Prologue.(Great Powers in Wonderland)(Critical essay)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"It's a great huge game of chess that's being played--all over the world--if this is the world at all, you know."

DESPITE ALL the talk of a "unipolar moment" after the end of the cold war, the United States is more likely to face a multipolar world, one not only where China and the European Union can be expected to play a greater role, but that is also marked by the resurgence of Japan and Russia; the rise of India, Brazil and Iran; and the emergence of another regional bloc, ASEAN.

Moreover, some of these powers are likely to have quite different orientations toward international affairs than we do, coming either from the former-Communist world or from the developing world. They will often take positions on international issues that diverge from American preferences. And they may believe that they are not adequately represented in the international institutions created in the immediate post-World War II era--the United Nations and the Bretton Woods organizations (the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development).

Nations are considered great powers precisely because the international system, although constraining their freedom of action, cannot entirely determine their behavior. Great powers can choose what kinds of power to develop: military power, economic power, cultural and ideological attractiveness, diplomatic influence or some combination thereof. They can accept the existing balance of power--with the United States as the preeminent actor--and their position within it. They can try to occupy a more influential position within the existing balance--say, perhaps, by trying to replace the United Kingdom as America's newest "special relationship" or by seeking permanent membership in an enlarged UN Security Council. Or they can strive to create a new global or regional order in which they would play a leading or even dominant role--and perhaps minimize or even displace altogether the United States.

And even those who support existing international institutions must choose whether to do so actively--providing needed resources--or whether to act as free riders, benefiting from the "international public goods" those institutions provide while doing little to uphold them. One such example--which may become a contentious issue in the future--is the question of burden sharing in keeping sea-lanes open, combating transnational terrorist movements or enforcing norms ...