No One’s World

No One’s World

In this book, CFR Senior Fellow Charles A. Kupchan argues that the world is on the cusp of a redistribution of power in which no single state or region will dominate—or govern—the international scene. Teaching notes by the author.

September 8, 2013 10:15 am (EST)

Teaching Notes

Since the early nineteenth century, the West has dominated global politics. But today, the picture is changing. Rising powers—China, India, Brazil, and others—are catching up fast. The world is on the cusp of a redistribution of power that will alter the world's center of gravity. In this book, Charles Kupchan argues that this coming global turn heralds a future of ideological and political diversity, one in which the West will have to compete with alternative poles of power and alternative models of modernity. The result will be no one's world: a twenty-first century in which neither the United States, nor China, nor any other single power or region will dominate—or govern—the international scene.

More From Our Experts

No One's World provides a synthetic reading of global history and its implications for the current era of global change. The book serves as a global guide for the twenty-first century, examining competing political models and proposing a new bargain between the West and emerging powers on issues of governance, legitimacy, and commerce.

More on:

United States

Economics

No One's World is a valuable resource for undergraduate and graduate students in courses on United States foreign policy and national security, contemporary international relations, and globalization.

Teaching Notes Components

Discussion Questions

Courses on U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security

  1. How has domestic political polarization influenced America's position in the international order?
  2. Do you believe that the United States is on course to lose its position as the preeminent global power? Why or why not?
  3. What strategies should the United States pursue to adjust to ongoing changes in the global distribution of power?

Courses on Contemporary International Relations

  1. Do you think the multipolar system predicted in No One's World will be more or less stable than the current international system?
  2. Which of the alternatives to the Western model of liberal democracy discussed in Chapter 5 (autocracy, theocracy, populism) do you believe is most durable and why?
  3. To what extent do a nation's domestic institutions determine its geopolitical alignments?
More From Our Experts

Courses on Globalization

  1. Is globalization likely to lead to the universalization of Western norms and models of governance? If so, why? If not, why not?
  2. Will the increasing economic clout of non-Western nations impede or advance the prospects for an effective system of global governance?
  3. What kind of institutions and modes of governance are best suited to address global problems (e.g. global climate change, infectious disease, transnational terrorism, financial volatility)?

Essay Questions

Courses on U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security

  1. Explain and discuss the strategies in the book for reviving American and European power. Weigh the effectiveness of these strategies, taking into account their repercussions for non-American and European countries.
  2. Discuss changes in the role of the United States in international affairs over the past twenty years. In your analysis, consider whether these changes arose from structural factors, or from specific policy decisions and domestic changes.

More on:

United States

Economics

Courses on Contemporary International Relations

  1. What were the most important factors in the West's rise from 1500 to 1800? Discuss the ways in which these factors were influential.
  2. Discuss shifts in the wielding of international power during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. What were the consequences of these changes?

Courses on Globalization

  1. Why, according to No One's World, should we expect "multiple versions of modernity"? Why does Kupchan expect rising powers to follow distinct paths to governance and prosperity?
  2. What are the most important norms of global governance in the twenty-first century? What can be done to help nations work toward a consensus on adopting these norms?

Further Projects

Op-Ed

Much of China's economic success in recent decades can be attributed to its unique brand of state capitalism. Have students review current news articles and write an op-ed outlining their positions on one of the following questions: What have been the particular benefits and disadvantages of this system for China? Should the United States accommodate, emulate, or condemn the Chinese approach?

Class Debate

Robert Kagan has argued that the United States will maintain its geopolitical primacy for the indefinite future. Have students read selected the chapter "So is the United States in Decline" from Kagan's The World America Made (or his January, 2012 article, "Not Fade Away: The Myth of American Decline," in the New Republic. Organize a debate in which students, as individuals or in small groups, defend either Kagan's position or Kupchan's position as presented in No One's World. Conclude by taking a class vote and leading a discussion on which side debated most persuasively, and why.

Memorandum to the President

Have students assume the role of an adviser to the president, and instruct them to compose a concise memorandum advising the president on: How should the United States honor its commitments to traditional allies, like Japan and Great Britain, in light of the rise of China, India, Russia, and other emerging powers?

Supplemental Materials

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power. New York: Basic, 2012.

Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Avon, 1992.

Gelb, Leslie H. Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

Haass, Richard N. Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America's House in Order. New York: Basic, 2013.

Ikenberry, G. John. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.

Kagan, Robert. "Not Fade Away: The Myth of American Decline." New Republic, February 2, 2012.

Kagan, Robert. The World America Made. New York: Knopf, 2012.

Kaplan, Robert D. The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate. New York: Random House, 2012.`

Kupchan, Charles A. "Second Mates." National Journal, March 17, 2012.

Nye, Joseph S. Jr. The Future of Power. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011.

Zakaria, Fareed. The Post-American World. New York: Norton, 2009.

Visit the Book Page

Download the Teaching Notes

Close

Top Stories on CFR

Europe

On the eighty-first anniversary of D-Day, CFR President Michael Froman and senior fellows discuss the Trump administration’s diminished appetite for engagement in European security affairs—even as the Russia-Ukraine war drags on.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.