The International Consequences of 1989

VIENNA: The Soviet Union's termination, which brought to an end the bipolar world, ushered in an era of U.S. hegemony. Hegemony, however, should not be confused with omnipotence. Hegemony is not omnipotence, but is certainly preponderance. As we look into the future, one of the first questions to think about concerns the future of that hegemony.

Is the future of this American hegemony terminal, or is its future transitional? If it is terminal, then, given the present power relations in the world, it can only lead to one alternative, namely international anarchy, because there is no existent system and no possible combination of states that can supplant the role which the United States currently plays. But if it is transitional, then the question arises: transitional to what, and how?

A second great change that took place with end of the Soviet Union is related to this American hegemony. It involved the termination of the great global ideological divide that shaped the course of this century: how to organize society, and how to distribute political power within society. Our century was one of fanatical dogmatism dominated by the desire to create a coercive utopia in the social dimension of human life. The question arising from the end of this conflict is this: what are likely to be the intellectually and emotionally mobilizing forces of political discourse in the future?

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.


By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions.

Log in;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.