UNI-MULTIPOLARITY CONFIGURATION

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                         

  Donald Trump fires a tweet, to the Kremlin to ready itself for American missiles over Syria. The level of tension that generated could not be under-estimated. But then questions arise on the nature of conflicts that are manifested globally based on the configuration of power. Are we glaring into a scene of America’s dominance? What exactly is the role of Russia and its loose alliance in Syria in containing the United States if prompted? Are all players in the game equal?
The question of polarity is highly contested. This article tends to deviate from the widely discussed versions of; unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity by inculcating Samuel Huntington’s less explored concept of uni-multipolarity. This hybrid formation, in comparison to the others seems intimate with the Middle East theatre, in specific the Syrian conflict. The piece will therefore, borrowing from uni-multipolarity, assess the case accordingly.
The United States, dominates globally in all aspects including military, technology, economic power and even the spread of its political ideals but falls short of being an empire. Uni-multipolarity therefore, does not challenge American supremacy. The critical differentiation is in the role of regional powers, which the concept separates them into principal and secondary. These regional powers play a key role in peace and security, hence slicing away the might that the global power can use to resolve conflicts unilaterally.  The propensity of violence in Syria could be as a result of the incessant dominance wars perpetuated by both primary and secondary regional powers. 
Israel, being a close ally of the United States, would come in as a secondary regional power in the Middle East. This is very well augmented by the constant Israel criticism against Turkey and Iran. Consequently, the main regional powers have aligned with the Russians due to “intruder” connotations against The USA. 
Replicating the above conflict world-over, trends that closely resemble America’s re-known policy of off-shore balancing are greatly in display. However, with an increase in the ganging up of main regional powers, like the BRICS, the United States has to critically examine the possibilities of breaking up that club not necessarily through the secondary powers but instigating implosions. The ambition of these main regional players is an avenue for conflict. Their coalitions are by and large, less effective and characterized by loose attachment. 
Before then, any approach that policies should take is one that acknowledges position of the United States not only on a unilateral dimension but also on the strings that mount when the state in context is a secondary regional power. Samuel Huntington’s uni-multipolarity, holds water and better describes the contemporary global relations.