[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Many can mostly care for them-selves and tend to their own needs, but don t cut a lot of ice withthe major powers.They generally neither make nor submit todemands.The sixth tier the Bottom Dwellers or Problem States in-cludes about seventy-five states in varying degrees of political oreconomic disarray, or both.Their internal messes and conflictssometimes impel top-tier countries to send in the troops (Afghani-stan and Bosnia), sometimes give humanitarian relief (Bangladesh80 Power Rulesor Indonesia after natural disasters), and sometimes apply diplo-matic pressure to combat human rights violations (Burma and Zim-babwe).They attract large-scale attention from major powers onlywhen they fall apart internally or menace their neighbors.Exam-ples include Sudan, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,Bosnia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Nicaragua, and Burma.Many arethe scenes of civil wars and ethnic cleansing; these states also harborterrorists, engage in cross-border violence, and flirt with economiccollapse, producing refugees and health issues that have the poten-tial to afflict others.Such states have an international voice andeven modest power when their internal woes become so threateningto others as to allow them to lay claims to international resources.Some, like Sierra Leone, which recently concluded a civil war, haverequired and received outside peacekeeping and economic assistanceto prevent a resumption of fighting.Some, like Darfur in Sudan,where the situation is awful, touch Western humanitarian hearts ortrigger fears of terrorism, but don t levitate to become more than sadpolitical topics in top-tier countries.The nations in the last several tiers also extract bits of powerfrom the now widespread practice of multilateral diplomacy wherethe practice of consensus reigns.In forums like world trade, globalwarming, and health, they have a voice.That s because the expec-tation in these multilateral arenas is that every nation should be aplayer and a signatory.Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)often help add weight to the views of these bottom-tier countries.The seventh and final tier consists of the Non-State Actors.Theyinclude refugee and human rights advocacy groups (the NGOs), ter-rorists, the international media, and international business.Theyare a highly disparate bunch in interests and actions, and they oftenact in ways contradictory to one another s interests.They are nowthoroughly intertwined with governments, societies, and individu-als all over the globe and operate worldwide.It s difficult to measuretheir influence, but they dwell everywhere and usually manage toget at least a hearing on big issues and a real voice where their ex-pertise is engaged.The New Pyramid of World Power 81Many NGOs have long operated within countries, but neverapproaching their present numbers or influence.Global commu-nications and the Internet magnify their views as well.Perhaps notwenty-first-century business touches the power of the East IndiaCompany, but there are now tens of thousands of such companies,small and large.These firms have considerable impact on issues di-rectly affecting them.It would be obscene to list terrorist and ex-tremist groups among the NGOs, but they are, nonetheless, Non-State Actors of critical importance.To summarize, the distribution of power in the pyramid lookssomething like this: the United States uniquely has the power tolead, but certainly not to dictate; the second tier, The Eight, can beeither the principal partners or definitive blockers of Washington.All other states in the other layers have sharply varying powers toresist or to help or hurt in subordinate roles.And one final pointabout this pyramid: For all the enormous disparities in influence andthe continuing power advantages of the top tiers, the entire systemtends toward stasis, inaction, and drawn-out pulling and tugging.In other words, there are some good reasons behind the errone-ous conclusions of the world-is-flat crowd.They rightly highlight aslew of historic shifts that have reshaped the distribution and com-position of international power the geographic transfer of powerfrom Europe to Asia, the decline of military power and concomitantrise of economic power, the attendant splintering of power accom-panied by a growing interdependence between and among states,and the sprouting of threats from within rather than between states.Their mistake is in taking their conclusion about the leveling pro-cess to extreme lengths.This process has empowered many statesthat were previously insignificant.But by no measure has it elimi-nated the substantial disparities in power let alone the centralityof power itself, and the power of the United States.The geographic shift of power from Europe to Asia is the mostnoted of these phenomena.Europe ruled the roost for almost 50082 Power Rulesyears, militarily and economically.Now, Asia has most of the world sdynamic economies particularly China, India, and parts of South-east Asia.And the military capabilities of China and Japan rival orexceed those of the major European countries.Of course, Russia,the United Kingdom, and France have nuclear weapons, but so doChina, India, and Pakistan.Paradoxically, this power shift has tended to magnify America sglobal power rather than diminish it.That s because as of this writ-ing, Asians have played a less assertive diplomatic role globally thandid Europe.The major states of Europe historically exercised theirpower globally.Even today, with their power greatly dimmed, theystill make that effort and merit a seat at most bargaining tables.For themost part, however, Asians have thrown their weight around in Asia,and on economic issues [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]