[R-G] The outlook on a triple-superpower world

[Anthony Fenton]

 From the August 22, 2008 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0822/p09s03-coop.html
The outlook on a triple-superpower world
It's time for Russia, China, and the US to work together.
By Helena Cobban

Washington

The tectonic plates of world politics have been shifting for several  
years now, and on Aug. 8 the extent of this shift became plain. In  
Beijing, China held a stunning coming-out party as a world power.  
Meanwhile, 4,000 miles away, Russia invaded neighboring Georgia,  
signaling loud and clear that it would no longer be taken for granted.

Russia is back. China has emerged. Suddenly, the United States isn't  
the world's only superpower.

How will these three big powers interact in the years ahead, and what  
does that mean for all of humanity?

The global architecture that's emerging will be very different from  
the cold war. That was a contest between two big powers with clashing  
visions of how the whole world should be organized, and it centered on  
a very costly – and risky – nuclear arms race. The emerging framework  
will probably be anchored by the three large powers and by four others  
(Europe, Japan, India, and Brazil). And in today's more globalized  
world, raw military power has become much less important; economic and  
"soft" power, more so.

Here's the good news: The interests of the world's leading powers are  
deeply entwined. China and Japan hold large amounts of US debt; Russia  
supplies much of Europe's energy needs; markets, investments, and  
production systems criss-cross national boundaries.

This interdependence makes open warfare among them less likely. A war  
would be devastating for the whole system – especially for the US,  
whose military is stretched very thin and whose economy relies on  
overseas oil and loans.

 From the beginning of the crisis in Georgia, President Bush has  
recognized these facts. He has wisely refrained from doing anything  
there that might lead to a shooting war with Russia. That might not  
seem "right" to many Americans. But Georgia was certainly not  
blameless. Now Washington should work hard for a settlement – possibly  
a broad demilitarization – that can protect both Georgia's borders and  
minority rights.

But our strong concern over Georgia shouldn't distract Americans from  
doing some hard thinking about how to work with both Russia and China  
– and other governments – to address even bigger global challenges:  
nuclear proliferation (especially in Iran), violent transnational  
Islamism, and climate change – not to mention the continuing  
challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When the new Big Three work together on these issues, each will bring  
to the table distinctive strengths, vulnerabilities, and national  
aspirations.

The US brings its record as a longstanding (if now troubled) economic  
powerhouse, its role in creating and sustaining the present world  
system, and its advocacy – some would say hypocritical advocacy – of  
human rights, freedoms, and democratic government. Many Americans  
still feel the US is, in Abraham Lincoln's words, "the last best hope  
of earth."

Russia comes as a country that, having shed an empire along with the  
communist ideas that underlay it, has found a new internal balance –  
fueled by energy wealth – and restored its national pride. For many  
Russians, the 1990s were a time of social upheaval and humiliation at  
the hands of foreigners. Now their main impetus is one of prickly self- 
assertion: "Don't take us for granted again!"

And China comes as a behemoth that has emerged quietly. For all its  
repressive internal policies, Beijing has generally played a softer  
hand externally, relying much more on building economic and cultural  
ties than on military expansion. Many Chinese are proud that their  
rulers have brought their country out of centuries of warlordism,  
poverty, and subjugation by foreigners to its presently powerful  
position. They recognize that this was achieved through engagement  
with other world powers, not open confrontation, and that trend looks  
set to continue.

Is the United Nations strong and flexible enough to host the kinds of  
globe-girdling discussions that now need to be held – among these  
three, but also including the rest of the world's peoples? I believe  
so, though Big Three policymakers will also need to find quieter  
places where they can brainstorm different options, probe one  
another's reactions, and build decent working relationships away from  
the public spotlight.

The UN Security Council will be one key forum where a durable  
settlement for Georgia gets hammered out. Both the US and Russia have  
veto power there, so the focus needs to be on negotiating a consensus  
text that both governments – as well as the people of Georgia – can  
live with. Consensus is also the working rule at the Organization for  
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a 56-nation body that will  
probably also have a key role in midwifing and monitoring the peace  
accords for Georgia.

Do Russia's leaders care much whether they get kicked out of the "G-8"  
or denied entry to the World Trade Organization, as Bush  
administration officials have threatened? I doubt it. But they – and  
the rest of us – should care deeply about finding a way to deal with  
all the issues on today's global agenda without getting into a  
shooting war that would inflict unimaginable harm on us all.

• Helena Cobban, a former Monitor correspondent, is a "Friend in  
Washington" with the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Her  
latest book is "Re-engage! America and the World after Bush."