Theory of Unipolar Politics (Cambridge Studies in International Relations, Series Number 132)

This is a well-argued book on the subject of U.S. preponderance and how it came about and why it might continue. It's written from the Structural Realist School perspective, of which the most famous representative is Prof. John Mearsheimer. Nuno Monteiro's arguments are complex and multi-layered. The author is not an ideologue of the U.S. hegemony, but he thinks that the discourse of unipolarity is useful. He writes that the unipolar world structure might be durable but not necessarily peaceful. It is durable because of nuclear weapons and kind of accommodative attitude of the US -- our unipolar power. In my view, his arguments sounds plausible if one presumes unipolarity. But historically, the central institution constituting the international order is still the Balance of power. I think it doesn't jive with unipolarity. I believe, when push comes to shove, the U.S. power is not sufficient to qualify as unipole. Despite the fact that the U.S. military is much bigger and has more power-projection capabilities, both Russia and China possess formidable asymmetrical capabilities, especially access-denial, that could provide an insolvable obstacle to the U.S. military. Second, the US is not an accommodative power. Today the U.S. faces unsolved Russian "lands-in-between" problem in Eastern Europe, while trying simultaneously "Pivot to Asia". The U.S. is involved in intense security competition with Russia over the former Russian spheres of influence inn the post-Soviet space and this dis-accomodation of Russia is pushing Russia towards China. I would say we see an alliance forming. Moreover, the Obama administration has treated Russia not as a serious nuclear power, with its demarcated spheres of interest, but rather a pariah state while lampooning the country and its leaders. More ominously, we had a number of near-collisions between Russian and American ships and aircraft, right near the Russian borders -- the Black sea and the Baltic, where during the Cold war the US planes and ships wouldn't normally go. Enter the US-China relations and pivot to Asia. The security competition between the US and China is heating up, which pushes China to Russia's direction. Ironically, like in Heisenberg principle, pursuit of hegemony, or acting as if the world is unipolar, changes structure creating an opposition. John Mearsheimer warned about this and advocated "US as an off-shore balancer" strategy.The ultimate goal of every state is simply survival. But for Great Powers it's not enough - they want to maximize its share of world power and eventually dominate the system or their region, as Mearsheimer wrote in his classic book. This is the best way to insure survival. History proves his point. The other great powers will balance against it. Unipolarity is not achievable in my view, it might exist, but will never be be long-lived. But kudos to the author for a rigorous analysis and for starting a conversation and advancing an interesting argument. This narrative, which he advances in his book, is extremely important.

I thought this was a well-argued book that took a more comprehensive, middle-ground approach to debating/discussing both the peacefulness and sustainability of American unipolarity. I appreciated that Monteiro isolated a number of possible scenarios and their potential impact on the organization of a unipolar world since the age-old debates between primacists and declinists are getting quite stale in my opinion. While I appreciated Monteiro's more measured analysis, I also enjoyed his return to meta-theory. Ultimately, I strongly side with the quantitative, empirical camp, but I nonetheless found Monteiro's reasoning for a return to grand theory sound and refreshing. However, there was one part of the argument that I found problematic: the distinction between economic growth and geopolitical revisionism. Monteiro makes the argument that maintaining the status quo order while allowing other states to develop economically is the best path towards durable unipolarity. Yet, this strikes me as an artificial distinction in some regards. For example, empirical cases of states moving to expand their territory and/or influence in an effort to achieve autarky or gain access to strategic resources is both an attempt to grow economically and revise the geopolitical status quo. Ultimately, I concluded that this fell under the category of a revisionist state, and thus Monteiro's policy prescriptions regarding allowing economic growth for rising states was irrelevant. Nevertheless, I felt this was a scenario that needed to be addressed more fully, as Monteiro isolates economics and military hard-power (along with nuclear weapons) as his two primary variables in interstate interactions, yet he never really examined how the two interacted. Regardless, I thought this book was insightful and well-argued, adding important insights and lenses to the debate over the sustainability and durability of unipolar systems.