Porter's case for a multipolar world and shared American power

¶ … monograph, Porter argues that it is imperative for the U.S. to rethink its dominance in maintaining global order.[footnoteRef:1] Against the background of events such as the global financial crisis, gruelling wars, diminished American power, and the increased economic strength of the East, it is increasingly becoming unsustainable for the U.S. to continue being the custodian of order in the world. In place of a unipolar superpower, Porter advocates for a multipolar world, where there is greater collaboration between the U.S. and other major powers.[footnoteRef:2] In other words, it is crucial for the U.S. to share global dominance with other powers, and allow other states to rise. It must retrench its military commitments around the world and focus its military more on homeland defence. By reducing its military presence in the globe and collaborating more with other major powers, the U.S. can minimise its burden of maintaining world order, become freer, and most importantly, lower costs. The rationale for the U.S. to shift its grand strategy particularly emanates from the increased need for international collaboration in addressing transnational problems, greater unwillingness on the part of states to be involved in rampant rivalry, as well as primacy exhaustion in the American people.[footnoteRef:3] [1: Patrick Porter, Sharing power? Prospects for a U.S. concert-balance strategy (Strategic Studies Institute, April 2013), 66.] [2: Porter, vii.] [3: Porter, viii.]

Shifting from primacy, however, presents significant difficulties. On one hand, reduced hegemony on the part of the U.S. and too much collaboration with other major powers can create a precarious power void characterised by \"costly rivalries and confrontations\".[footnoteRef:4] It may particularly lead to the emergence regional blocs. On the other hand, holding on to hegemony means too much competition, which can result in unnecessary clashes between the U.S. and states fighting for regional hegemony.[footnoteRef:5] Even so, these difficulties can be avoided by ensuring a gradual shift from the status quo to the new strategy.[footnoteRef:6] Shifting to the new strategy is without a doubt not a straightforward undertaking as one may think -- it encompasses a great deal of complexities, hence the need for slow, carefully planned implementation. More importantly, a balance should be struck between primacy and cooperation. If power is to be successfully redistributed internationally, the major powers can learn to work together, while at the same time maintaining their ability to counter any possible aggressor.[footnoteRef:7] On the whole, a grand strategic shift requires a thorough evaluation of the associated benefits and dilemmas. [4: Porter, 68.] [5: Patrick Porter, Sharing power? Prospects for a U.S. concert-balance strategy (Strategic Studies Institute, April 2013), 66.] [6: Porter, 67.] [7: Porter, 66.]

While there could be some validity in Porter\'s argument, the U.S. cannot afford to lose its world leadership role. Even though China, Japan, Russia, and other states have increasingly gained immense power, it is unlikely that America\'s hegemony will end any time soon. First, the decline of American hegemony is often foretold using raw data rather than international ties. Whereas military, economic, and public opinion data may matter, international legitimacy plays a more important role in determining global hegemony. Arguably, no country beats the U.S. in terms of international legitimacy. The U.S. has without a doubt won the global community in its entirety. It enjoys a level of allegiance not enjoyed by any other country, making it highly unlikely for its international primacy to end any time soon. So long as the strong international relationships the U.S. enjoys remain, it will remain the world\'s superpower. It will continue influencing international law and politics.

On account of its international allegiance, Porter\'s argument that the U.S. should scale back its global military commitments is quite farfetched. If the U.S. retrenched its military efforts, the negative consequences would most likely surpass the positive consequences. Indeed, the military role played by the U.S. in the international stage cannot be overemphasised. Other states may not effectively counter aggressors without the support of the U.S. An ideal example is France\'s incursion in Mali in 2012. Without the seamless support of the U.S., France may not have successfully thwarted the Islamic militants. Therefore, it is somewhat pretentious to argue for a reduced role of the U.S. in global order.