I agree that the power the US can exercise should be checked by other powers (the desired "benefit" of multi polarity), but I also think the idea of promoting "rule of law" needs to be the frame of conversation.
"What pole of power do you belong to" is a very different question than "what is justice?"
> If you account at all for the inherent advantages of a unipolar world, the US's record is shockingly poor.
I think this statement isn't very well thought out or at least not well founded or self evident.
It's also important to understand that peace is not the absence of physical violence, but the presence of justice. Justice sometimes cannot be achieved without a fight.
> disturb the trivial-to-maintain peace
The "peace" between African slaves and American plantation owners was probably fairly easy to maintain. That doesn't make it a good "peace".
China is exercising coercive power over Taiwan. Are they at peace?
The problem is that multipolarity is often meant to mean spheres of influence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence). Which is just imperialism by another name.
I agree that the power the US can exercise should be checked by other powers (the desired "benefit" of multi polarity), but I also think the idea of promoting "rule of law" needs to be the frame of conversation.
"What pole of power do you belong to" is a very different question than "what is justice?"
> If you account at all for the inherent advantages of a unipolar world, the US's record is shockingly poor.
I think this statement isn't very well thought out or at least not well founded or self evident.
It's also important to understand that peace is not the absence of physical violence, but the presence of justice. Justice sometimes cannot be achieved without a fight.
> disturb the trivial-to-maintain peace
The "peace" between African slaves and American plantation owners was probably fairly easy to maintain. That doesn't make it a good "peace".
China is exercising coercive power over Taiwan. Are they at peace?