A question about International Relations

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-17 10:34pm

We're currently living in a uni-polar world (in other words, the US is the only superpower), however it seems the rise of China and the EU, and possibly India means we'll be seeing a multi-polar world in the next couple of decades. Some people think Bi-polar worlds are more inherently stable (IOW the US versus USSR), and the last time there was a multi-polar world we had WW1 and 2.

So the question is simple: of the three, which would you prefer to live under? Of the three, which keeps you up at night? Do you fear a new Cold War between the US and PRC? Or do you think that the US will maintain it's supremacy in world affairs? Some have described the current IR climate as a 'uni polar moment' meaning by it's very nature a uni polar world cannot maintain itself indefinitely; what do you think? Do you think a multi polar world is possible without a repeat occurance of a World War?

I hope this topic generates some discussion.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-09-17 10:43pm

The US will continue to dominate in the near future. China will be increasingly powerful regionaly, unless it collapses. The EU, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be very good at doing anything.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-17 10:47pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:The US will continue to dominate in the near future. China will be increasingly powerful regionaly, unless it collapses. The EU, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be very good at doing anything.

Ah but that isn't the question.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2004-09-17 10:47pm

A uni-polar world, with the entire world united under one government

Anyways, I know there's been some theorizing about how World Wars would be impractical in the future, due to economic ties. Right now, the global economy is heavily interconnected - a depression in Asia or Europe, etc, would have a chain effect across the globe. If war broke out right now, the global economy would go right down the drain - an undesireable thing, indeed. Look at right now how the US is pampering to the PROC - it's because their large population, both existing and potential, is a very large market.

The Europeans have managed to get over their differences to form the EU... If this trend of people exchanging their independence for stronger ties with other nations continues, eventually (Say, 200 years into the future

), a world government might possibly exist.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-09-17 10:57pm

Noe of the three really scare me. A worldwide government however is impossible.

I dont think I would mind a cold war with the PRC, especially because... it would be over so fast...

A multi Polar world would be... interesting. But we cant really redict how it would turn out...

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-09-17 11:06pm

Sorry, lack of sleep catching up with me.

As dominate powers go, we can do a lot worse than the US. Not even Rome has as much power (it still had rivals) at its height. The EU will either collapse or slowly get its shit together. That kind of multipolar world is probably the best for us.

In a US/EU world, the US will be stronger for the forseable future. We will live in a world where one country makes the most important decisions for all of us and the two poles will not be enemies. There will be an alternative when one of the governments acts like an ass.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-09-17 11:10pm

As I see it, the US will probably be dominate for the next centurary, while various factions compete for the number two spot.

I agree, though, that having compitition seems to make things better. If for any other reason, than to define the playing field. Other countries will be glad to align themselves according to gross generalities rather than with just one big guy.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-09-17 11:27pm

Some people think Bi-polar worlds are more inherently stable (IOW the US versus USSR), and the last time there was a multi-polar world we had WW1 and 2.

I dont believe that it's a valid comparison to consider the multi-polar WW2 era versus the bi-polar cold war era simply due to the fact that there was no MAD safeguard to large scale conventional war between the major powers before WW2. That WW2 occurred is not evidence that a multi-polar world leads to world wars in a nuclear era, and that the cold war never became a hot one is not evidence it never would, were there no mutual nuclear deterrant.

Those that favour a bi-polar world argue that since during the cold war, conflicts were confined to "limited wars" of lesser tolls than the world wars (and again, a flawed comparison), it is preferable. I dont accept that "limited" proxy-wars, that merely kill a few million here and there, are a small price to pay. Yet the tolls of the numerous proxy-wars, and cold war related "interventions" is almost written off as negligible.

Another difference in the modern era is that states, the super-power and the soon-to-be superpowers, are significantly more inter-dependent in the age of globalisation than they have been in the past. There is a much greater vested interest in maintaining the peace. As Waltz stated, "War becomes less likely as the costs of war rise in relation to the possible gains.".

Waltz also stated that "In international politics, success leads to failure", and I agree with him - unless the US chooses not to oppose the rise of emerging superpowers as competition, eventually lesser powers will unite to resist the US and topple it from its position as #1. I believe this resistance could only be economic, as the costs of war are much too high. Either way, global supremecy will not last indefinitely.

The question is, will the US attempt to resist the emergence of the other potential superpowers, or accept them as inevitable? I can only hope that the missile defence program is abandoned, or a failure.

Ultimately a multipolar world is more democratic. When the major powers must moderate the pursuit of their own interests versus the interests of their allies in order to ensure their own security, they are forced to take into consideration the interests of a greater portion of humanity than merely their own citizens.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-17 11:44pm

Unipolar under the US or EU. Bi-polar lends itself to backing a bastard because "he's our bastard". If the heavyweights are close to evenly matched they will reach just about anywhere to tip the scales.

Multipolar worlds tend to lead to bi-polar worlds (i.e. 18th century Europe began multipolar and ended with everyone either with Napoleon or against him). The 20th century was multipolar, but quickly progressed to Triple Alliance against Entente. After that you had the world again fall along two poles - axis vs allies.

I'd much rather have a single dominant 'nation' (provided it is somewhat responsible) than go back to the maneuvering where real politik means you have to accept so much crap. Frankly for all the harm the US is capable of doing, it has done precious little. China - no thank you I prefer to have human rights. India? I just do see how they become dominant without China, the US, or EU beating them to the goal.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-18 12:22am

I think the idea of one major world power can be a mixed bag, same for the multi powers world.

In a one power world, we're stuck in step with them. To have a decent economy, we'll have to trade with them and such. Plus, with being the one power, they have no one to answer to. This became evident last year when the US went into Iraq. spurting their WMD crap.

In a multi-power world, each one has to remain competitive. This can mean great things for the economy and it's people. And to a lesser extent their allies. That's only if you don't go the Stalin way of improving a country. That competitive environment forced his 5 year plans, and the horrid reality of Stalinism. Plus, each power will end up spending too much on defense, thus detracting from internal things like social welfare.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-20 02:44am

tharkûn wrote:Unipolar under the US or EU. Bi-polar lends itself to backing a bastard because "he's our bastard". If the heavyweights are close to evenly matched they will reach just about anywhere to tip the scales.

"Backing a bastard" as you put it will be mainstay in international relations regardless of whether or not it's a Uni-polar world, a Multi-polar world or a Bi-polar world. ASEAN has included Burma in it's membership; ASEAN is very much a multi-lateral regional organisation. Burma isn't the greatest place to live if you value such things as human rights.

Concurrent to this, if it is accepted as self-evident that the world is going through a uni-polar 'moment' for the forseeable future then the "backing the bastard" is still rampant - why hasn't anyone done anything about Robert Mugabe? Kim Jong Ill? Other two-bit tyrants?

The truth of the matter is bastards will always be around even if the world is heavily influenced by a single superpower or divided in two between the First and Second worlds, or divided further into muli-lateral regional organisations.

Multipolar worlds tend to lead to bi-polar worlds (i.e. 18th century Europe began multipolar and ended with everyone either with Napoleon or against him).

And then reverted to multi-polar after Napoleon was defeated. Indeed, I doubt it even changed - although everyone ganged up on Napoleon, Britain was a separate Great power of the day, as was Russia, Prussia, and ... I'm forgetting a few. France was a Great Power. This is the landscape of a multi-polar world (although the perspective was decidedly euro-centric of course). For it to be Bi-polar there would HAVE to be two Great Powers, and no more. During the Cold War period there were only - realistically - two superpowers. And after the CW period there is only - again, realistically - one superpower.

The 20th century was multipolar, but quickly progressed to Triple Alliance against Entente. After that you had the world again fall along two poles - axis vs allies.

You're missing the point. The axis was made up of three nations with the desire to become a great power in their own right. The allies was made up of three great powers (and a number of smaller, weaker states that were fighting against the nazis or Japanese). Four if you count the French... but who does?

I'd much rather have a single dominant 'nation' (provided it is somewhat responsible) than go back to the maneuvering where real politik means you have to accept so much crap.

Real politik is there whether it will be a uni-, multi- or bi-polar world. Like it or not, as long as policy makers adopt realist ideology in regards TO their policies you'll always have this bullshit.

But then the question becomes: which 'polar' world helps facilitate the use of co-operation rather than competition (a staple of realist doctrine)? Multi-polar regional organisations like ASEAN promote a great deal of co-operation between themselves while holding non-interference as an important proviso. The UN is another example, however inefficient, of an organistation that seeks multi-lateral co-operation for events and policies. At the same time the USA has an incredible influence in such organisations, so who knows?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-20 02:50am

Gandalf wrote:In a multi-power world, each one has to remain competitive.

Not necessarily. Co-operation is something that has been put forward as a replacement to the CW-era concept of 'states in constant competition'.

This can mean great things for the economy and it's people. And to a lesser extent their allies. That's only if you don't go the Stalin way of improving a country. That competitive environment forced his 5 year plans, and the horrid reality of Stalinism. Plus, each power will end up spending too much on defense, thus detracting from internal things like social welfare.

Again, not necessarily. I don't see how defence spending will be exceptionally high in a multi-polar world, as opposed to a bi-polar world with the delightful nuclear arm's race to make things interesting.

tugbat · Post by **tugbat** » 2004-09-20 02:07pm

May I suggest you read Paul Kennedy's excellent book: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. He explains things superbly.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-22 12:40am

So I take it this topic isn't of interest to anyone else?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-22 09:26pm

Stofsk wrote:
Gandalf wrote:In a multi-power world, each one has to remain competitive.
Not necessarily. Co-operation is something that has been put forward as a replacement to the CW-era concept of 'states in constant competition'.

But with the co-operation, isn't it rather possible that a bi-polar world will occur? With a multi-power world, where some are less powerful than others, wouldn't they be more likely to form up into blocs? Like pre-WW1 Europe.

This can mean great things for the economy and it's people. And to a lesser extent their allies. That's only if you don't go the Stalin way of improving a country. That competitive environment forced his 5 year plans, and the horrid reality of Stalinism. Plus, each power will end up spending too much on defense, thus detracting from internal things like social welfare.
Again, not necessarily. I don't see how defence spending will be exceptionally high in a multi-polar world, as opposed to a bi-polar world with the delightful nuclear arm's race to make things interesting.

I don't see why it wouldn't be, in a multi power world there would be more nations to watch out for. Nations would be vying for that higher status. What better way to get that than with a better military which can be used to influence others?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-22 10:37pm

"Backing a bastard" as you put it will be mainstay in international relations regardless of whether or not it's a Uni-polar world, a Multi-polar world or a Bi-polar world. ASEAN has included Burma in it's membership; ASEAN is very much a multi-lateral regional organisation. Burma isn't the greatest place to live if you value such things as human rights.

You only back a bastard when you have something to gain from it. You tolerate a bastard when you don't wish to pay the price to depose him. You depose a bastard when you either are willing to make the sacrifice or you gain from deposing him. ASEAN was orginally conceived in a bi-polar world and Burma is largely grandfathered through. Frankly though what was last thing ASEAN did to back the Burmese regime, as opposed of just being apathetic?

Concurrent to this, if it is accepted as self-evident that the world is going through a uni-polar 'moment' for the forseeable future then the "backing the bastard" is still rampant - why hasn't anyone done anything about Robert Mugabe? Kim Jong Ill? Other two-bit tyrants?

Because nobody can be assed to. By "backing a bastard" I mean actively aiding them, much as the US did with Latin dictatorships or is argueably doing now with places like Pakistan.

Yes there may still be bastards in a unipolar world, and people might either tolerate or even help them in quid pro quo, but the frequency and degree of such behavior diminishes.

And then reverted to multi-polar after Napoleon was defeated. Indeed, I doubt it even changed - although everyone ganged up on Napoleon, Britain was a separate Great power of the day, as was Russia, Prussia, and ... I'm forgetting a few. France was a Great Power. This is the landscape of a multi-polar world (although the perspective was decidedly euro-centric of course). For it to be Bi-polar there would HAVE to be two Great Powers, and no more. During the Cold War period there were only - realistically - two superpowers. And after the CW period there is only - again, realistically - one superpower.

The great powers would be the British, Russians, and Americans (though they were quite isolationist). Powers would be the Austrians (if not counted as the least of the great powers), Prussians, French, Swedes, and Ottomans - argueably Mexico. As the century progressed France was restored to great power status, and Imperial Germany acheived it as well.

Throughout history consistently multi-polar worlds have given rise to bi-polar wars (WWI, WWII, Napoleon, War of Spanish Succession, War of Austrian succession, 30 years wars, etc.) and at least temporary bi-polar worlds. I can see a mono-polar world being relatively peaceful and stable, I cannot say the same for bi/multi-polar worlds.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-23 07:08am

Gandalf wrote:But with the co-operation, isn't it rather possible that a bi-polar world will occur?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. During the CW both the USA and USSR competed with each other; this was in large part due to both state's foreign policy focusing on international one-upmanship, which in turn was the influence of realist ideology.

Since the end of CW critics of realism have tried putting forward alternatives, such as co-operative policies. An example of this would be, say, the release of Defence white papers with our neighbouring countries - in case you're not aware, a white paper is the 'declassified' version. It essentially gives a brief summation of what is being bought and produced, why it's being bought and produced, how much and how long and how the country views it's place in the region and it's neighbours. This was AFAIK an unthinkable policy for a state like the US or Russia to adopt during the CW, but it is an example of co-operative security.

With a multi-power world, where some are less powerful than others, wouldn't they be more likely to form up into blocs? Like pre-WW1 Europe.

Actually it's about the same. Power blocs formed up in pre-WW1 Europe and post-WW2 Globe, as well as post-CW Globe.

I don't see why it wouldn't be, in a multi power world there would be more nations to watch out for. Nations would be vying for that higher status. What better way to get that than with a better military which can be used to influence others?

Because the theory is the more interdependent countries are with each other (in terms of economy) the more they have to lose in a given conflict, hence the less likely they are to start one.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-09-23 07:17am

tharkûn wrote:ASEAN was orginally conceived in a bi-polar world and Burma is largely grandfathered through. Frankly though what was last thing ASEAN did to back the Burmese regime, as opposed of just being apathetic?

Actually one of ASEAN's core principles is non-interference with member states. Their focus is to create a stable region wherein each member state can feel free to concentrate on domestic and economic growth. It's not so much apathy as it is SOP.

Because nobody can be assed to. By "backing a bastard" I mean actively aiding them, much as the US did with Latin dictatorships or is argueably doing now with places like Pakistan.

What of Saudi Arabia? A country that hates the US, recruiting ground for terrorists, and yet high-profile Saudi businessmen are given a great deal of preferential treatment (I'm mainly thinking of F:9/11).

It's the same in either three option.

Yes there may still be bastards in a unipolar world, and people might either tolerate or even help them in quid pro quo, but the frequency and degree of such behavior diminishes.

Hmm... I'll leave it for now, because I don't know of any examples. But it sounds plausible.

I can see a mono-polar world being relatively peaceful and stable, I cannot say the same for bi/multi-polar worlds.

Then you think the US will continue to be at the top of the pack?