Today, the free and open use of the sea is an important part of our international system. It is codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and ratified by most nations. While the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS, it is still in agreement with almost everything in UNCLOS; there are just some minor issues preventing the U.S. from ratifying it domestically.
Still, the U.S. is the biggest underwriter of UNCLOS, and the enforcement of freedom of navigation is a key operation by the U.S. Navy to ensure that the seas remain free and open for all nations to use.
Of course, this is just one example of how the U.S. serves as the underwriter of international systems. U.S. commitment to the current international system, including the forward-basing of troops in Japan, and others military commitments in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East is another example of how the U.S. is underwriting the security landscape of the current international system.
At the international level, the hegemon is the underwriter of the international system. That is a fact that has not changed since people formed nations, and nations interacted with each other. As the hegemon of our current international system, U.S. commitment toward underwriting the current system serves to ensure the system is stable, and that other nations observe the rules of the system.
And when the hegemon shows signs of weakness, other players may take the opportunity to bend the rules, break them, or even try to establish new ones.
The current international system is a global one, with the U.S. being the sole hegemon. But if the U.S. is not able to continue underwriting this system, as shown by recent moves by the U.S. asking allies to up their levels of commitment (getting NATO nations and Japan to spend more on defence, for example), it is telling the rest of the world that the U.S. can no longer sustain its status of hegemony.
And that is when other players may come in to challenge the current global system.
China does not need to create a new global system. China, and other major players, can just seek to create regional systems that break away from the current global one in order to break U.S. hegemony. A regional system that breaks away from the global system being underwritten by the U.S. will undermine U.S. hegemony, setting the stage for a new global system (which may be a combination of regional systems, or a single universal one). This new system will be underwritten by regional hegemons, or a single global hegemon.
合久必分，分久必合。
China recognises this concept, this fluctuation of coming together and splitting apart. And being able to recognise the shape of things is the first step toward being able to shape them.
The shape of things is changing, and those nations that are able to recognise this change are the ones who are in a better position to adapt to this change.
Still, the U.S. is the biggest underwriter of UNCLOS, and the enforcement of freedom of navigation is a key operation by the U.S. Navy to ensure that the seas remain free and open for all nations to use.
Of course, this is just one example of how the U.S. serves as the underwriter of international systems. U.S. commitment to the current international system, including the forward-basing of troops in Japan, and others military commitments in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East is another example of how the U.S. is underwriting the security landscape of the current international system.
At the international level, the hegemon is the underwriter of the international system. That is a fact that has not changed since people formed nations, and nations interacted with each other. As the hegemon of our current international system, U.S. commitment toward underwriting the current system serves to ensure the system is stable, and that other nations observe the rules of the system.
And when the hegemon shows signs of weakness, other players may take the opportunity to bend the rules, break them, or even try to establish new ones.
The current international system is a global one, with the U.S. being the sole hegemon. But if the U.S. is not able to continue underwriting this system, as shown by recent moves by the U.S. asking allies to up their levels of commitment (getting NATO nations and Japan to spend more on defence, for example), it is telling the rest of the world that the U.S. can no longer sustain its status of hegemony.
And that is when other players may come in to challenge the current global system.
China does not need to create a new global system. China, and other major players, can just seek to create regional systems that break away from the current global one in order to break U.S. hegemony. A regional system that breaks away from the global system being underwritten by the U.S. will undermine U.S. hegemony, setting the stage for a new global system (which may be a combination of regional systems, or a single universal one). This new system will be underwritten by regional hegemons, or a single global hegemon.
合久必分，分久必合。
China recognises this concept, this fluctuation of coming together and splitting apart. And being able to recognise the shape of things is the first step toward being able to shape them.
The shape of things is changing, and those nations that are able to recognise this change are the ones who are in a better position to adapt to this change.
No comments:
Post a Comment