Explanation of advantages— Science Diplomacy

Arctic Research

S/L Plan K2 Research

Icebreakers are key to polar research

Bement 6

(ARDEN L. BEMENT JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, “U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FRANK LOBIONDO (R-NJ) HOLDS A HEARING ON THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ICEBREAKER REPORT” pg online at proquest//sd)

The Arctic and Antarctic are premier natural laboratories. Their extreme environments and geographically unique settings permit research on fundamental phenomena and processes not feasible elsewhere. Polar research depends heavily on ships capable of operating in ice-covered regions. They serve as research platforms in the Arctic and Southern Oceans and as key components of the logistics chain supporting on- continent research in Antarctica. As a principal source of U.S. support for fundamental research in these regions, NSF is the primary customer of polar icebreaker and ice-strengthened vessel services for scientific research purposes.

Weak polar fleet hinders US arctic science leadership

Jones 6

(ANITA K. JONES, CHAIR, POLAR RESEARCH BOARD, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, “U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FRANK LOBIONDO (R-NJ) HOLDS A HEARING ON THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ICEBREAKER REPORT” pg online at proquest//sd)

We find that the nation continues the need to have the capability to project an active, influential presence for different reasons in the two polar regions. That need is growing in the Arctic. The nation should continue to be a leader in polar-region research. The icebreaker fleet needs to be renewed by building two new ships; a transition from the current diminished capability to a robust icebreaking capability to be planned; U.S. Coast Guard should be budgeted to operate and maintain this multi-mission fleet; and lastly, a presidential decision directory should be issued to reassert our interest, to clearly state what has changed and to clearly align agency responsibility and budgetary authorities. Now, I'd like to elaborate on just a few of these issues. Again, to achieve national purposes, the nation needs to be able to access various sites at different times of the year reliably and at will. And that assured access requires icebreaking ships capable of operating in challenging ice conditions. Over the past couple of decades, the government has deployed a fleet of four icebreakers, three multi-mission ships operated by the Coast Guard. And by multi-mission, I mean that they support the conduct of science as well as the missions of the Coast Guard, homeland security, maritime safety, national security, protection of natural resources. In addition, the National Science Foundation operates a single mission ship that's solely dedicated to scientific research. Today, two of the multi-mission ships, the Polar Star and the Polar Sea, are at the end of their service life, 30 years. Deferred maintenance, absence of an upgrade program to extend their lifetime, and lack of replacement has left the U.S. with a multi-mission fleet of one ship. And the U.S. is at risk of being unable to meet these interests in the polar regions, particularly in the Arctic. In the Arctic, the icepack has thinned and retreated dramatically. This committee anticipates greater human presence in the Arctic with increased economic activity, as you alluded to.

S/L Sci Dip Good

Science diplomacy builds coalitions, creates multilateral applications for soft power and diffuses global conflicts.

Espy, 13 (Nicole, PhD student in Biological Sciences of Public Health at Harvard University, “Science and Diplomacy,” 2/18/13, http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/science-and-diplomacy/)

The daily endeavors of a scientist may seem very distinct from those of a political diplomat. The public may imagine that scientific progress is driven by the work of scientists working methodically and in isolation in laboratories around the world. In contrast, the idea of a political diplomat likely conjures a different image – one that involves groups of politicians forming alliances and guiding negotiations between multiple organizations and nations. But, science is a similarly collaborative effort that often requires coordination between different groups to improve available tools and advance knowledge. Science and diplomacy can even benefit one another. Science can provide the data and frameworks necessary to initiate and inform diplomatic talks while at the same time, diplomacy can create opportunities that improve the way we do science. Science as a topic of Diplomacy Science is at the heart of many international diplomatic discussions. For example, nuclear research has been a hot topic in international politics for the past 60 years. Nuclear research has enabled us to harness the power of nuclear fission for nuclear energy, but it has also resulted in the creation of nuclear arms that have led to a great deal of destruction. To ensure nuclear research continues in a safe and responsible manner, nations have worked together to develop a system of oversight and accountability. These diplomatic efforts have resulted in the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose early slogan was “Atoms for Peace.” This agency provides technical guidelines and assistance to countries for safe use of tools and techniques involving nuclear and radioactive materials. It also attempts to make public the development of nuclear arms programs in countries around the world so that other world leaders can take appropriate action. The International Atomic Energy Agency is a model for how scientists and policy makers can share information and work toward shared interests. Climate change is another major driver of international diplomatic negotiations. The impact of climate change on people’s lives is largely unpredictable and non-uniform across different regions. In response, national leaders similarly vary in their willingness to consent to international agreements concerning means to cut green house gas emissions. While the scientific consensus is that greenhouse-gas emissions are a major cause of global warming, the debate surrounding climate change at the global diplomatic level concerns the methods that should be employed to slow global warming and which countries should carry the brunt of the socioeconomic responsibility. The Kyoto Protocol, written in 1997, was an international agreement that required participating countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The greatest responsibility for these reductions fell on developed countries, like the United States and those in Europe, who emitted much of the greenhouse gas during the 19th and 20th centuries. However, in 2001, the United States withdrew its support of the Protocol, in objection to the quality of the Protocol’s goals, recognizing that rapidly industrializing countries like China and India now emit more greenhouse gases from fossil fuels than high-income countries. Meanwhile, low-income countries, including many island nations soon to be overcome by rising sea levels, want immediate action that will stop climate change and help these countries adapt to future changes. Last November, the United Nations held the Doha Climate Change conference, one of a series of conferences held to devise an internationally supported plan of action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The result was not a consensus on the means and measurements of reducing emissions per country. Instead, the Kyoto Protocol was extended through 2020 and participating countries discussed the right of island nations to be compensated for adaptation costs. Since all 196 countries in the world are a part of this conversation, climate change negotiations are difficult but imperative in the face of the impending effects of climate change. Ultimately, science can help provide the data – models forecasting future climate changes, predicted outcomes of different strategies – that help frame climate change discussions, but decisions on what policy to pursue will require frank and democratic deliberations that balance the needs and interests of all stakeholders. Diplomacy to improve science Sometimes diplomacy is used to make new scientific tools available and to facilitate intellectual exchange. After the Second World War, European scientists in the field of nuclear physics imagined an organization that would increase collaboration across Europe and coordinate cost sharing for the building and maintenance of the facilities this research required. This idea resulted in the formation of the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN. The political negotiations to manage the shared operating costs and the use of CERN facilities, like the Large Hadron Collider, by over half of the world’s physicists from many different nations and academic institutions are now carried out within the CERN framework to manage the shared operating costs and the use of the facilities, like the Large Hadron Collider, by over half of the world’s physicists. This use of diplomacy has enabled many important discoveries, including the most recent discovery of the Higgs Boson. Other organizations that are the result of global collaboration include ITER, former known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, for the development of nuclear fusion for energy production, the Square Kilometre Array for the design of the world’s largest radio telescope, and the International Space Station for space exploration. All of the above organizations have helped scientists overcome technical (and financial) challenges in their respective fields that they would not have surmounted on their own. Science to improve Diplomacy Beyond the contentious subjects of nuclear proliferation and climate change, science can be a tool to improve diplomatic relations between conflicting nations. The former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University Dr. Joseph Nye, Jr., noted that “soft power,” such as international cultural and intellectual collaborations between international groups, helps maintain a positive global attitude between participating nations and can result in favorable political alliances. Scientific collaborations are a powerful example of soft power, since science is internationally respected as an impartial endeavor.

Science diplomacy can prevent conflict and diffuse existing tensions.

Wallin, 10 (Matthew, master’s candidate at in the Public Diplomacy program and Center for Science Diplomacy intern/conference reporter, referencing the remarks of Ernest J. Wilson III, Dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the proceedings of the USC Center of Public Diplomacy’s conference on Science Diplomacy and the Prevention of Conflict, 2/4/10, http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy.org/files/useruploads/u22281/Science%20Diplomacy%20Proceedings.pdf)

In his introductory remarks, Dean Ernest Wilson pointed out that although science diplomacy can be utilized to prevent conflict, it tends to be neglected as an important aspect of diplomacy. Science diplomacy takes place at the intersection of events and trends, and so it doesn’t neatly fit into traditional analytic categories, nor does it fit into the standard and familiar organizational silos. Proposing three areas of analysis for science diplomacy, Wilson outlined the concepts of Context, Curves, and Caution. Contextually, science and technology’s ability to play a larger role in the foreign policy of states is an area that requires careful scrutiny. This field is becoming more pertinent, as can be seen from recent conflicts between Google, Inc. and the People’s Republic of China over Internet access. This example highlights technology companies’ attempts to gain political influence that they believe is commensurate with their economic weight, demonstrating the possible emergence of a new political context where science and technology (S&T) may be augmenting companies’ audiences and constituencies. To demonstrate the concept of Curves, Wilson brought up the previous night’s question about the disaggregation of science. As with science, conflict can be subdivided into different categories, many of which require different tools to achieve lasting and successful resolution. Conflict cannot be modeled as a steady state, but rather as a bell-shaped curve. On the left side, conflict is either non-existent or in a pre-conflict state. Accelerators act to raise the level of conflict to a peak or plateau, and on the right side of the curve, conflict declines. It is subsequently important to understand at which points on the curve science and technology can intervene. On the left side, S&T can help prevent conflict, whereas at the peak it can help reduce it. On the right side, the question remains of how exactly S&T can help sustain the reduction in conflict.

Science research key to future development

Ellis 01 [George, the Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, “Science Research Policy in South Africa”- Royal Society of South Africa, February 14, 2001, http://people.cs.uct.ac.za/~edwin/MyBib/1994-policy.pdf, LS]

Scientific research is one of the fundamental activities of humanity, and having an enquiring mind is what has enable humankind to evolve to its present level ability. To ask questions is to be human. Thus scientific research is not the prerogative of ‘developed countries’ nor of those states rich enough to afford it. It is as essential to being human as enjoying companionship or creating a work of art. It is important that countries create opportunities for fostering this positive aspect of human nature, and that role models exist to inspire youngsters to develop the enquiring minds which civilization is built (Bronowski 1976). Indeed, knowledge and understanding are the basis of welfare; and the knowledge and understanding that underlie technology and medicine can only be attained by research. To a considerable extent we in this country will always be in the position of importing new understanding and technologies from other countries, however it is valuable and important to make our own contribution to such new knowledge where we are in a position to do (cf. Ellis 1993). Furthermore, adapting imported technology to local conditions requires understanding and experience of those conditions, which cannot be imported: it demands a local scientific expertise and research base.

Add-on: Medicine

Antarctic research unlocks resistant species for new medicinal genomics

NRC 11

(Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council, Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, The National Academies Press, 2011. Pg online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13169//sd)

Organisms native to Antarctica have evolved characteristics that allow them to thrive in the region’s harsh conditions. These adaptations include changes in body shape, cardiovascular control, and metabolism that allow organisms to avoid hypothermia or hypoxia (low oxygen levels). For example, because prey is available at great depths in the Southern Ocean, many of the mammal and bird species able to survive in the harsh climate of the Antarctic region have developed the ability to dive deeply, swim under water for long periods, and resurface without suffering damage from low oxygen levels or getting the bends. More information about these specialized biochemical and physiological adaptations could hold the key to understanding and preventing a host of pathological problems that plague humans, such as heart attacks, strokes, and decompression sickness. In addition, learning how life tolerates the extremes of Antarctica could help scientists engineer frost-resistant plants and develop an array of temperature-stable products, from ice cream to vaccines. New tools are emerging that will allow scientists to study the genomics, metagenomics, and proteomics of how life has adapted to survive and proteomics of how life has adapted to survive and prosper in the frigid and inhospitable Antarctic and Southern Ocean environments.

Mutating viruses coming. We should maximize knowledge from medicinal biodiversity to lower the risks.

McNeely ‘6

Jeffrey A McNeely Chief Scientist IUCN. Gland. Switzerland – from the chapter “Risks to People of Losing Medicinal Species” – from the book – Conserving medicinal species : securing a healthy future p. 22-24

Human diseases, and the species to treat them, are influenced profoundly by the global ecosystem changes that are taking place. Urbanisation alters the dynamics of disease transfer as an increased density of hosts typically increases chances of transmission (e.g., influenza); large scale development projects may alter host dynamics or disease dynamics or both (e.g., irrigation projects increasing the incidence of schistosomiasis); climate change may alter the range of vector-bome diseases (e.g., malaria); human expansion into new territories may expose people to newly discovered diseases (e.g., haemorrhagic fevers such as the Ebola virus in Africa); and translocations of ballast water, changes in water temperature and marine pollution may cause toxic red tides which can promote the spread of bacteria and viruses such as those that cause cholera and hepatitis A. Globalisation is, more broadly, bringing with it a series of new threats to both medicinal species and environmental health. Viruses are a particular problem because they are so difficult to cure; while vaccines for viruses such as smallpox, polio, and Yellow fever have proven effective, even very substantial investments to find a cure for AIDS have thus far proven only marginally effective. Even worse, the global changes that are affecting many parts of the world are expected to expand the ranges of many viruses that are potentially dangerous to humans. Moving into wilderness areas brings people into contact with a wider range of viruses, while air travel carries viruses around the globe, as a sort of excess baggage. A particularly worrisome mechanism is genetic exchange between viruses infecting people and wild or domestic animals, with the two viruses picking up genes from each other, enabling the virus to produce a new outer coat and so evade the human immune system (Miller. 1989). This is the main mechanism by which influenza pandemics arise, often involving an influenza virus that infects humans and one that is carried by ducks, including wild ducks, and other species of birds. As humans spread into more nesting areas of wild birds, opportunities for this genetic exchange may increase. As indicated by recent outbreaks of avian influenza in many parts of Asia, this is a very real threat. Becoming part of the global economy appears to have encouraged many people to believe that human health is no longer dependent on a healthy natural world. Health has become a personal issue, with both prevention and cure centred on the individual (McMichael et al. 1999). However, health is also a characteristic of populations, and looking at the issue from the larger perspective of society can lead us in a very different direction. Of course, it is the individual who finally contracts any particular disease, but the risk of doing so is influenced significantly by the ecological context within which the population lives. Climate change is likely to affect the ecology of many diseases and insect and arthropod disease transmitters (vectors) such as those responsible for malaria, dengue, schistosomiasis, yellow fever, onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis. leishmaniasis, and American and African trypanosomiasis. Increases in the incidence of viral tick-borne encephalitis in Sweden have been linked already to recent milder winters and the earlier arrival of spring. Pollution is a significant global change factor that is threatening many species of animals. In the US, for example, some 27% of vertebrates and 66% of the invertebrates on the Federal Endangered Species List are damaged by pollutants; and almost all of the 70 species of threatened mussels are harmed by pollutants (Wilcove et al.. 1998). Agricultural pollutants that enter lakes and rivers as run-off from farming operations are the worst problem (Richter et al; 1997), but the problem of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) affects many plant and animal species. The previous discussion may have left the impression that in some cases animals are disease reservoirs which are best done without, and some wild plants can be even worse (Anderson et al., 2004). However, the loss of medicinal species carries numerous hazards for people. Again, this discussion will introduce briefly a few points for consideration. With the formidable array of threats discussed above, many medicinal species are at significant risk of extinction. Surely, an optimist might argue, alternative medicines can be found, and biotechnology is finding new ways of producing pharmaceuticals that do not necessarily depend on a wild source. But that argument misses the point: the loss of medicinal species can have profound influences on many aspects of human health, of which losing a source of medicine is only the first. While lab researchers are certainly able to discover remarkable pharmaceuticals, nature is even better and many of the pharmacologically active ingredients are highly unlikely to be found in the lab (Chrvian, 2002). For example, the 500 species of cone snails (Conidae) each have an estimated 50-100 distinct toxins to immobilise prey. The toxins are highly selective in their receptor binding sites, making them very valuable to biomedical research, with over 2600 studies published since 1980. However, of the estimated 50,000 conotoxins, only about 100 have been investigated so far, leaving many more to be studied for their benefits to human health. These species are being harvested heavily for both their toxins and their attractive shells, posing a very real threat to the survival of at least some populations. Chrvian et al. (2003) conclude that 'cone snails may contain the largest and most clinically important pharmacopoeia of any genus in nature. To lose them with be a self-destructive act of unparalleled folly." Scientists already know many of the species that have medicinal value, but many more species have not yet been surveyed. While we will never know what we have lost before we knew about it, conserving the maximum biodiversity would seem a sound risk-adverse strategy in maintaining future options.

Those outbreaks risk extinction.

Yule ‘13

(et al; Jeffrey V. Yule – Herbert McElveen Professor of Applied and Natural Sciences At the School of Biological Sciences, Louisiana Tech University, Published April 2^nd – Humanities 2013, 2, 147–159; doi:10.3390/h2020147)

Since the 1940s, humans in industrialized nations have been relatively sheltered from the threat that infectious disease once posed. Modern antibiotics and antivirals have controlled pathogens that once devastated human populations, but these drugs often remain effective only briefly. Unprecedentedly large, dense human populations characteristic of modern societies coupled with rapid global travel create a situation in which emerging pathogens can move much more efficiently between hosts. Rates of future human mortality from emerging infectious diseases may depend on the levels of biodiversity that remain in unpopulated regions, which suggests that protection from novel infectious disease may be what has been, until recently, an overlooked benefit of biodiversity. We have assumed that humanity’s future will unfold in a way that avoids any of a number of global disasters for Homo sapiens sapiens. An equally reasonable but less optimistic assessment could take exception to that position. A variety of things could go badly wrong for humanity. Global human N may not stabilize at or below where it stands now without being pushed there by some form(s) of crisis that result from humans exceeding global K. As a result, anthropogenic factors from the intentionally harmful (e.g., warfare) to the unintentionally disastrous (e.g., agricultural practices leading to topsoil erosion and desertification) could occur singly or in conjunction with one another, with a variety of natural disasters (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes), and with disasters that straddle the boundary of natural and anthropogenic, the sorts of scenarios that otherwise could have been avoided or their impacts lessened with more forethought (e.g., outbreaks of infectious disease that move easily through dense human population centers and cannot be readily treated due to pathogen drug resistance). Although we cannot rule out such eventualities, speculation about the future of humanity is inherently more interesting if it proceeds on the assumption that the species will be at least moderately successful beyond the short- to medium-term. However, it may not, and the potential failure of our species has considerable biological implications.

Add-on: Solar Storms

Arctic research mitigates solar storms—causes grid collapse and economic shocks

NRC 11

(Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council, Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, The National Academies Press, 2011. Pg online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13169//sd)

As society becomes more dependent on space-based technologies such as satellites for communications and navigation, it is becoming more vulnerable to severe space weather events—magnetic storms on the Sun that can spew high-energy particles toward Earth. Space weather can disrupt the proper functioning of Global Positioning System satellites, as well as electrical power distribution at the surface. In 1859, the most powerful solar storm in recorded history caused visible auroras all over the globe and made telegraph systems all over Europe and the United States fail, spark, and catch fire. If such an event were to occur today, it could cause trillions of dollars worth of damage, and many areas of the United States and the rest of the world could be left without electrical power and communications for several months. The alignment of Earth’s magnetic field places the planet’s poles in an optimal position to monitor space weather. The region around the South Pole is an ideal location to monitor changes in space weather, as compared to the North Pole, where shifting sea ice makes building a permanent research station impractical. Increased space weather observations in Antarctica over the next 20 years can improve our ability to predict potentially catastrophic space weather events.

Global economic decline risks nuclear war.

Merlini ‘11

[Cesare Merlini, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome. He served as IAI president from 1979 to 2001. Until 2009, he also occupied the position of executive vice chairman of the Council for the United States and Italy, which he co-founded in 1983. His areas of expertise include transatlantic relations, European integration and nuclear non-proliferation, with particular focus on nuclear science and technology. A Post-Secular World? DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2011.571015 Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions Published in: journal Survival, Volume 53, Issue 2 April 2011 , pages 117 - 130 Publication Frequency: 6 issues per year Download PDF Download PDF (~357 KB) View Related Articles To cite this Article: Merlini, Cesare 'A Post-Secular World?', Survival, 53:2, 117 – 130]

Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.

GPS is key to overall military effectiveness and integrating Net Centric Warfare in the military

Defense Science Task Force 05 [Defense Science Board Task Force, The Defense Science Board provides independent advice to the Secretary of Defense.  The 13 member task force, chaired by Craig Fields and Lydia Thomas, “The Future of the Global Positioning System”, October 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA443573&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

GPS Quietly Underpins Quality of Life and Economic/Military Performance -- GPS represents a quintessential enabling technology – but one whose contributions are not always apparent, recognized or widely publicized. GPS services directly enable improved mobility, warfighting and communications and indirectly enable many other national infrastructure components to function more efficiently, safely and economically than they could in the absence of GPS. These infrastructure components interact to create quality of life for our citizens, enhance safety of life in our enterprises and produce efficiencies that sustain and enhance our economic performance and provide a critical advantage in military actions. Through its contributions, GPS has not only created its own service infrastructure that must be maintained at a high level of robustness and availability, it has also become an indispensable component of many other infrastructures on which our nation depends. These include telecommunications, electrical power distribution, banking and finance, transportation, emergency services, and military operations and involve hundreds of applications whose discrete contributions are virtually impossible to quantify. GPS Brings Safety & Precision to Military Operations – Militarily, GPS provides a constant worldwide source for highly precise position and time, both of which are critical for the safe and efficient conduct of military operations and for a transformation to net-centric operations. GPS enhances interoperability in all aspects of military combat operations because of its common-datum, common-grid, and commontime capabilities. GPS has also been the catalyst for precision operations by increasing individual weapon effectiveness and minimizing collateral damage, a combination relevant to the new Air Force initiative of the Small Diameter Bomb. This new concept requires extremely precise target location and weapon delivery and, consequently, is particularly demanding of accuracy and availability from GPS. GPS Becoming a Global Standard – Internationally, GPS provides significant benefits for civil and scientific users. GPS enables global georeferencing – tying all points to a common grid. Also, GPS observations dominate contributions to realizing the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) - which even Galileo will adhere to.

Military deterrence prevents great-power conflict

Kagan 7 (Robert, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Policy Review, August/Sept, “End of Dreams, Return of History”)

If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough, to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence. Nevertheless, several large powers are now competing for regional predominance, both with the United States and with each other. [..[. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying —  its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe ’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn ’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn ’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.