- This topic has 5 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
There are a few schools of thought on this – multipolarity (such as pre-WWI Europe), bi-polarity (US-Soviet Cold War), and unipolarity (post-Cold War US) and some others (tripolarity and stuff). The question I ask is under what system is the world more stable? There are some good arguments for and against the stability in bi- or multi- polarity systems. Multipolar theorists will say that the Treaty of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna “prove” that a multipolar system is more stable, but I disagree (look what happened after those treaties!).I go with bi-polarity because there are less wars and the wars are of a smaller scale. I would even argue that unipolarity is more stable as well. What do you all think?BTW, I'm psyched with the grade I just received in the War and Diplomacy I course! This second one looks just as challenging and now we're going to get into some other idealist views if IR. (like post-modernism) It should be um.."interesting" to say the least.
Congrats on your grade in the course! Always a good feeling.It would seem to me that uni-polarity fosters the most global peace and prosperity. This presupposes a peaceful nation which provides the stability. I point to post-Cold War U.S. as an example, and the Pax Romana.
I'm not sure, in light of the world -wide economic conditions, the issues with religious fundementalism, etc., that I agree. Unless we are willing (like Rome) to impose out will on the rest of the world. Perhaps we needed Russia (or need China) to be the other 800 pound gorilla in the room… requiring everyone else to take sides. This allowed for control of the little nations by the two gorillas.Thias raised an interesting question in one of my history classes years ago. I asked the kids after the collapse of the USSR: were we still a superpower? Answers varied. My contention ran along these lines, if Mike Tyson was the only contender for HW Champion does that make him the best? ... or the only?This should get some discussion going, eh?
I'd say there's a difference between being the only contender and beating the other contender to become the #1 super power.
Didn't even consider Pax Romana…good point.I also go with bipolarity because the 2 powers are so much focused on each other that they aren't really worrying about anything else. That's the problem with multipolarity IMHO; too many players, too many conflicting interests.
1 player, no emulation2 players, dog fight3 players, keep an ally3 players seems to be the most balanced one (IMO)
Insert sarcastic comment about systems here 😀I would argue for multi-polar for the simple that reason that the more bases of power there are the fewer chances for a major conflagration there is. What did happen after Westphalia and the Congress system? Europe enjoyed relatively long periods of general peace. You do know that the current international order is still based on Westphalia right? There is a word for unipolar systems, dictatorship. After the fall of the USSR the world was and is more multi-polar than ever although America is the biggest kid on the block to be sure.The better question is what constitutes power, is it military might, economy, culture, sports prowess, or a combination of some all or other attributes? Answer that and then analysis of any systems can begin.
A Realist would answer that question by saying military and economic supremacy is what makes power. And they would be correct.
A Realist would answer that question by saying military and economic supremacy is what makes power. And they would be correct.
Yes, as far as it goes. I think there is much to be said for a superior cultural model as well. But ultimately real power comes from military and economic might. Everything else can be imposed.
What about a three intercontinental super-states who divided the world among themselves after a global war ?I wasn't referring to Orwell in my post but it seems that great minds think alike ... ::) (beware of your replies : BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU)
What about a three intercontinental super-states who divided the world among themselves after a global war ?
What happens if two of them argue, and one of them becomes allies with the third, and the sole remaining super-state starts declining economically? I see a bad moon rising!
What about a three intercontinental super-states who divided the world among themselves after a global war ?
What happens if two of them argue, and one of them becomes allies with the third, and the sole remaining super-state starts declining economically? I see a bad moon rising!
I recall the USSR !
