The United States in the new century.

 The United States in the new century – Estados Unidos no novo século.

It is legitimate to ask if multilateralism still has the chance to survive in the new order. Yes, certainly say the advocates of this approach by highlighting the many cases where the United States, renouncing its isolationism, cooperated in the construction of a better world. If one thinks, for example, of NATO or the United Nations we see there evidence that Americans have, for several years, engaged in cooperation (Almeida, 2003). In this sense, multilateralism is something characteristic in the identity of the United States and that one cannot simply erase no matter any new challenge.

How will the United States position itself in the future? In fact, it still has the opportunity to tell the world it is present by force or to wait for the world, itself, to recognise its power. It can also choose between fighting alone against terrorism and anarchy and cooperating with other countries. But as Brzezinski explains, "we have entered an era where the aspiration for national security in isolation is a chimera". Isolated, the Americans may not have the strength to endure the "resentment and envy" (2004: 282). Or, as Nye says, "wanting to decide everything alone for the whole planet is perhaps getting the triumphs in foreign policy, but this is not enough to solve the myriad of problems impossible to treat unless through international cooperation" (1992: 228).

Indeed, the supporters of a multilateral attitude defend that it is the American interest to accept and support the rules and institutions that were designed to fight terrorism, AIDS, drug trafficking, poverty, and other major issues and transnational challenges.

The interests of the United States may also coincide with those of many other countries and vice versa. Selfish, they will fall in the end; cooperative, they will sow a better future for themselves and for others. The success of the U.S. strategy will be even more notorious if others understand where America wants to go, what it will do and how it wants to do it.

The possibility of coexistence between unilateralism and multilateralism

If September 11 reinforced the American unilateralism, it would nevertheless be simplistic to consider the future American foreign policy only in unilateral or multilateral terms. In fact, nothing prevents these two characteristics from complementing each other.

On the other hand, the United States should realise that it is no longer the superpower it once was but, on the contrary, it is one great power among others. This means that its action, to be effective, must be framed and helped by the action of other major states (it can no longer continue to operate unilaterally as in the past because the power has changed).

Cooperation must be done with "major regional powers", such as the couple "Franco-German in Europe, Russia in Eurasia, China and perhaps Japan in Southeast Asia, India in South Asia, […]" (Huntington, 1988/89: 5). But it must be also done with any other power, as soon as there is the willingness to engage on the path of peace and prosperity.

If one prefers to talk in terms of 'polarity', perhaps we could say that the current international system has both unipolar and multipolar characteristics. This means that the world is "unipolar from the military point of view" and it is at the same time "multipolar from the economic and especially cultural point of view" (Hassner, 2003: 63). These two characteristics, despite their differences, "can perfectly coexist" especially in a context where power and actors are complex and unpredictable.

China: a threat to American hegemony?

Unpredictable and complex is, for example, the Chinese case. China feeds the Americans with products, but on the other hand, it is not unhappy to see the United States declining. In this sense, China is possibly complicit in American ‘euthanasia’, because it only meets Washington demand of consumption. But, in doing so, not only it allows the economic 'suicide' of the United States, as it also benefits from it (Keck, 2014).

China has a very large potential to become a superpower. Despite the internal problems that it undergoes, the country occupies a huge territorial dimension, counts on a huge workforce and sees its economy to grow at an accelerated pace. Furthermore, the fact that China is able to raise about 300 million of soldiers and increasingly modernises its army, explains that its military power cannot be neglected in the event of a possible conventional or nuclear war (Bertonha, 2008).

In short, as long as the United States sees its economies weaken, China seems to wake up. And, if one recalls the old phrase "When China wakes up, the world will tremble", then one realises that this country could move from the status of threat (to any other power), to a situation where it will equal or replace the United States¹.

What is, then, necessary for China, with its demographic, cultural, economic, military and diplomatic potential, to show that it has awakened? It is just a matter of time, if we keep, obviously, all other constant factors. Because, as Bertonha says, "China is, among the potential candidates to the superpower status (European Union, Russia, India, Japan, Brazil), that which must face the fewest obstacles" (2008: 34). It is not necessary to remember that nothing is certain and that several authors have many and different opinions about the future of the world order. But one thing remains certain: China is there and you cannot ignore or underestimate it.

Finally, we can say that the status that China will have acquired according to the events, will then dictate its behaviour: whether to continue to cooperate with the Americans. According to George W. Bush, "China is not a strategic partner anymore but rather a strategic competitor", which shows how it is perceived as a danger to the United States (Bertonha, 2008: 34). But it is also regarded as a "potential threat to its neighbours if we consider, for example, the "ideological differences" or "power rivalries", this according to Michèle and Henrik Schmiegelow (2007: 17).

Bibliography

ALMEIDA, João, Hegemonia americana e multilateralismo, Espaço online de Relações Exteriores, 2003, https://www.janusonline.pt/2003/2003_2_1_7.html

BERTONHA, João, O Equilíbrio de Poder do Século XXI, 16/04/2008, https://groups.google.com/group/prep-riobranco/topics

BRZEZINSKI, Zbigniew, Le vrai Choix : L’Amérique et le reste du monde, Paris: Odile Jacob, 2004, 308p.

HASSNER, Pierre, Washington et le monde : Dilemmes d’une superpuissance, Editions Autrement, 2003, 170p.

HUNTINGTON, Samuel, The U.S. – Decline or Renewal?, Foreign Affairs, Winter 1988/89, https://www.foreignaffairs.org/19881201faessay7927/samuel-p-huntington/the-u-s-decline-or-renewal.html

KECK, Zachary, 2014, America’s Relative Decline: Should We Panic?, The Diplomat, https://thediplomat.com/2014/01/americas-relative-decline-should-we-panic/

NYE, Joseph, Le leadership américain: quand les règles du jeu changent, Nancy : Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1992, 266p.

SCHMIEGELOW, Michèle & Henrik, The road to an Asian Community, policyanalysis, winter 2007, https://www.schmiegelowpartners.com/download/IPGe_4Schmiegelow.pdf