ABSTRACT
International management is a powerful element in the explanation of interventions in international politics and the behaviour of the lone superpower. The concept assists the analysis of outcomes that may affect the structure by changing the distribution of capabilities and examining the development within a unipolar system. As argued in Chapters 2 and 3, the unipolar structure is sensitive to a redistribution of capabilities caused by structurally induced imperatives to the superpower rather than to the testing of strength between competing poles. The lone superpower may behave in a manner that implies ‘overstretching’ and exhaustion and thus challenge the structure, or it may consolidate its position to the extent that international politics become hierarchized. This chapter presents concepts for dealing with the management of world politics in the case of unipolarity, with a focus on the single superpower’s options. The US international management efforts in the post-Cold War era are discussed. The benefit of developing and applying a unipolar approach is that it provides concepts enabling the comparative analysis of post-1989 US international policy; this area of policy has been subjected to changes and characterized by different degrees of intensity and various forms of management. The understanding and explaining of individual events may be similar to or compatible with explanations based on different theoretical approaches. However, a structural approach also contributes to explaining the general patterns and covering the entire unipolar era – across the promotion of a ‘new world order’, neo-conservatism and 9/11. Therefore, the theoretical model needs to address issues regarding unipolar international management in order to forward propositions. How does unipolar management unfold compared to management in other polarities? Will there be more or less management? Under which circumstances is management most probable to occur? And which risks and effects does it produce for the system? While giving birth to the concept of international ‘management’ (as opposed to the ‘government’ characteristic of hierarchically organized systems), Waltz did not exactly define ‘management’ beyond international work done for the sake of the system (Waltz 1979: 197). He emphasized that the incentives for the
great powers to carry out such work is founded in their stakes in the maintenance of the system. As argued below, the single superpower in the unipolar context has a particularly great incentive to manage, together with unique opportunities. Moreover, it becomes difficult to discern between ‘the sake of the system’ and the interests of the great power. The great power does not have to agree with one or more protagonists on what is necessary or worthwhile managing, and it is not prevented from doing so by the competing and contrasting interests of equal adversaries. Still, some conflicts are left alone, some dealt with locally or regionally, and some attract superpower attention. The motives may vary: international political pressure, domestic politics or opportunity. The point is that due to these and other motives, some conflicts and challenges hold the potential to change the system, either by spreading or by inviting rising powers to interfere, thereby strengthening their position. Obviously, international management involves much more than dealing with conflicts and military matters, and the maintenance of position and acting for the sake of the system demand efforts to reproduce its standing in all capabilities. Other areas, such as the economy, climate-related challenges or demographic developments also require management. This chapter focuses on security issues, however, as they relate to the dynamics originating from the international structure. Furthermore, security is to be considered the ‘hard case’; risking the lives of its citizens is the ultimate act a state can carry out in order to preserve or maintain its position. Chapter 6 focuses on the ‘world order’, which covers the conditions of competition as well as the superpower’s political project, thereby contributing to the clarification of how the system works.
