What Are the Main Features of a Bipolar World - Essay Example

Title: Bipolar World Name Course Tutor Date When the second world ended, there was hope that the world would return to normality. However, it resulted to new conflict. In 1930s, the European powers where ruined by the war left with no strength and this resulted to the emergence of two global superpowers (Westad, 2005). All countries where forced to choosing from the emerged two blocs, the United States and the Soviet Union. After the war, USSR managed to fight Hitler’s Germany and thus they were crowned heroes due to the victory they got in Stalingrad. USSR was given an ideological, economic and social model more than any other country in Europe. The Red Army was not demobilised at the end of the war as it was the case with the US Army. This therefore meant that, the Soviet Union had real numerical superiority considering the vast number of men they had and the heavy weapons they also processed. This therefore entails that, two superpowers emerged after the Second World War, USA and Soviet Union (Garver, 2006). They became hostile to each other but they stopped short of a full war. Nuclear confrontation was too lawful to contemplate. The United States on the other hand was the great victor o the second world war boasting of less human and material losses, even the her army was almost demobilised completely a few months after the end of hostilities, it still remained the world’s leading military power. Until 1949, it was the only country with the capacity to produce nuclear weapon and had navy and air force which was unrivalled (Garver, 2006). On the other hand it was the leading world economic power and also owned more than two thirds of the world’s gold reserves and dollar became the primary international currency. The conflict of interest between these two world powers escalated and fear and suspicion was inevitable. Each country feared the other, the soviet accusing United States for spearheading imperialist expansion for they felt threatened. This all translated to what is referred to as the bipolar world, divided into tow camps, controlled in Washington and Moscow. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had Cold War hostilities and therefore they developed a two camp theory in which one had to belong to either of the two. In this case, the west viewed the Cold War as a struggle between free world and totalitarian world while the Soviet Union viewed it as a strive between the capitalist imperialist world and socialist worlds (Waltz , 2001). The bipolar world consisted of treaties like the ANZUS which was a defence treaty between the US, Australia and New Zealand which was enacted in 1951 and still exists today. In 1954, there was another treaty, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization between United States, France, Australia, Britain, Thailand, New Zealand, Pakistan and Philippines although it failed. This therefore means that, bipolar alliances were a common feature. The cold war saw new defensive alliances like NATO in the west and Warsaw of the Soviet Satellites (Yilmaz, 2008). However a country like China turned for a short time to the Soviet Union for support but withdrew after 1964. The United States dominate and manage hegemonic order whose cohesion is solely dependent on deep forms of corporation and the Soviet threat. The United States has been the occupant of the unrivalled power position. In a bipolar world, conflicts involved nations of one side against the other, each side taking the other as an enemy (Adnan, 2012). This is mostly characterised by the cold war between United States and the Soviet Union. Aggressiveness, sabre rattling was also present. Although these superpowers evaded any direct and direct war, there were minor conflicts. For example the United States fought futile war in Vietnam. The Soviet Union likewise had a civil war with Afghanistan but failed. In a bipolar world, there was a serious change in the structure of the systems. In other words, there were substantial changes on how countries provide for their security. This meant that, the security of a country relied on own internal efforts and on allies they make with others. There was a notion that, when countries made blocs either with the US or the Soviet Union, there was unbalanced power which was connoted to be a potential danger to others (Nijman, 1992). The dominant country just thinks of itself as acting for the sake of other and justice and well being of the world, which in the long resulted to conflict with preferences and interests of others. There was presence of great hostility expressed through client sates while the superpower used them so that they can achieve strategic national interest and other political goals with confines of nuclear deterrent postures extant during the Cold War (Waltz, 1988). These two countries were funding other wars and the clients states who were involved in these wars were left with no options that to resolve their conflicts, either through negotiations or decisive victory. Bipolar world was somehow stable. There were a record of relations between states and reduced incidence of interstate war. In actual fact, it was peaceful as compared to the other one which followed, for the wars between states were rare and no militarized conflict ever erupted between the two superpowers. The reason why there was no war or conflict between these two states was due to the fact that, they both had substantial nuclear capabilities to make war too costly to consider. In simple terms, the high cost of war in nuclear parity within the bipolar world prevented war between these two superpowers. There was intensive increase of competition; there was economic growth and military preparedness (Wohlforth, 1999). Nuclear Weaponry was one of the substantial features in the bipolar world. Due to race for supremacy, these two superpowers were competing ion having new from of weaponry. However, the two great powers depend on military mainly on themselves. Because of the vast difference ion the capabilities of the member states, the equal sharing of burdens found in earlier alliance systems become redundant and hence the United States and Soviet Union balanced each other by internal instead of external, which mean they much of their reliance was from within and not from their alliances. In the same case, states were less likely to misjudge their strengths and reliability of opposing coalitions. Due to this uncertainty in the bipolar world, lessens and calculations are easier to make (Garver, 2006). The strength of militaries from both powers makes quick and easy conquest impossible for either. USSR and USA ideologies were set to oppose each other which ensured a disagreement between the two countries. However, other nations which had ant-ethical visions of social organization maintained diplomatic relations. Their ideologies were universalistic which means that, they both stood their ground with the notion that their conceptions of society applied all people and nations. They blazed on their modernity, trying to suppress the Europe traditions and in the long run ensure that it is transformed. Their ideologies also connoted history as irreversible stride towards improvement which they attached to their own influence (Adnan, 2012). In actual fact, each side was fearful of the advance of the other. This for example is evident whereby, America knew that the progress of Soviet was a direct blow to the gradual spread of freedom, while the Soviet viewed American advancement as proof that the final crisis of capitalism was about to be realized. In actual facts both ideologies displayed a tension between determinism and messianism. The bipolar world worked from an order than resulted from the regulation of hegemonic rivalry made necessary by the imperative to avoid all skirmishes or confrontation that implied the risk of nuclear escalation. However, this did not include military intervention but were limited to respect certain expectations (Adnan, 2012). This being the case, conflicts were just frozen not solved. The bipolar order however did bring stability and permitted global development of intermediaries. There was a belief period when the USA and the Soviet Union cooperated in the United Nations to solve some regional conflicts but the Soviet Union opted out of the agreement. If only the soviet remain, the agreement would have stayed a little longer. It is also notable that, the ideology by the powerful states complicated the international relations. The steady fissuring of the world society into political blocs was also a common feature. The western countries feared the horror of the First World War and therefore concentrated on domestic issues and reduced their military establishments (Dunai, 2011) Conclusively, the failure of communism also featured in the bipolar world. As an economic system, Soviet communism did not provide equity for all, with few consumer goods and limited opportunities. There was unprecedented prosperity in the US, Europe and Japan. There was also improvement of the living standards. There were extremes of wealth and poverty. Finally, the collapse of the Soviet Union was also common. The breakdown of the Soviet Union was a very fast and unexpected when it came. In 1989 and 1991 the Soviet Empire completely unravelled and the cold war ended, bringing to an end the era which strives existed between the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Bibliography Adnan, M. (2012). U.S. Hegemony: Gap between U.S. and the Muslim World. A Research Journal of South Asian Studies Vol. 27, No. 1, , 207-220. Dunai, D. (2011). A framework of cardinal directions: Threats and challenges to the United States. AARMS SECURITY Vol. 10, No. 2 , 327–357. Garver, J. W. ( 2006). “China’s Decision for War With India in 1962. In Robert S. Ross and Alastair Iain Johnston, New Directions in the Study of Chinese Foreign Policy. Stanford, California:: Stanford University Press. Nijman, J. (1992). The Limits of Superpower: The United States and the Soviet Union since World War II. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 82, No. 4 , 681 695. Waltz, K. N. (2001). Man the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. . New York, New York: Columbia University Press. Waltz, K. N. (1988). The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, xvIII:4 , 615-628. Westad, O. A. (2005). The Global Cold War:Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times. Yale Journal of International Affairs , 145-158. Wohlforth, W. C. (1999). The Stability of a Unipolar World. International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1 , 5–41. Yilmaz, M. E. (2008). The New World Order”: An Outline of the Post-Cold War Era. Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 7, No. 4, , 44-57. Read More