Bipolarity v Multipolarity Flashcards
what is bipolarity? what is multipolarity?
bipolarity refers to an international system centred around two main poles of power, which are roughly equal in terms of power and influence
whereas multipolarity is an international system centred around at least three or more poles of power
examine the effectiveness of bipolarity and multipolarity in encouraging global stability
neorealist view of bipolarity and multipolarity (potential conflict relationships)
liberal view of bipolarity (unstable, conflict-ridden)
neorealist view of multipolarity (selfish pursuit of power)
liberal view of multipolarity (encourages cooperation)
neorealist view of bipolarity and multipolarity (potential conflict relationships)
neorealists would argue that bipolarity is far more effective in encouraging global stability than multipolarity because in a system of bipolarity there is only one major conflict relationship that is possible, between the two dominant superpowers
however, in a system of multipolarity, there are multiple significant global actors and therefore more potential conflict relationships, which increases the risk of war and reduces global stability
for example, if there were 5 significant powers, that means there is already 10 possible conflict relationships
furthermore, with so many more global powers in a multipolar system, power imbalances are more likely and the powers are motivated to correct these imbalances and gain more and more power for themselves to feel more secure in such an unstable environment where even the smallest shift of power can cause conflict
however, in a bipolar system, there is a massive incentive for the two main powers not to engage in conflict because each power has multiple minor powers attached to it in various alliances
this prevents the superpowers provoking direct conflict with eachother or even engaging in war with a minor state because an attack on one state on the opposing side is considered an attack on them all, resulting in the whole alliance coming to that state’s aid – a situation that neither power sees in its best interest
this was exactly the situation during the period of Cold War bipolarity, in which the USA dominated NATO and the Soviet Union dominated the Warsaw Pact
these two superpowers were militarily balanced and their nuclear weapons, as well as their alliance structures, created a system of mutually assured destruction which effectively deterred conflict because war would destroy both states
this demonstrates that bipolarity tends towards equality and balance, consequently being highly effective in encouraging global stability
liberal view of bipolarity (unstable, conflict-ridden)
however, liberals would argue that bipolarity, especially the bipolarity seen during the Cold War, is far from a stable international system
the Cold War was fraught with conflict, albeit not directly between the USA and USSR on their own land, but conflict still manifested itself in proxy wars across the world
for example, the Chinese Civil War was a war fought between the KMT-led government of the Republic of China and the Communist Party of China, lasting intermittently between 1927 and 1949
the USA supported the KMT, while the USSR supported the Communist Party
conflict also manifested itself in the nuclear arms race, which was fraught with tension and almost led to nuclear war during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis
according to Robert S McNamara, JFK’s defence secretary at the time, “we lucked out, it was luck that saved us”
in other words, the only reason the Cold War stayed ‘cold’ rather than turning ‘hot’ and leading to nuclear destruction was because of the rationality of the leaders and pure chance rather than due to the system of bipolarity itself
rivalries between the USA and USSR were also played out within the UN Security Council through the use of the veto, in which both sides struck down any resolution that they perceived to be against their national interest
during this era, 193 vetoes were used by USSR and USA, essentially rendering the UN as a whole useless and ineffective in maintaining global stability
without the UN able to act, many humanitarian catastrophes were allowed to play out without consequences or action being taken to resolve them
all of these factors seem to suggest that bipolarity does not lead to stability and relative peace, as neorealists would suggest
therefore, bipolarity may not be the most effective system for encouraging global stability, as evidenced by the Cold War
neorealist view of multipolarity (selfish pursuit of power)
neorealists see multipolarity as inherently unstable due to so many power imbalances and potential power-to-power conflicts, as discussed above
they would also argue that in such an insecure and uncertain system, the security dilemma is enhanced as these states are constantly seeking to maximise their own power and test how much power they can accumulate for themselves
this can be seen today with China’s actions in the South China Sea, in which it is seeking to maximise its own power in the region by building up its naval bases and claiming islands as its own
this has created tension with its neighbours, as well as the USA, who have increased their own military capabilities and presence in the region in response to this perceived threat from China
this tension could turn into real conflict, suggesting that multipolar systems are not effective in encouraging global stability
liberal view of multipolarity (encourages cooperation)
however, liberals have a much more optimistic view about multipolarity, arguing that in a system where multiple states are more evenly matched, there is a greater chance for true cooperation between them
they will be incentivised to work together in intergovernmental organisations such as the G7, G20, IMF and WTO, especially since globalisation means that states can no longer isolate themselves from world problems and recognise that they must make collective efforts to solve collective problems like climate change and international terrorism
this can be seen in the achievement of the climate change deal in Paris in 2015, which was the first ever universal, legally binding climate-change deal in which states agreed the long-term goals of keeping the increase in average global temperature to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels
it can also be seen in the fact that most states still abide by the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) and the G20 agreement in 2009 not to resort to protectionism in response to the global economic crisis
this suggests that perhaps multipolarity is the most effective system in fostering global stability
