Does Multipolarity Lead to Stability? Flashcards
arguments suggesting that a multipolar world encourages peace and stability in the international order
not having multiple actors is dangerous
states are evenly matched, encourages cooperation
accountability
arguments suggesting that a multipolar world does NOT encourage peace and stability in the international order
multiple actors leads to more potential conflict relationships
multipolarity encourages the selfish pursuit of power
greater potential for miscalculation
not having multiple actors is dangerous
MULTIPLE ACTORS
Not having multiple actors leads the two superpowers to compete for hegemony – 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
multiple actors leads to more potential conflict relationships
MULTIPLE ACTORS
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.
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
states are evenly matched, encourages cooperation
EVENLY MATCHED STATES
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.
multipolarity encourages the selfish pursuit of power
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
Realist view of human nature and states – selfish, pursue power, etc – which is encouraged in a multipolar system
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
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
accountability
ACCOUNTABILITY
Multiple states means they can all hold eachother to account
In contrast, 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
greater potential for miscalculation
MISCALCULATION
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
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
Shifting alliances father create fear resentment and uncertainty has occurred in the lead up to the great war
