Even though a concert-balance strategy may prove cost effective, may increase cooperation among nations, and allows the United States to retain its world leadership role, I disagree with the author’s conclusion. These benefits will be short lived as long term they are not sustainable, because of cultural and ideological differences, different economic and political objectives, and the rate of leadership change over. The world after World War Two (WWII) has looked towards America for leadership. Even in reset history America has been the leader in such complex issues as; fighting terrorist extremist, piracy off the African coast, Iran and North Korea nuclear ambitions.
First, a concert-balance strategy may prove cost effective, however, long …show more content…
Economy and political interest (sphere of power/influence) would be a challenge in any agreement. For example, China is aspiring to be the dominant superpower is Asia; by creating man made islands on disputed locations outside of its territorial waters. Even after international condemnation they have continued to expand these islands and have even landed the first aircraft (test flight) in one of them.3 This presents an economical problem as some of these man made islands are located in commercial shipping routes. From these islands, China can block commercial shipping lanes and air corridors at will. Russian economical and geopolitical interest in Ukraine (e.g. gas/oil pipelines to Europe) and its continued support for Ukrainian separatist after the toppling of a pro Russia president.4 Eastern Ukraine remains in turmoil as Russian backed separatist lay waist to once thriving cities. How can we have a concert balance with these two superpowers when both countries have different agendas?
Finally, the most important reason I disagree with the author is the rate leadership changes among nations. Most nations leadership to include the president and parliament change over every 4-8 years unless there is a monarchy or a dictator emplace. Change is sometimes good, but change comes with a new set of personalities and interests. Will they continue the status quo or change their country’s
First, a concert-balance strategy may prove cost effective, however, long …show more content…
Economy and political interest (sphere of power/influence) would be a challenge in any agreement. For example, China is aspiring to be the dominant superpower is Asia; by creating man made islands on disputed locations outside of its territorial waters. Even after international condemnation they have continued to expand these islands and have even landed the first aircraft (test flight) in one of them.3 This presents an economical problem as some of these man made islands are located in commercial shipping routes. From these islands, China can block commercial shipping lanes and air corridors at will. Russian economical and geopolitical interest in Ukraine (e.g. gas/oil pipelines to Europe) and its continued support for Ukrainian separatist after the toppling of a pro Russia president.4 Eastern Ukraine remains in turmoil as Russian backed separatist lay waist to once thriving cities. How can we have a concert balance with these two superpowers when both countries have different agendas?
Finally, the most important reason I disagree with the author is the rate leadership changes among nations. Most nations leadership to include the president and parliament change over every 4-8 years unless there is a monarchy or a dictator emplace. Change is sometimes good, but change comes with a new set of personalities and interests. Will they continue the status quo or change their country’s