Syrian Decision Shaping Up As Unipolar vs. Multipolar

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Credibility of the U.S. is not at stake in the U.S. decision.

What’s at stake is the position and say of all the other parties or we might call them stakeholders. They include different parts of the U.S. government. They include the American public. They include Syrians. They also include other peoples, nations and states that are expressing and supporting other points of view than the American policy of bombing. Some are against bombing. Some want a UN decision. Some want more evidence to affix responsibility. Some want a judicial procedure such as charging Assad.

The key political issue that is shaping up here is whether or not the world is a unipolar world politically and militarily, with the superpower U.S. being that pole. The alternative view, which is gaining strength, is that the world is a multipolar world, with many voices. The anti-bombing voices among the American public are rising, and so are voices overseas with a number of different views.

The administration and some Congressmen are focused on the “message” that failing to bomb conveys; they are focused on credibility. But what they are missing is that no matter how this event turns out, all the other voices have been entering the conversation. And they are showing us another facet of this event that dwarfs the credibility concern. Shall this world continue on in the direction it’s going, which has a sole superpower that acts unilaterally, or shall its multipolar character be recognized and acknowledged?

11:28 am on September 7, 2013