Um, I'm not clear on how "Nonpolarity" differs from multipolarity in this Richard Haass piece. He writes, "In contrast to multipolarity -- which involves several distinct poles or concentrations of power -- a nonpolar international system is characterized by numerous centers with meaningful power." So the difference is between "several" and "numerous" sources of power? Is this distinction significant enough to warrant the coining of a neologism? More concretely,
Today's world differs in a fundamental way from one of classic multipolarity: there are many more power centers, and quite a few of these poles are not nation-states. Indeed, one of the cardinal features of the contemporary international system is that nation-states have lost their monopoly on power and in some domains their preeminence as well. States are being challenged from above, by regional and global organizations; from below, by militias; and from the side, by a variety of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and corporations. Power is now found in many hands and in many places.
So, the source of power is different and multiplying and thus we have an international system without "poles" at all? Again, I'm not sure how this differs from the strategic thinking behind multipolarity, which assumed a balance of power between states. If power is further diffused today, with no one entity holding a monopoly over another, doesn't that imply a rough balance as well? Haass doesn't think so, concluding that nonpolarity represents a threat to the stability of the international system. I'd like to see more concrete examples of how, exactly, any of these new sources of power will actually cause the international order to disintigrate. How an NGO, for example, represents an existential threat to order? Or the UN, for that matter. Or smaller regional powers. Even terrorism, despite its vast psychological power, doesn't directly threaten the international order -- only states that succumb to fear are capable of that. Obviously, the world is a complicated place. That doesn't imply devolution into chaos.
--Mori Dinauer
