The Gordian Knot

The Gordian Knot

25 Mayıs 2014, 05:13

The Gordian Knot  

by Chevalier des Mots on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 3:15am

Then on to another panel on unipolarity, with several excellent papers. One highlight was University of Chicago Ph.D. student Nuno Monteiro’s paper “Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity is Not Peaceful.” His basic argument is that the dominant state in a unipolar system (i.e., the unipole) will be tempted to try to maintain or improve its advantage, and especially to prevent weak states from acquiring a nuclear deterrent, which the weak state could use to constrain the unipolar's actions. Accordingly, the logic of unipolarity will tend to provoke conflicts between the unipolar and any lesser powers who refuse to accept its dominance.

All those arguments are based on the given concept of "state". It also obviously assumes that this unipolar institution/political-structure will be a state. therefore, it will behave like a state and dominate other states.
But if you remove the concept "state" then you may release the environment for unipolar political structure above SPEE structures which itself is not an SPEE so she has no interest to dominate. Besides it has no competitor, remember it was unipolar. When I have just written this sentence I have also discovered the paradox of the above argument: It starts with "unipolar" I guess an entity with no competitor, then it picks up, creates competitors to re-porove her unipolarity;->
Thank you Professor.
Now I will carry on reading further.
I've read the rest of the message. My above argument applies the rest as well. If I try to express it according to the existing pseudo concept "state": Unipolarity should be considered as an abstraction to the state of States. It shouldn't be used as you use the concept "state". In other words there is no unipolar-state, there is a unipolar political structure born out of States. In fact this unipolarity requires the shift of the concept "state" to SPEE.

It also implies that great powers like the United States have to think about how they can provide credible reassurances to weak states, as a way of making them more willing to cut a deal.

This argument is not compatible with the following axiom of the SATFP, you can't prove this according to the SATFP:
5. States commit morally dubious acts (dubious according to what? The Blog knows) (see axiom 4)(Why this is here? Didn't the Blog declare that SATFP is essencially amoral?)
In other words as long as the US as a "State" she will never be able to provide credible reassurances to any state. This is so according to the axiomas of the SATFP and the concept of "State" which is defined by them implicitly.
Professor! Please while states do not trust their identifiable socio-politico-economic entities how can they provide credible reassurances to other states?That is the knot - the Gordian Knot Professor!
Again what I am trying to say here is a unipolar political structure has to strip off/break the shell of being a State, she matamorphoses to a new political entity. She is no more a State, therefore she has to return all the power that help her to metamorphose to this new entity (unipolar-political-structure(UPS)) to the real owners. Only then she can talk about "credible reassurances to states" meaningfully and convincingly. In that case the SATFP will become crippled to explain the activities of this new political entity UPS. In parctice UPS will have a constitution which will basically defines an SPEE as a socio-politico-economic entity who has all the rights to make her own laws and implement them to her own members with the restriction that she has no right to impose her laws to other SPEEs. With some other restrictions to help identify SPEEs etc. I won't go into the detail of it at this stage. I introduced it to show that UPS has categorically different a Meta-Constitution from SPEEs' constitutions.
Thank you Professor to keep us updated.
Chevalier des Mots.