words: the ideological issue here comes down to FDR’s anti-imperialistic plan fot the future, versus Truman’s pro-imperialistic plan for the future. This concerns ONLY international affairs; and, in that field, the “left” pole is FDR’s anti-imperialistic plan, and the “right” pole is Truman’s pro-imperialistic plan. Whereas ever since 25 July 1945, America has exemplified the right pole, China and Russia are now leading the world toward the left pole instead; and the fence-sitting countries will necessarily become required to get off the fence on this, and to select what THEIR ideology will be.
This will be an important decision, because the choice here is whether the world’s international future will be what FDR planned, which would be a global democratic federation of nations; or, instead, what was Truman’s aim, which would be a global U.S. dictatorship (or “empire”) of nations. The two poles are democracy (which is the left pole) versus dictatorship (which is the right pole).
Because of this difference in ideologies, countries such as Russia and China are not aiming to conquer America but to free themselves from becoming choked to death by it. In other words: though America aims to conquer Russia and China, neither Russia nor China aims to conquer America. Though America is a mortal threat to Russia and to China, neither Russia nor China is any threat at all to America. Korybko might disagree with this bi-polar analysis of the situation, but that’s the way I see it.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.