7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 1/22
Power inglobal politics
The Specifcation requirements are as ollows. Candidates need to have
thorough knowledge and understanding o the ollowing:
GLOBAL ORDER
The
nature o power
power as capacity (military strength; economic development; population size; level of
literacy and skills; geographical factors, etc); structural power (ability to affect the ‘rules of
the game, influence via organisations and international regimes);
‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power (ability to reward or punish (military/economic power) vs cooptive
power;
!he growing importance of soft power; rise of ‘smart’ power), etc"
#lassification of states $ great powers (features of; e%amples); superpowers (features
of; e%amples); hegemon and hegemony (features of, e%amples); emerging powers (features
of, e%amples), etc"
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 2/22
&ebating decline of military power $ decline of interstate war and rise of economic
power (impact of globalization, etc); difficulty of resolving conflict by military means
(‘intractable’ terrorist threats, insurgency or ‘new’ wars, etc); military power as irreducible
core of state sovereignty;
!he need to respond to new security threats, etc"
Changing nature o world order
Cold War world order $ #old 'ar bipolarity; implications of bipolarity (structural
dynamics of bipolarity; balanceofpower theory); #old 'ar ‘balance of terror’);
collapse of the #old 'ar (role of ‘new’ #old 'ar and eaganite anticommunism; structural
weakness of oviet communism;
role of *orbachev and oviet reformers; significance for realism and liberalism)"
( +ote historical -uestions will not be set on the rise and fall of #old 'ar bipolarity")
.ost#old 'ar world order $ !he ‘new world order‘ (the ‘liberal moment’); fate of the
‘new world order (rise of ethnic conflict and civil wars, etc)"
hegemony and world order $ nature of hegemony; rise of hegemony (basis of
power; neoconservative pro0ect for unipolar world);
implications of unipolarity (tendency towards unilateralism; benign hegemony (hegemonic
stability theory, .a% 1mericana, etc) vs oppressive or ‘predatory’ hegemony (1merican
empire, #homsky, etc);
implications of ‘war on terror’ for world order; decline of power2 (loss of ‘soft’ power;
ineffectiveness of ‘hard’ power; decline of relative economic power, etc)"
21st century world order $ rise of multipolarity; nature and structural dynamics
of multipolarity (global conflict and instability (anarchic multipolarity) vs peace
and reconciliation (multilateral multipolarity);
implications of rise of China and 3ndia and revival of Russia tendencies (#hina as a
superpower (the new hegemon2);
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 3/22
possibility of conflict between the USA and #hina; shift from 'est to 4ast; ma0or powers
and ‘new’ #old 'ar (ussia vs the 'est2); democracy vs authoritarianism; implications of
globalization for world order; impact of global economic crisis on balance of power, etc"
Bipolarit • A concept !ost co!!onl associated with the cold war era "c#$%&'($%&%)
• *he structure and de+elop!ent of the international sste! was hea+il
shaped and in,uenced b superpower relations during the cold war period
• Each of the two !ain blocs was organised according to power- ideolog
and regi!es
• Bipolarit assu!es a .ero su! conception of power and /nternational
Relations
• *he concept of bipolarit e0ists in distinction to the concept of
!ultipolarit where there are a !ini!u! of three and perhaps !an !ore
spheres of in,uence
• /n !ilitar ter! the two blocs possessed enor!ous capabilit which in
for!ed the idea of 1AD# /t is so!eti!es argued that this mutually
assured destruction pre+ented the cold war fro! escalating into a 2hot3
one
• 4owe+er- there were !ilitar e0changes between east and west- !ost
notabl those which too5 place in 6orea- 7ietna!- Africa and Latin
A!erica o+er !ost of the period of the cold war# 4ere the superpowers
either sought to !aintain or e0tend their spheres of in,uence#
• /t is also the case that the concept o+eresti!ates the degree of internal
cohesion within the blocs# /t should be re!e!bered that 8rench 9 U#S#
relations ha+e often been strained and that 8rance left :A*O in $%;;# Also
*he So+iet Union used tan5s to crush popular rebellions in 4ungar in
$%'; and in C.echoslo+a5ia in $%;<#
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 4/22
• *he concept itself is so!ewhat ,awed as it lac5s a perspecti+e on other
international de+elop!ents such as de(colonisation and
underde+elop!ent#
Past Questions:
15
!o what e%tent was the 6ipolar 3nternational order more stable than the multipolar order2
'hen, and in what ways, was international politics best seen as bipolar2
4ssay
'hat are the implications of 6ipolarity and multipolarity for global order2
Multipolarity
• A tpe of international sste! with a !ini!u! of three actors with
substantial power potential to act upon and shape the international order
• *hese actors could be states but e=uall blocs or coalitions
• Walt. "$%>%) argued that international sste!s characterised b
!ultipolarit- rather than bipolarit are inherentl unstable
• *he criteria for substantial power potential are as follows?
MILITARY STRENGTH
WEALTH AND ECONOMIC OWER
OLITICAL AND DILOMATIC IN!L"ENCE
C"LT"RAL IN!L"ENCE
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 5/22
'here a state or non state actor can act upon and shape the international system in all of
these areas it may be regarded possessing superpower or polar potential" 'here a minimum
of three actors has this range of influence then the international order is characterised as
multipolar"
• *he abo+e criteria are also indices of superpower status but again all four
are re=uired
• Whereas as bipolarit concentrates on east 9west issues as the basis for
the international order a
multipolar approach e%amines a wider range of issues such as :orthern
4e!isphere dominance over the global economy as being e-ually important in shaping the
international order"
• Argu!ents ha+e surfaced that the international order is less !ultipolar
than it is unipolar with the United States the one re!aining superpower# /n
!ilitar ter!s U#S# hege!on is un=uestioned as is its desire and intent to
use it# @ressure groups with close ties to the Bush White 4ouse ha+e
founded *he 2:ew A!erican Centur
“…Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American
Centr! is a non"pro#t, edcational organi$ation whose goal is to
promote American global leadership…%
• *he end of the cold war has pro!pted a debate o+er whether we are now
entering an inherentl unstable !ultipolar international order# *he !atter
is e0tre!el co!ple0# /n econo!ic ter!s the EU- apan and the U#S# are
seen as the 5e poles with other actors such as the 2tiger econo!ies3
possessingnear #ole status#
• Regional powers such as @a5istan can e0ert tre!endous in,uence on the
international order especiall where the are seen to be +ital to the
strategic interests of the U#S#A#
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 6/22
• *he transition fro! a bipolar to a !ultipolar era predates the end of the
cold war# *here is the =uestion of whether this in !ore or less stable than
the era of bipolarit
Past Questions:
15
3s 3nternational politics now multipolar2
4ssay
'hat are the implications of 6ipolarity and multipolarity for global order2
Unipolarity
• E+ans "$%%<) denes unipolarit as
“ …a t!pe of s!stem or strctre with one pole or polar actor being
identi#ed as predominant in shaping and in&encing the international
order…%
• An actor being denes as an entit which plas an identiable role in
international relations# Although the ter! lac5s precision it possesses
sucient ,e0ibilit and scope to o+erco!e the li!itations of the
ter! state#
• *he unipolar actor need not be a state# 4istoricall the ha+e tended to be
!ultinational e!pires#
• Unipolar sste!s are li5el to be stable where there is widespread
consensus throughout the sste! as argued b $e%emonial sta&ilityt$eory'
• *he ending of the cold war has pro!pted so!e speculation that the U#S# is
now the onl superpower and in its willingness to e0ert this power and
in,uence to shape the international order it is the centre of a unipolar
order#
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 7/22
• At the end of the cold war 8rancis 8u5ua!a wrote that we are at the 2
end of histor3 where econo!ic liberalis! and liberal de!ocrac would
triu!ph and spread across the globe#
•E=uall howe+er the 2end of histor thesis3 could Fust as easil pro+idethe underpinnings of a !ultipolar order in international relations#
• *he real =uestion is the e0tent of A!erican !ilitar- econo!ic- diplo!atic-
political and cultural in,uence across the globe and the intent of the U#S#
in the e0ercise of such power whether unilaterall or in concert with other
actors "!ultilateralis!)#
• 'atch Ptin, (ssia and the 'est
• @utin- Russia *he West• !"T T#$%% $%&"S"'! () T'*"C: +,'(-, '$%$ /%ST"'!S.
• Short -nswer /uestions
• 0hat are the implications o ipolarity or gloal order 314
5arks6
• 3n a bipolar international system two states or two coalitions of states dominate"
• 6ipolarity is mainly associated with the Cold War period as the international
system revolved around two superpowers, the USSR and the 1"
• 7ther states defined their foreign policies in terms of their relationships with the
superpowers"
• 3nternational systems are sub0ect to change, and some analysts argue that the
increased permanence of alliances leading to bipolarity make ma0or conflicts
inevitable"
• 3nstitutions designed to ensure peace in a !ultipolar world such as the 8eague of
+ations and the United :ations then become impotent as the bipolar blocs prepare
for conflict"
• 9owever it is also argued that there is too much fle%ibility in a multipolar system and
peace depends on the willingness of states to form alliances when their national
interest may suggest neutrality or isolation is preferred"
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 8/22
• 1rguably the bipolar #old 'ar proved that a tense peace is preferable to the conflicts
found under multipolarity"
• 17: #omprehensive and detailed knowledge and understanding of bipolarity as a
concept in global politics" nowledge of the impact of bipolarity on global order,using e%amples, and in particular knowledge of the confrontational international
system that develops with rival power blocs and a zerosum power struggle"
• 17< ophisticated analysis of the impact of bipolarity on the international system"
1nswers will assess the argument that bipolarity brings security because
international relations are dominated by two powers or power blocs" &iscussion will
also analyse the e%tent to which bipolarity makes conflict more likely because of
inevitable confrontation between the superpowers" 7f course, nuclear weapons and
=1& have made the argument that bipolarity makes conflict inevitable redundant"
• #ow does gloal governance di7er rom world government
• *overnance, broadly, refers to the various ways in which social life is coordinated, of
which government is merely one"
• *lobal governance refers to the various processes through which decisionmaking
and cooperation at a global level is facilitated, operating through multilateral
systems of regulation"
• 1t the heart of the emerging system of global governance is the + and its various
bodies, together with the institutions of global economic governance, notably the
'!7, the World Ban5 and the 3=>"
• ather than imposing their will on individual states, the processes provide the
framework for the development of intergovernmental relationships, reflecting a
growing acceptance of global interdependence"
• *lobal governance does not only involve intergovernmental bodies, but also the
participation of nongovernmental actors such as +*7s, national corporations,
global capital markets, citizens’ movements and so on"
• 'orld government, by contrast, refers to the idea of centralised authority operating
through a single, supranational body"
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 9/22
• trictly speaking, such a government would involve the establishment of a monopoly
of the use of force worldwide, as well as the surrendering of sovereignty by individual
states"
•9owever, the most versions of world government are based on the idea of worldfederalism, in which the central authority is vested with supreme authority in
relation to certain functions, while state governments continue to have 0urisdiction in
relation to other functions"
• 'hile global governance aims to containing the pressures generated by anarchy,
world government would banish anarchy altogether by establishing and enforcing an
international rule of law, sometimes seen as world law"
• 1lthough the 8eague of +ations and the nited +ations were often presented asearly prototypes of world government, neither has come close to realising this goal"
• efne hegemony8 and e9plain its signifcance or gloal order.
• 9egemony, in broader terms, means dominance or leadership" 'ithin the
international system, a state may be considered a ‘hegemon’ if it is so powerful
economically and militarily that it is a dominant influence on the domestic and
foreign policies of other states"
• >ollowing *ramsci, hegemony also implies ideological leadership and the
domination of an actor’s values and ideas, creating ‘hegemonic consent’ amongst
other actors"
• 3t is possible to have a regional hegemon or a global hegemon (as many believe the
1 has been since the end of the #old 'ar)"
• 9egemony may have one of two implications for global order" ealists and some neo
liberals have argued that a hegemon is necessary to create stability and order within
a liberal market economy, thereby bringing benefit to all the states within such an
economy"
• 3t does this by enforcing the rules of the economic game, the 1 could be said to do
this through the role of the dollar as an international currency and by its influence
over the institutions of global economic governance"
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 10/22
• !his is called hegemonic stability theory"
• 6y contrast, hegemony can be said to stimulate resentment and hostility, particularly
amongst secondlevel powers, who may have an incentive to unite to undermine the
hegemonic power"
• 3n this case, hegemony may lead to conflict and disorder, possibly through shifting
patterns of alliances" 9egemonic powers remain dominant in part through their
ability to prevent antihegemonic alliances being formed amongst secondlevel
powers"
• 'hat is the balance of power, and how effective is it in preventing war2
•
!he balance of power can be defined in a variety of different ways, including thefollowing
• 1n even distribution of power between rival power blocs"
• !he e%isting distribution of power, which may be even or uneven" 1 policy designed
to
achieve an even or more even balance of power"
• 1n inherent tendency in international politics to produce an even distribution of
power"
• ?iews about the capacity of the balance of power to prevent war diverge, however
• ealists argue that the balance of power is the surest, and perhaps only, guarantee
that war can be avoided"
• 3ts value is that an even distribution of power, whether brought about naturally or as
a conse-uence of statecraft, prevents the triumph of dominant powers"
• .owers will be deterred from attacking others only if they have reason to believe they
will be unsuccessful"
• 8iberals, on the other hand, believe that the balance of power merely legitimises state
egoism and fosters the growth of military power"
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 11/22
• 3n this view, the balance of power is a cause of intensifying tension and possibly war,
based upon a mindset of competition, rivalry and distrust"
• 0hat are the implications o ipolarity or gloal order 314
marks6• 6ipolarity is the tendency for the international system to revolve around two poles
(ma0or power blocs)"
• 6ipolarity is often associated specifically with the #old 'ar and the socalled
‘superpower era’"
• !wo -uite different views of the implications of bipolarity for global order have been
developed
• ealists have associated bipolarity with peace and stability"
• !his is because a bipolar system tends to result in a balance of power as each of the
ma0or power blocs is concerned to consolidate control over its own ‘sphere of
influence’"
• 3nstabilities resulting from shifting alliances are therefore minimised"
• #onflict between ma0or power blocs is accepted as counterproductive, as in the
‘balance of terror’ during the #old 'ar period"
• 8iberal theorists on the other hand, have sometimes argued that bipolarity is
inherently unstable as it leads to intensifying rivalry between ma0or power blocks, as
demonstrated by sustained ‘vertical’ nuclear proliferation during the #old 'ar"
• %ssay /uestions 34 marks6
• To what e9tent is the gloal system now multipolar
• =ultipolarity refers to an international system in which there are three or more
power centres" 9owever, there is debate about whether the contemporary system is
now best described as unipolar or as multipolar"
• 1 unipolar global system is one in which there is a single preeminent state" =any
have argued that the end of the #old 'ar can be seen as the ‘unipolar moment’, the
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 12/22
end of an era of superpower bipolarity and the birth of the world in which the 1
stood as the sole superpower"
• ome have seen this as the creation of some kind of ‘1merican empire’, a trend
resulting from economic successors during the :@@As, coupled with the ongoingdifficulties of other competitors, such as Bapan, ussia and the 4"
• !he 1’s unassailable position in global affairs was evident in the unilateralist
tendency of foreign policy, particularly following the election of *eorge '" 6ush
in <AAA and in particular by the socalled ‘war on terror’"
• !his has been interpreted as an attempt to preserve and reinforce the 1’s
‘benevolent global hegemony’ through a kind of ‘new’ imperialism that was based on
unrivalled military strength, the 1’s strength in promoting democracy worldwide,and an interventionist foreign policy that was based on the idea of ‘regime change’,
achieved by military means and possible through pre emptive attack"
• !hese tendencies were a clear indication of the e%istence of unipolarity"
• 9owever, the ‘unipolar moment’ in world politics may have passed, partly due to the
tendency of the 1 to succumb to the problem of imperial overreach"
•
1lthough the 1 accounts for around CA per cent of global defence spending, itsproportion of *&. is well below CA per cent and declining in relative terms"
• !he economic fragility of the 1 has been further illustrated by the global economic
crisis that started in <AAD"
• !he rise of #hina, 3ndia and other new powers creates the prospect either of the
return of some form of bipolarity, in which global politics in the twentyfirst century
will be characterised by ino relations, or the emergence of a truly multipolar
system consisting of five or possibly more ma0or world actors"
• #hina’s rapid economic progress, its growing military capacity and its greater
involvement in global affairs, 1frica and elsewhere all demonstrate that the global
system can no longer be seen as unipolar"
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 13/22
• 7ther rising powers include 3ndia, 6razil and ussia" !rends towards multipolarity
can also be seen in the implications of globalisation and the rise of nonstate actors
ranging from transnational corporations to terrorist groups and new social
movements"
• 3n this view, globalisation has strengthened a tendency towards pluralism in global
politics, highlighted by the permeability of the state and the dispersal of power
amongst governmental and nongovernmental actors"
• >inally, growing interdependence and the effects of the information and
communication revolution have, arguably, changed the nature of power itself and
made it more difficult for power to be concentrated in a small number of hands"
• !his is evident in the declining significance of ‘hard’ power, particularly militarypower, and the growing importance of ‘soft’ power"
• To what e9tent has the rise o emerging powers altered the
nature o world order 34 5arks6
• !he growth of emerging powers, such as #hina, 3ndia and 6razil, can be seen to have
altered the nature of world order in important ways"
• 3n particular, it has created conditions of growing multipolarity, in which global
power is divided amongst three or more ma0or states"
• uch a view is underpinned by economic developments, notably the fact that the
balance of power in the world economy has shifted from the 'est to the 4ast,
especially due to the combined influence of #hina, 3ndia and Bapan"
• uch trends also have a political or diplomatic character, as reflected in the growing
importance of bodies such as the *<A and the 63#s countries"
•9owever, others argue that emerging powers have yet to fundamentally alter thenature of world order"
• 3n most cases, this is based upon the view that none of these powers is yet strong
enough to challenge the 1 as the global hegemon"
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 14/22
• !he 1 remains the world’s largest economy and has a still impressive global lead
in ‘hitech’ production" imilarly, its military lead over the rest of the world is still
considerable, being the only power that can sustain ma0or military involvements in
two or more parts of the world at the same time"
• 1s the global hegemon, the 1 also continues to e%ert disproportional structural
power through its influence over a variety of institutions of global governance"
• +loal order 3Thanks 5ike;.%&%$)'!% S#', $%- T#"S6
• S- and the !eo<
Conservatives• With the dissolution of the So+iet Union and the end of the bipolar era of
the Cold War- so!e "neo)realists found the!sel+es collecti+el at a loss as
to what the United States should do in the circu!stances of its newl(
found hege!onic power# So!e urged forbearance- since- the warned- the
2unipolar !o!ent3 would not last? other !aFor powers- such as apan-
Ger!an- or China- would soon co!e to resent A!erican pri!ac- and
would e!erge as challengers to it- ending in !ultipolarit "Walt. $%%HI
Walt. JKKKI Lane $%%H)# Other neorealists saw unipolarit as !ore
durable- and so long as the United States acti+el engaged the other
!aFor powers to reassure the! of its benign intentions- hege!on could
be prolonged "1astanduno $%%>)# et still others regarded United States
predo!inance as +irtuall unassailableMan unprecedented position in
world historMand a uni=ue opportunit to proFect A!erican power and
interests globall "6rautha!!er $%%K($%%$I JKKJI Wohlforth $%%%)#
• At rst the US chose the second position- atte!pting to engage
!ultilaterall with other countries# 4owe+er- things changed- and during
the Bush ad!inistration the neo(cons increasingl too5 the third path#
• *he position e!phasising that the US was a global hege!on al!ost
uni=ue in the histor of the world see!s to ha+e been that of the Bush
ad!inistration "JKKK(JKK<) 9 2Ro!e on the @oto!ac3# *hus- 6rautha!!er
"who was a neo(con theorist) argued that we were entering into a unipolar
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 15/22
era- with the USA ta5ing the lead# *he idea- ,oated at the ti!e- that the
global 2:orth3 contained se+eral poles of power- collaborating on a
!ultilateral basis was- for hi!- an illusion# *he rst Gulf War was therefore
a case of 2pseudo(!ultilateralis!3# *he US essentiall acted alone- with
the alliance oNering !erel the i!pression of !ultilateral action# /n ter!s
of !ilitar power- the US towers o+er other nations#
• 4e goes on to suggest that- because the US is a co!!ercial- trading
nation it has worldwide interests which need to be defended# 4e is certain
that there will be ti!es when these interests will be threatened and
re=uire protection# *he US should be prepared to a+ert an threats to
destabilise the e0isting sste!# *he assu!ption here !ight be that
preser+ation of the current sste! is in the interest of e+er state "that
stabilit in and of itself is good- andor- that the US is a benign power and
is !uch !ore preferable as global hege!on than !ost other states)- or
si!pl that the US should be ruthless in defending it3s superiorit
regardless of whether this is good for others#
• 6rautha!!er was clear that US should resist its constant isolationist
tendencies# One of the e0pressions of such isolationis! originates fro!
the realist foreign polic school because this school tends to dene US
interests in a 2narrow and national !anner3# *hat is- fro! his perspecti+e-the US has no real alternati+e but to preser+e the world balance of power#
/n order to do this it can3t withdraw into its shell#
• /t is +er i!portant to note that there is rather !ore to his position than
Fust the ai! of ensuring global stabilit# 6rautha!!er- along with
Ru!sfeld- Chene- Bush "and Reagan before the!) did not ta5e on a
purel realist position because the belie+ed in the USA as a force for
good "this is idealis! 9 a foreign polic dri+en b 2ideals3- such as
freedo!- de!ocrac etc 9 as opposed to realis!- which is !uch !oreconcerned with the sur+i+al of the state- and !a be +er war of foreign
ad+entures to pro!ote particular +alues)# *he USA was- and is- seen b
!an A!ericans "!ainl- but not Fust those on the political right) as a
righteous proFect# *er!s such as 2A!erican e0ceptionalis!3- and the 2Cit
on the hill3 "a religious analog e!ploed b- a!ongst others- Reagan)-
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 16/22
referred to this belief that the USA is a 2special3 place 9 God3s chosen
countr# Other people around the world loo5 up to A!erica as a beacon#
*his has been a powerful ele!ent of the US collecti+e i!agination and
clearl aNects the wa the engage with the rest of the world#
• 6rautha!!er stressed that the USA has the responsibilit of acting in a
!anner that !a so!eti!es be unpopular# 4e argued that other states
often ha+e the lu0ur of not ha+ing to ta5e on the responsibilit that falls
to the global hege!onI
• 2*he !ain reason we oppose the land !ine treat is that we need the! in
the de!ilitarised .one in 6orea "between north and south)# We "the USA)
!ans the line there# Sweden and 8rance and Canada do not ha+e to worr
about a :orth 6orean in+asion 5illing thousands of their soldiers# As the
unipolar power and thus guarantor of peace in places where Swedes do
not tread- we need weapons that others do not# Being uni=uel situated in
the world we cannot aNord the e!pt platitudes of allies not =uite candid
enough to ad!it that the li+e under the u!brella of A!erican power#
*hat often lea+es us Pisolated#3
• *his neo(con position relies on the idea that US hege!on is essentiall
benign# /t considers that the US operates in the 2real world3- where there
are identiable threats to the future of free- de!ocratic societies# *he
suggest that !ost of Europe has forgotten this- arguing that European
countries rel on securit co+er fro! the USA#
• Ob+iousl there is substantial opposition to this point of +iew# Realists
would obFect to the 2idealis!3 of the neo(cons# *he desire to spread a
particular set of +alues would be considered b !an realists to be
dangerous !oralising# So!e realists who Fust tend to concentrate on the
structural features of global politics- argue that unipolarit creates its ownopposition# 1uch depends on whether other states decide to 2bandwagon3
or 2balance3# *hose who tend to argue that unipolarit is unsustainable in
the long ter! suggest that balancing beha+iour is !ost li5el# *his is
because- as 4ewood "pJH;) notes 2in a conte0t of anarch- rising or
!aFor powers are an obFect of particular fear- as there is no constraint on
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 17/22
how the !a treat wea5er states3# *hose suggesting that US hege!on
is benign- and acts in the interests of all "as do hege!onic stabilit
theorists for instance) would perhaps align the!sel+es !ore with the
bandwagoning argu!ent# See discussion below#
• #egemonic staility theory:
• So!e realists belie+e that the e0istence of a hege!onic power tends to
create opposition- and that hege!on cannot therefore last for !ore than
a short period of ti!e# Others disagree# /n both neorealist "e#g# Gilpin
$%<>) and neoliberal "e#g# 6eohane $%<%) +ersions of hege!onic stabilit
theor "4S*)- it is argued that the rule of the hege!on results in net
benets for all states- large and s!all#
• 4owe+er- Gilpin 6eohane- the originators of the 4S* ter!- actuall
thought that the USA acted as a real hege!on for onl a short period of
ti!e-
• “)or two decades following the *econd 'orld 'ar, the +nited
*tates, largel! for political and secrit! reasons, sbordinated
man! of its parochial economic interests to the economic well"
being of its alliance partners…n the late 19-./s, howe0er, the +*
began to prse economic policies that were more self"centred…
and2 b! the 193./s, the +* was prsing protectionist,
macroeconomic, and other policies that cold be identi#ed as
appropriate to…4/a predator! hegemon/4% 5ilpin2
• Snidal adds that there is Pno longer an reason to assu!e that the
distribution of benets fa+ors s!aller states "Snidal $%<')# *hus- the
suggestion has been that 2real3 hege!on is essentiall benign 9 that it
acco!!odates the interests of those co+ered b its securit u!brella#
:ow though- so the argu!ent goes- the US is a hege!on of a whole
diNerent- rather unpleasant tpe# *his raises the =uestion of whether theoriginal alleged ad+antage of hege!on- stabilit- will be as attracti+e to
the subordinate powers in the relationship#
• *o ta5e one e0a!ple- fro! the earl $%<Ks- the /18 and World Ban5 ca!e
under the control of the 2Washington Consensus3- in which neoliberal
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 18/22
principles were ta5en to new heights# Originall founded with a !ission
that was guided b 6enesian econo!ic policies- ai!ed at sti!ulating
global aggregate de!and- the now beca!e increasingl suppl(side
oriented- and deter!ined to aNect the restructuration of both !acro( and
!icro( aspects of states3 econo!ies# /n !an cases- these new policies
were failures# According to oseph Stiglit.- a for!er World Ban5 Senior 7ice
@resident and Chief Econo!ist-
• “6n spite of 8)/s eorts dring the past :arter centr!, crises
arond the world ha0e been more fre:ent and with the
e;ception of the 5reat <epression2 deeper4 =! some rec>onings,
close to a hndred contries ha0e faced crises4 'orse, man! of
the policies that the 8) pshed, in particlar, prematre capital
mar>et liberali$ation, ha0e contribted to global instabilit!4 And
once a contr! was in crisis, 8) fnds and programs not onl!
failed to stabili$e the sitation bt in man! cases actall! made
matters worse, especiall! for the poor4 ?he 8) failed in its
original mission of promoting global stabilit!% *tiglit$ @..@, p4
124
• 1ichael 1ann denes hege!on in the following ter!sI Pa word which
indicates that i!perial power establishes 2the rules of the ga!e3 b which
others routinel pla "structural power- in the ter!inolog)# *he "theothers- the subordinates) !a co!e to also appro+e of the rules as well-
so that hege!on beco!es genuinel legiti!ate# But the basis of
hege!on is !ore a !atter(of(fact acceptance of things 2as the are3#
*hen people3s own e+erda actions help reproduce the do!inance
without !uch thought#3 ":ote( hege!on does not therefore !ean =uite
the sa!e thing as unipolarit#unipolarit is Fust a state!ent about
capacit- it does not sa anthing about whether the power is legiti!ate
or not- benign or !align)#
• 4e notes that the proble! for the US is that Phege!on should be an
in+isible hand- ling behind the accepted rules of the ga!e# *he catch is
that to be hege!onic- the US !ight ha+e to pla b the rules# An e!pire
based on highl +isible !ilitaris! abandons the rules and so ris5s losing
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 19/22
hege!on# oseph :e e0pressed this as the pursuit of 2hard3 power
threatening A!erica3s 2soft3 power#
• So the suggestion is that hege!on can onl reall be !aintained with
large doses of consent# Consent- in political ter!inolog- translates aslegiti!ac#
• /s the US an e!pireQ /f it is- is this a good thingQ *he neo(cons sa es-
because the world is a dangerous place and the US is essentiall
bene+olent "hence all the stuN about A!erican e0ceptionalis! 9 the
belie+e that the US has so!ething special to oNer the worldthe world
loo5s up to the USthe want to li+e there etc)# Others "liberals such as
:e for instance) would perhaps agree that the US could be benign- but
that blatantl pushing its own agenda as the neo(cons ha+e done is not
the best wa to sustain a hege!onic position#
• *hose who sa- es- the US is an e!pire- but no it is not a good thing "ie
Cho!s5)- are suspicious of A!erican power# *he feel that US
do!ination does not Fust e0ist- rather it is perpetuated b US beha+iour# /t
atte!pts- aggressi+el- to sustain its place as the predo!inant power# 4e
would suggest that the result of hege!on is do!ination "although ou
couldn3t sa that he is co!ing at the proble! fro! the sa!e direction as
!an realists- he arri+es at the sa!e conclusion 9 an hege!on will tend
to atte!pt to i!pose itself on others- and understandabl creates
resistance)#
• (ipolarity:
• 6enneth Walt.- fro! whose wor5 !uch of the bipolar!ultipolar debate
originates- argues- in essence- that a bipolar world is in fact the !ost
stable and durable for peace in the international sste!# 8or hi!- in a
!ulti(polar world there are !ore opportunities for !iscalculationsbetween the !an alliances and groupings that for!- leading to !ore
instabilit# 4e considers the post $%&' era as a test case of 2bipolarit as
relati+e stabilit3- and $;'K 9 $%&' as a- rather long- era of unstable
!ultipolarit#
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 20/22
• *here are a nu!ber of possible criticis!s of Walt.3s theor# 8irst- it has
been suggested that the post $%&' era was not actuall bipolar at all#
China was a !aFor plaer in world aNairs- and Sino(So+iet relations were
not good "China and the USSR actuall e0perienced signicant direct
!ilitar clashes in $%;% 9 the USSR felt it necessar to allocate a !assi+e
!ilitar force on their eastern frontier)# *he US e+entuall begun to
culti+ate relations with China in the late $%;K3searl $%>K3s "see :i0on3s
+isit in $%>J)# *his all- arguabl- i!pacted on the Cold War relationship
between the US and the So+iet Union- and in the e+entual de!ise of the
latter# We could- therefore- suggest that the world was to so!e e0tent at
least- tripolar during this period#
• Second- and perhaps !ore i!portant as a criticis!- is Walt.3s idea that
!ultipolar sste!s are !ore li5el to lead to !iscalculations about
capabilities and intentions of other states# /n a bipolar world- in contrast-
2uncertaint lessens and calculations are easier to !a5e3# 4e does suggest
that bipolar sste!s can !a5e 2o+erreaction3 !ore li5el- but this is less
serious than the possible !iscalculations that can ta5e place in
!ultipolarit# One of his !ain e0a!ples is the start of the $st World War#
4e argues that the outbrea5 of war was due to a series of !iscalculations
b Austria(4ungar- Ger!an- Russia and 8rance# But one could argue
that what too5 place was the result of both !iscalculation ando+erreaction b all parties to the con,ict# *hese categories
"!iscalculation- o+erreaction) are Fust not clear enough criteria to use to
deter!ine the relati+e stabilit of particular periods of histor#
• *hird- and perhaps !ost telling as a criticis!- is that there was one factor
present since $%&' that could ha+e been far !ore signicant than
whether the sste! was bipolar or !ultipolar# *hat factor was nuclear
weapons# /t could ha+e been the presence of this special class of !ilitar
capabilit rather than the bipolar situation that ensured relati+e stabilit
"it !ust be noted at this point that Walt. !a ha+e been unaware how
close the So+iet Union ca!e to ring a nuclear weapon during the Cuban
!issile crisis in $%;J the details of =uite how close a So+iet sub!arine
ca!e to ring a nuclear !issile onl e!erged in JKKJ so if that was
stabilit- God help usT)#
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 21/22
• Walt. has re+ised his +iews slightl# 4e now considers the presence of
nuclear weapons to be of e=ual i!portance to the bipolar structure of the
international sste! in ensuring 2the longest peace et 5nown3 "again- he
see!s to forget the huge nu!ber of wars- of all 5inds- that ha+e ta5en
place- and continue to ta5e place 9 possibl because the are in the global
southQ Since $%%< appro0i!atel '#& !illion people ha+e died as a result
of the con,ict in the De!ocratic Republic of Congo DRCthe world3s
deadliest con,ict since the Jnd World War)# *his rela0ed +iew of other
5inds of con,ict "basicall- he ignores the!) co!es fro! his realist
perspecti+e# *he 2real3 proble!s of global order centre on relations
between states# 8ro! this perspecti+e it is possible to see the world as
relati+el peaceful "although e+en this ignores ie the /ran/ra= war in the
$%<K3s)#
• 5ultipolarity
• Singer and Deutsch suggest that a !ultipolar sste! is in fact !ore
stable because the !aFor powers ha+e !ore incenti+e and opportunit for
cooperation and are !ore li5el to ha+e their attention diNused fro! Fust
focusing on one polar antagonist# 1ost neo(realists argue- howe+er- that it
creates greater uncertaint about the beha+iour of other states and is-
therefore less li5el to produce order and securit "see all discussions
about !ultipolarit in notes on share,ow and in te0tboo5)#
• *hese argu!ents tend still to thin5 in ter!s of realis! "and scepticis! in
the globalisation debates)# Other theories of global order which ta5e the
"alleged) processes of globalisation !uch !ore seriousl !a argue that-
while these debates are i!portant- there are other things going on in the
world# 8or instance- 2global order3 !a increasingl be e!erging +ia state
and non(state actors creating a !riad networ5 of global go+ernance
structures# 4ere is 4ewood "pJHH)- 2*hree broader de+elop!ents ha+e
supported the frag!entation and pluralisation of global power- and
perhaps suggest that all state(centric !odels of world order "bipolar-
unipolar and !ultipolar) are out!oded# *he rst of these de+elop!ents is
unfolding globalisation#the second de+elop!ent is the growing trend
towards global and so!eti!es regional go+ern!ent#nall "these
trends) ha+e both had the eNect of strengthening the role of non(state
7/17/2019 Unipolar vs Multipolar
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unipolar-vs-multipolar 22/22
actors in world aNairs "*:Cs- :GOs- terrorist networ5s- international cri!e
sndicates etc etc)# *hus- the debate abo+e could well be li!ited and
slightl anachronistic# Or at least it is Fust one debate a!ongst !an#