Implications of Different Types of Polarity

Question 1

bipolarity: the Cold War era

Answer 1

One of the key questions polarity raises It’s to do with how stable the international system is during a certain power dynamic

The Cold War provides a classic example of a bipolar system in which there are two key and equally matched superpowers competing for global influence

During this period the UN became largely redundant since the Soviet union and USA as a permanent members of the UN Security Council would veto any perceived threats to their own interests

Question 2

bipolarity: the Cold War era

Answer 2

Each superpower also had its own military alliances and client states who support it could rely upon

USA was the leading member of NATO and the Soviet union dominated the Warsaw Pact

In addition Israel had close ties of the USA and Cuba with the Soviet union war both the superpowers continually sought to reduce the others influence in non-aligned states such as Egypt India and Indonesia

Question 3

h

Answer 3

For realists the balance of power explains why international anarchy does not always lead to war the number of polls within the system determines the balance of power and therefore the chance of peace

Question 4

t

Answer 4

Realism sees a global system of international anarchy in which states must rely on themselves for safety and security they must ensure that own survival there is little reason to trust one another state to take advantage of each other and always seek to maximise their own power at the expense of other states

Question 5

y

Answer 5

Uni polarity is a global system where there is only one superpower that is not constrained by any potential rival this superpower has considerable military and economic advantage over all other states very strong prospect of winning wars against weaker rivals

E.g. the USA following the collapse of the USSR

Question 6

t

Answer 6

Bipolar T is a global system where there are two dominant polls or states

E.g. the Cold War the USA and west formed one poll the USSR and the east formed the other

Question 7

y

Answer 7

Multipolarity an international system where there are three or more powers of power

E.g. the great powers that existed before World War II

Question 8

h

Answer 8

hegemon = A state that dominates the whole global system through economic military and structural power dominates in terms of economic and military power so will have the structural power to shape the actions of other states leading to some level of willing consent

Question 9

y

Answer 9

Neo realists believe that peace and stability is far more likely in bipolarity than multipolarity because

There are more opportunities for war in a multipolar system as power in balances are more likely

There is only one conflict relationship existing in a bipolar system and there is massive incentives for the two powers not to fight to powers dominate and minor powers attach themselves to one of the great powers which makes it unlikely for one of the main powers to start conflict with the other main power or any minor power as they be starting conflict with all of its allies to

For example during the Cold War NATO versus Warsaw Pact USA and USSR were military balanced the nuclear weapons created a system of mutually assured destruction which deterred conflict because war would destroy both states

Bipolar systems tend towards balance and equality

Question 10

y

Answer 10

For neorealists in particular bipolar tea is biased in favour of stability and order

Question 11

g

Answer 11

Bipolar systems tend towards a balance of power

During the Cold War the approximate military equality between the USA and the Soviet union inclined both of them towards a strategy of deterrence

Once a condition of mutually assured destruction was achieved the two superpowers affectively cancelled each other out

Question 12

h

Answer 12

Stability of the Cold War bipolar period was guaranteed because there were only two key actors

If you are great powers reduced the possibilities of great power walk but also reduced the chances of miss calculation make it easier to operate An
affective system of deterrence

Question 13

g

Answer 13

Power relationships in the Cold War system were more stable because each block was forced to rely on any resources such as economic and military resources because external means of expanding power were not available

For example following the division of Europe shifting alliances that may have destabilised the balance of power were largely ruled out

Bipolar Arity therefore lead to the long peace between 1945 and 1990 in particular bringing peace to Europe that had been the Crucible of world war twice in the 20th century

Question 14

h

Answer 14

However not all theorists have such a positive view of Cold War bipolarity

One criticism of the bipolar system was that it strengthened imperialist tendencies in both the USA and the USSR because as they were discouraged from direct confrontation with each other each sought to extend or consolidate its control over its own sphere of influence

In the capitalist West this led to neocolonialism US political interference in Latin America and the Vietnam war and in the communist east it resulted in the Warsaw Pact invasion of Hungary in 1956 the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia 1968 and Afghanistan 1979

Question 15

h

Answer 15

A further criticism of bipolarity was that superpower rivalry and a strategy of nuclear deterrence produced conditions of ongoing tension that always threatened to make the Cold War hot

In other words the Cold War may have remained cold more because of Good fortune all the good sense of individual leaders rather than through the structural dynamics of the bipolar system itself

Question 16

h

Answer 16

Miss calculation is far more likely on the multipolarity

In a bipolar world the rules of the global system are far simpler which makes it easier to understand the intentions and capability of the rival superpower

in a multipolar world miss calculation is likely as a state Might miss calculate the capabilities of another state and attempt to coerce or defeat them therefore increasing the chance of war

Question 17

h

Answer 17

Near realism highlights some of the benefits of Cold War bipolarity but struggles to explain its collapse

The image of equilibrium Within the Cold War bipolar system may have been misleading

Arguably the USA had always been the hegemonic power since 1945 with the Soviet union as a Challenger but never as an equal

This was reflected in the fact that while the Soviet union was undoubtedly a military superpower arguably never achieve the status of an economic superpower

The imbalance between its military capacity and its level of economic development always made it vulnerable this vulnerability was exploited by Ronald Reagan’s second Cold War in the 1980s when increased US military spending put massive pressure on the fragile and inefficient Soviet economy providing the context for the Gorbachev reform process that led to the Soviet union relinquishing many of its core strategic achievements notably its military and political domination over Eastern Europe

Question 18

g

Answer 18

The Cold War bipolar system was stable according to realists the balance of power between the Soviet union and the USA created a state of equilibrium which meant that neither side would gain from waging all out war against each other so did not engage in conflict

In his 1987 book the long peace key realist proponent John Lewis Gaddis Argued that the Cold War was a time of relative stability because although there were lesser conflicts there was no direct conflict between the two main powers

conflicts between other powers are also ultimately less likely because all states revolves around the two main ideologies communism and capitalism

The principle of mutually assured destruction meant that neither power would launch a military or nuclear attack on the other both sides had an incentive to avoid war

Question 19

h

Answer 19

Liberals would argue that the Cold War system was on stable since they see the Cold War as a dangerous and turbulent time

Although avoiding direct conflict throughout the entire period both sides tested the resolve of the other through global proxy wars

Mutually assured Destruction was far from stable it nearly ended in nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 according to Robert S McNamara who was John F Kennedy’s defence secretary at the time we lucked out it was luck that saved us

There were no stabilising checks and balances on the superpower given the UN’s ineffectiveness at this time

The UN was rendered ineffective due to both superpowers repeatedly using the vetoes this meant that many UN peacekeeping missions failed on the UN was not able to intervene in many conflicts leading to instability in the global system

Question 20

g

Answer 20

The stability of a unipolar system is widely debated

According to the hegemonic stability theory unipolarity provide stability imbalanced power can produce piece as one state has so much power that no one dare attack it

Furthermore the superpower state may act as the enforcer protecting the political framework that supports the global market preventing war and humanitarian crisis in the interests of all state but also to further its own interests

Question 21

h

Answer 21

However powerful hegemons are constantly striving for more power

Increases fear among other great powers who then follow risky policies to correct the imbalance of power which leads the hegemon to increase its own power to remain dominant which creates a spiral that’s hard to control

This creates instability and an unbalanced and dangerous international system

Question 22

y

Answer 22

When the Soviet union collapsed in 1991 the United States achieved hegemonic status since there was no other state that could globally compete with it

The resulting world order that characterise the end of the Cold War was therefore unipolar

According to Joseph Nye “not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others”

Charles Krauthammer Said that even at its height Britain could always be seriously challenged by the next greatest power Britain had a smaller army than the land powers of Europe and its Navy was equalled by the next two navies combined today American military spending exceeds that of the next 20 countries combined its navy air force and space power are unrivalled its technology is irresistible it is dominant but every measure

Question 23

g

Answer 23

Unipolar world can promote peace but a great deal depends on the attitude with which the rest of the world views the global hegemon

According to the hegemonic stability theory a hegemon which is generally perceived as being benign can act as a global policeman and this will therefore encourage and promote global stability

It can help resolve or at least keep in check conflicts among middle powers and small states

Rome manage this for centuries and in the immediate aftermath of the new world order a similar Pax Americana did seem to have been achieved

American ideals of free market liberal democracy as Francis Fukuyama had argued in the end of history had a triumph and the victory and indeed popularity of America’s economic political and cultural identity seemed assured as other powers bandwagons behind the US in order to secure their protection and avoid their wrath

Just as the Roman hegemony by guaranteeing piece in most of the known world promoted security so did US hegemony

The first Gulf War in 1991 increased US influence and prestige since President George Bush succeeded in using US influence to build a truly global Coalition to liberate Kuwait from Iraq while US forces were also acting out a UN mandate and having liberated Kuwait did not then exceed the mandate by trying to invade Iraq in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein

Question 24

h

Answer 24

Similarly under President Clinton the USA provided leadership in the NATO bombing of both the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo war

In all of these interventions the US was perceived as being a rightful global leader and in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War it was not in any of the interests or capability of any other power to challenge the US hegemonic status

Question 25

y

Answer 25

It can greatly be in the interests of the world to support a global hegemonic since that hegemonic is military political and economic might can guarantee the sort of international stability that is necessary for the free flow of goods and capital which will bring economic advantages to all countries prepared to except the freemarket ideals by which the US economy operates Self interested states with no ideological aversion can therefore successfully freeload off the back of a benign headroom on and it would not be in their interests to challenge this superpower Hegemons can maintain global free trade and promote world economic growth

Question 26

h

Answer 26

However all power concentrated in one state is dangerous the hegemon cannot be held to account and nothing can be done to stop it acting how it pleases This is especially dangerous if it decides to act as a predatory hegemon

Question 27

h

Answer 27

Are unipolar world can also be on stable due to what is called the power transition theory this suggests that the hegemonic status of one state causes resentment amongst emerging powers that with themselves like to be able to achieve their own hegemonic status this is especially likely to be the case if the hegemon seems to be declining in power in anyway Such a dangerous state of affairs arguably provoked the First World War as Germany was emboldened by British failures in the Boer War and challenged what had been the hegemonic status of the United Kingdom Therefore US hegemony was achievable so long is the role was perceived as being that of a relatively benign world policeman however the 2003 war against Iraq rather than guaranteeing US hegemony actually contributed to undermining it since it caused fear and resentment among second-tier powers such as Russia China and France none of whom were prepared to support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq

Question 28

h

Answer 28

The attitude of emerging powers towards the existing hegemon is therefore vital after all if the hegemon is resented and emerging states decided that they can achieve more by challenging it then this would create a very dangerous situation Until now China has been prepared to accept U.S.-led globalisation as benefiting themselves however as the global economic crisis highlights the flaws in the Washington consensus then it is increasingly possible that China will attempt to assert their own economic and political ideals against the US and quite possibly seek to achieve regional leadership in the Pacific The implications for global stability of uni polarity depend on how the attitude of China towards the United States develops — If China is dissatisfied with the way the US is Leading the international system it may well rise up father to challenge it

Question 29

gg

Answer 29

The way in which the Obama administration allows for the Russians to take the initiative over both Ukraine and Syria may have persuaded Russia that the US is no longer prepared to provide global leadership which could lead to a very unstable period of history as both Russia and China seek to expand their influence expecting the US not to react President Trump’s inaugural speech may father have emboldened such attitudes he said we will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first we do not seek to impose our life on anyone

Question 30

g

Answer 30

The radical political philosopher Noam Chomsky Has also argued that hegemonic power can quickly become dangerously malevolent As the hyper power comes to see itself is so powerful but it no longer takes into account the views of other states leading to its self over reaching itself and ignoring world opinion as occurred with the American lead invasion of Iraq in 2003 Chomsky agrees with realism that all states of power maximises and therefore argues that the hegemony can therefore become a rogue superpower which dangerously destabilises global relations as it seeks to accumulate more power for itself in the process creating a dangerous backlash against itself

Question 31

h

Answer 31

According to the power transition theory the largest wars result from challenges to the top position in the status hierarchy when the rising power is surpassing or threatening to surpass the most powerful state At such times power is relatively equally distributed and multipolar and these are the most dangerous time for major wars Status quo powers who are doing well under the old rules will try to maintain them while challenges who feel locked out by the old rules may try to change them According to power transition theory peace among great powers is thus best preserved when one state is firmly in the top position and the position of others in the status hierarchy is clearly defined

Question 32

h

Answer 32

The first gulf war in 1991 provides an excellent example of the benign Hegemon theory in operation When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 President George Bush used the USA is unrivalled global prestige to build a truly global coalition to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi forces under a UN mandate Under President Clinton the USA also provided leadership during the NATO bombing of the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo war In the Middle East President Clinton use the US influence to encourage the acceptance of the Oslo accords between the Palestine Liberation Organisation chairman and Israel’s Prime Minister Significantly the accords which provided the Palestinians with limited self-government were endorsed by both men on the White House lawns under the benevolent gaze of Clinton in 1993 Clinton also played a key role in encouraging the Northern Ireland peace process in the late 1990s in March 2017 Clinton attended the funeral of former deputy first Minister of Ireland Martin McGuinness using the occasion to further encourage both unionist and Republicans to seek peace in the province

Question 33

g

Answer 33

Uni polarity only promotes peace if other states except the hegemony as the dominant force piece depends heavily on the attitudes of the rest of the world and how they view the hegemony if the hegemony is resented and other states may try to challenge it The hegemonic status of one state causes resentment amongst emerging powers create instability if the hegemon is perceived to be declining in power as other states may attempt to take over and challenge the hegemon

Question 34

g

Answer 34

Neorealists see multipolarity as more unstable and dangerous and bipolarity There are more opportunities for war in multipolarity in bipolarity there is only really one potential conflict between the two superpowers but in a multipolar system with five states there is 10 potential power to power conflicts Power imbalances are more frequent and potential for miss calculation is far greater A multipolar system is likely to have five or six centres of power which are not grouped into tight alliances each state therefore follows its own perceived best interests and so the distribution of power continually shifts between them

Question 35

y

Answer 35

In the clash of civilisations Samuel Huntington argued that power is shifting from the long predominant West to non-West civilisations global politics has become multipolar and multi civilisational

Question 36

t

Answer 36

Neorealists like John Mearsheimer Argue that multipolarity is unstable because the system is much more fluid than bipolarity and so there is a constantly shifting balance of power as states seek to maximise their power This creates more fear and uncertainty that the bipolar world especially since with so many players the risk of Possible conflicts is increased Risk-taking is also encouraged as emerging powers such as Russia and China test how much more power they can accumulate for themselves Shifting alliances father create fear resentment and uncertainty has occurred in the lead up to the great war More actors increases the number of possible conflicts and creates higher levels of uncertainty intensifying the security dilemma for all states shifting alliances amongst multiple actors means that changes in power balances are likely to be more frequent and possibly more dramatic this encourages restlessness and ambition making great powers more prone to indiscipline and risk-taking

Question 37

g

Answer 37

Like a unipolar world a multipolar world is therefore unstable because of the dangerous implications of power transition as one country or alliance of countries seeks dominance over the other For example the multipolar system of the late 19th century eventually lead to the First World War as Germany sought to amass more and more power at the expense of the other great powers this occurred again in 1939 when once again Germany sought to alter the balance of power in their favour so provoking Second World War John Mearsheimer Has warned of a back to the future scenario which could make the great power rivalries of the 21st-century every player of the great power rivalries of the 20th century that led to 2 world wars He said that the end of Cold War bipolarity has helped to give the 21st-century world order a conflict prone character as reflected in tensions between the USA and China and renewed assertiveness of Russia

Question 38

h

Answer 38

Today the growing economic and political influence of China in both South America and Africa clearly threatens US influence especially since according to the Monroe doctrine South America should firmly be within the US sphere of influence Similarly US Russian relations have deteriorated as Russia has sought to re-establish influence over near broad democracy is such as Ukraine and Georgia as it senses the waning of US influence it has similarly expanded its influence in the Middle East detecting a power vacuum there which it has been able to step into

Question 39

g

Answer 39

However liberals are much more optimistic about the consequences of multipolarity arguing that without a powerful hegemonic states are more likely to cooperate according to multilateralism As Noam Chomsky argued a hegemon can have a malign influence accumulating more power for itself and even acting as a destabilising rogue superstate With states more evenly matched they can cooperate but only if they appreciate that their best interest are served through working together in multilateral organs of global governance such as the G7G 20 IMF and WTO Globalisation advances this more benign view of multipolarity since nation states increasingly appreciate that their best interests are best achieved through policies and reciprocity whereby they cooperate so that the individual good is bound up with the common good This can be seen with the achievement of the climate change deal in Paris in 2015 the fact that most states abide by the principles of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty 1968 and the G 20 agreement in 2009 not to resort to protectionism in response to the global economic crisis

Question 40

y

Answer 40

The relative security of a multipolar world depends on whether the leading players are prepared to work through international agencies of government whether they prefer to compete within alliance structures

Question 41

h

Answer 41

The growing significance of cyber technology further illustrates that any power with a significant computer category easily achieved within the globalisation of human ingenuity and free passage of computer scientists across the borders could make America’s hegemonic status redundant as a cyber attack could enable a relatively weak state to bring a significantly more powerful one to its knees The way in which the Russians are alleged to have hacked the US presidential election in 2016 is an example of this Furthermore the way in which global news networks such as Al Jazeera and Russia today have increasingly challenged America’s traditional dominance of global news and highlighted US human rights abuses in the war on terror shows how the Internet enables other powers to challenge the American story so challenging US cultural dominance

Question 42

g

Answer 42

As the United States progressively finds its military economic diplomatic and cultural influence is challenged by emerging powers there is no doubt that the world is becoming increasingly multipolar This dispersal of power to the BR ICS and new regional power blocks like the European Union will prove difficult to Reverse While on the UN Security Council the United States increasingly finds itself confronted by a more assertive Russia and China eager to block their liberal ambitions Globalisation has led to the rise of major nonstate actors such as global pressure groups powerful TNCs and think tanks such as the Clinton foundation as well as terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda illustrates how we are progressively living in a post-sovereign state world with a huge dispersal of power which will stop any one state from dominating the rest of the global community

Question 43

h

Answer 43

Liberals were optimistic at the end of the Cold War that there was potential for greater peace and stability now that the UN was more functional without the USA and Russia no longer at loggerheads The liberals this was the time of global corporation which was characterised by more humanitarian interventions and realism is view of bipolarity as stable was for now discredited