NationStates Jolt Archive


Is a unilateral or multilateral world better?

Purly Euclid
25-07-2004, 01:04
There are merits to both of them. In a multilateral world, I've found that it is far more competitive. Wars may be more likely, and generally, the world as a whole rarely prospers. However, there are many advantages. For one, people can eat. For another, wars are often in colonies far away from the main country, being fought either over a colony, or by proxy. Examples are 18th century Europe, and the Cold War era. It was technically multilateral, as I see it, because France and Red China weren't truely part of either side.
Then there's a unilateral world. As I've found, peace and prosperity are the norm within the country. Outside of it, and its sphere of influence, is a different story. Local conflicts seem rampant, occaisonally warranting the attention of the main power. Resentment outside of this power is also high. Examples I've found are the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, and the world today, with the US.
As for a bilateral world, I will include it, but I honestly can't say how one would turn out. There are few historical examples. One of them that I can think of is between the Roman Republic and Carthage, marked by constant strife. This was, however, due to the expansionist desires of Rome. How a new bilateral world will turn out, I cannot say.
This is my extremely brief hypothesis on the matter. I'm too tired to write anything longer.
Purly Euclid
25-07-2004, 01:08
Mods, could you please lock this thread for me? I can't figure out how to delete it. Thanks.