Theory of Unipolar Politics

Abstract

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has enjoyed unparalleled military power. The international system is therefore unipolar. A quarter of a century later, however, we still possess no theory of unipolarity. Theory of Unipolar Politics provides one. Dr Nuno P. Monteiro answers three of the most important questions about the workings of a unipolar world. Is it durable? Is it peaceful? What is the best grand strategy a unipolar power such as the contemporary United States can implement? In our nuclear world, the power preponderance of the United States is potentially durable but likely to produce frequent conflict. Furthermore, in order to maintain its power preponderance, the United States must remain militarily engaged in the world and accommodate the economic growth of its major competitors, namely, China. This strategy, however, will lead Washington to wage war frequently. In sum, military power preponderance brings significant benefits but is not an unalloyed good.

Solving the nuclear dilemma: Is a world state necessary?

“…This approach, largely unchanged since the Cold War, seeks to maintain stable forms of nuclear deterrence among the major nuclear powers, a process facilitated by moderate arms control measures, the eschewing of offensive weapons arsenals, strategies and missile defence systems, and cooperative and sustained efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to more states (Debs and Monteiro, 2016). This approach is based upon the assumption that deterrence worked during the Cold War and can continue to do so today, but only, or at least ideally, in a stable international order (Harrington, 2016;Monteiro, 2014;Monteiro and Paci, 2017;Pelopidas, 2016;Walker, 2007). In other words, this first solution effectively aims at a freezing of nuclear international politics in its present form, with existing nuclear states maintaining their arsenals (despite rhetoric about disarmament) and preventing other ones from obtaining the bomb.…”

“…In a pre-nuclear age, the United States could wage a Roman-style campaign of global military conquest to impose liberalism worldwide, butand for reasons which Deudney himself spells out precisely in his workthis is a much more formidable task today, since China and Russia possess large nuclear arsenals (see Monteiro, 2014). If the United States chose not to coerce Russia and China, then it could presumably develop an incomplete regime along Deudney's lines, but this solves nothing.…”

Anarchic threats and hegemonic assurances: Japan’s security production in the postwar era

“…Assuming that the system would quickly return to a multipolar structure, these scholars saw Japan as likely to rearm and claim great power status. In fact, the stability and persistence of the unipolar structure has meant that Japan's security interests are better served being allied with the U.S. than arming against it (Brooks and Wohlforth, 2008;Monteiro, 2014;Wohlforth, 1999). 9 Third, this article has illustrated the importance of recognizing that anarchy is not monolithic and the incentives it carries are not uniform (Brooks, 1997).…”

Tracing the modes of China's revisionism in the Indo-Pacific: a comparison with pre-1941 Shōwa Japan

“…Following the Japanese government's purchase of three of the islands, China unleashed a campaign of regular patrols within 12 nautical miles from the islands with its maritime militia to signal its commitment to the defence of the status quo. Nonetheless, since 2013, China and Japan have proved quite capable of managing such tensions: the dispute seems at present to have stabilized (Monteiro, 2014). In the SCS, China has expanded its frontier; today it wields tight military control over most of the Sea.…”