The changing nature of the world order has undermined efforts to reduce conflict, poverty and environmental damage Flashcards
LOA
Introduction → key terms
‘The changing nature of the world order’ in this essay is interpreted as the rise of China and
other great powers in the past decade which have created a more multipolar world order and challenged US hegemony.
What are the three debate themes?
1.Conflict
2. Poverty
3. Environmental damage
P1: Conflict
For →
The shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world has increased competition among great powers, leading to more regional instability.
During the US-led unipolar moment, military dominance deterred conflict initiation.
Now, powers like Russia and China are more regionally assertive:
Russia: military interventions in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014, 2022) to challenge NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe.
China: militarisation of the South China Sea (e.g. artificial islands) has raised tensions with neighbours and the US.
Rise of competing powers has led to:
More proxy wars (e.g. Syria, Israel-Hamas) where major powers back opposing sides, complicating resolution.
Decline in effective mediation, which the US previously led (e.g. Balkan peace in the 1990s).
In Syria: involvement of the US, Russia, and Iran created a stalemate that prevented diplomatic solutions.
In the Israel-Hamas war: Iran backs Hamas, the US supports Israel — polarised support undermines peace talks.
Thucydides Trap: as China rises and threatens US global dominance, the risk of conflict increases due to fear and misjudgement between the two power
P2: Conflict
Against →
US restraint: In the multipolar world, the rise of powers like Russia and China has made the US more cautious about acting unilaterally.
Contrast with unipolar period: During the unipolar period, the US often acted alone (e.g., Iraq War 2003) without broad international support and in defiance of international law.
Shift to isolationism: The rise of competing powers has coincided with the US’s turn toward isolationism, particularly under Trump’s “America First” policy.
This shift led to a scaling back of US involvement in conflicts like Syria and Afghanistan, suggesting that military interventions have decreased.
Economic interdependence: Liberals argue that the global economic interdependence due to globalisation reduces the likelihood of war. The economic costs of war, particularly between major powers like the US and China, are prohibitively high.
Role of international institutions:
UN & WTO: Institutions like the UN and WTO help prevent conflict by promoting interdependence and dialogue, offering frameworks for cooperation that reduce the likelihood of military conflict.
P2: Poverty
For →
Fragmentation: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and AIIB compete with Western-led institutions like the IMF and World Bank, weakening global cooperation.
Strategic interests: Great powers prioritize their economic and geopolitical interests, not just poverty reduction.
Debt-trap diplomacy: China’s loans, like in Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port, lead to strategic leverage, exploiting countries’ debt.
Reputation damage: China’s approach has harmed its global image, with accusations of exploiting poor nations.
P2: Poverty
Against →
More choices: The rise of competing powers offers poorer states more options for development, reducing dependence on Western-led institutions.
Past failures: Under US hegemony, IMF and World Bank loans often required austerity measures, leading to increased poverty, as seen in Nigeria in the 1980s.
Alternative loans: Countries now have access to AIIB loans, offering more favorable terms and greater flexibility in loan conditions.
Learning from China: Developing countries can adopt China’s state-managed capitalism model, which has lifted millions out of poverty.
Example: Ethiopia used China’s strategy, focusing on infrastructure and industrial parks, reducing poverty from 44% to 23% in recent years.
P3: Environmental damage
For →
US withdrawal: The US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under Trump weakened global leadership on climate action and fragmented efforts to combat climate change.
Lack of enforcement: The absence of US hegemony has made it harder to implement and enforce binding agreements on emissions reductions.
Economic growth prioritised: In a multipolar world, states like China and India prioritize economic growth over climate commitments, undermining efforts to address climate change.
Failed promises: Developed countries pledged $100 billion annually to support developing nations in climate mitigation (2009), but have consistently missed this target, showing the failure of IGOs to compel compliance.
P3: Environmental damage
Against →
Technological innovation: The rise of competition among powers in a multipolar world has driven innovation in green technologies.
China’s leadership: China has become a global leader in renewable energy, producing over 80% of the world’s solar panels and having the largest capacity for wind and solar power.
Electric vehicles: China also dominates the electric vehicle market, accounting for more than half of global EV sales and controlling key battery components like lithium and cobalt.
EU leadership: The European Union continues to drive ambitious climate goals, including carbon neutrality by 2050, showing that regional efforts can still foster climate action.
Overall argument
Poverty Reduction:
China’s model offers alternatives to neoliberalism, helping countries like Ethiopia reduce poverty through state-led growth.
Increased Conflict:
Multipolarity has led to greater competition and regional instability, seen in Russia’s actions in Ukraine and China’s assertiveness.
Environmental Damage:
Global climate efforts have stalled, with major powers prioritizing economic growth over environmental targets (e.g., US withdrawal from Paris Agreement).
Conclusion:
The shift to a multipolar world has reduced poverty but has worsened conflict and environmental damage.
