[A. Pole]

"Multi-Polarism" represents a new "Balance of Power" in international affairs and we should do everything we can from giving it legitimacy.

The alternative to the multi-polar world is uni-polar world where one country dominates the others. Can America afford it or should?

[StJacques]

"The alternative to the multi-polar world is uni-polar world where one country dominates the others. Can America afford it or should?"

Actually, the alternative to the "Multi-Polar World," which carries with it an implicit recognition of closed or semi-closed "Spheres of Influence," is an international order in which responsibility for keeping the peace should be shared -- I know that in reality that means we carry the burden, but that's the idea -- and the world is open to commerce and proceeds along the poltical paths of self-determination. The former is stacked against us by definition and is postulated by France, Germany, and others since they have overspent on domestic social programs and cannot compete with us. The latter places what I would consider -- and I am guessing you would agree -- to be a burdensome responsibility to lead the way in keeping the peace, but at least it is a peace that can be kept.

There is a lot at stake in the Ukranian election controversy. We rejected the notion that France and Russia could divide up Iraq between them in 2003 and now we must confront the idea that the Ukraine is a Russian sphere of interest. If the opposition carries the day, the recent tide of events will clearly be with us and against France, Russia, and the rest.