The Future World System - Essay Example

International Relations: A Systems theory The international system A system, according to Arreguin-Toft & Mingst is “a group of units or parts unified by some form of regular interaction, in which a change in one unit causes change in the others; these interactions occur in regularized ways” (A25). As a study of the behavior of different actors in the international political scene, the field of international relations uses a number of systems to explain how different states co-relate internationally. Different theorists of international relations have different ideas as to the kinds of systems that govern international relations. According to realists, anarchy and polarity are the two types of systems dominant on the globe today. Anarchy refers to a situation in which the state holds the ultimate power and authority. Polarity is concerned with the number of sates that exercise power over other states in the international arena states (Haas 235). The liberals are of the thought that the international system is anarchical in which individual states act out of self-interest in an effort to preserve their sovereignty (Haas 55). On their part, radicals view the international system as being characterized by stratifications pitting the haves and the have-nots against one another (Haas 251). This stratification is brought about by the availability of resources in individual states, whereby the states with a lot of resource exercise power over those with limited resources. Constructivists differ with the other theorist by asserting that international relations are not characterized by material resources, but rather by social norms (Haas 235). Polarity Polarity is a type of international relations system that is advanced by realists who argue that international politics are controlled by a certain number of states where power is concentrated, allowing these states to exert power over inferior states (Arreguin-Toft & Mingst 243). As such, there exist three forms of polarity that exist in international relations. A unipolar system is characterized by a situation in which a single state has absolute power over international politics. Currently, the United States is considered the most powerful state in the world, meaning that the international arena is unipolar. When two rival states are fairly equal and exercise the same level of influence over international affairs, then the international system is considered as bipolar. A perfect example of a bipolar system is the state of affairs after World War II which set the United States against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In a multipolar system, there are three or more states that have the same level of influence on international relations. Europe before the First World War is a classic example of multipolarity, whereby Great Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia had the same level of control on international relations (Arreguin-Toft & Mingst 242). Considering the number of actors in international relations, differences, especially ideological ones are bound to occur. As such, the prospect of war is always a worrying factor, particularly since most states are always trying to protect their sovereignty and individual interests. The different kinds of polarity have, in their respective timelines, been tested by conflicts and in some cases, virtual and real war. For example, the multipolar system led to the occurrence of the 1st World War, as the five European countries fought over control of resources. After the 2nd World War, the US and USSR emerged as the two global superpowers, in a bipolar world system. Differences in ideologies between the two countries led to the Cold War, in which, rather than go to real war, the two superpowers opted to fight using propaganda (Arreguin-Toft & Mingst 245). The Cold War only ended after the United States convinced the Soviet Union to tear down the Berlin Wall, thus ending the Soviet Union’s control over East Germany, and as Arreguin-Toft & Mingst write, “negotiating is better than fighting” (245). In view of the fact that multipolarity led to the First World War, while the bipolar system led to the cold war, it is obvious that a bipolar system is more likely to bring world peace as compared to a multipolar and a unipolar system. The problem with a unipolar system is that it creates an avenue for hegemonic state which is more likely to abuse the power it enjoys over others. According to Arreguin-Toft & Mingst, “in a bipolar system, alliances tend to be long term, based on relatively permanent, not shifting, interests” (246). In essence, the two powers in a bipolar system, in collaboration with other actors such as international actors have the capacity to regulate the use of power by either state. In addition, these two states, while striving to preserve their power also work to ensure that another state does not emerge and challenge the bipolarity of the system. Bipolarity in the Middle East The steadiness of the bipolar system and its ability to ensure world peace is evidenced by the current situation in the Middle East. When Saddam Hussein was ousted as Iraq’s president, the country’s power in the region deteriorated and this allowed countries such as Iran to catch up with Israel and create some sort of bipolarity in the region (Krepinevich 7-9). Essentially, the fact that Israel accepted Iran as a regional power means that Iran can now participate in regional decision-making processes. Although this Iranian power is in its early stages, the long-term effects of this power will be felt, especially in terms of regional peace. For several years, Israel has been the most dominant power in the Middle East, leading to a lot of conflicts with countries such as the Palestine because of regional boundaries (Krepinevich 13-15). The effectiveness of the bipolar system in the Middle East is however being threatened by the stand-off between Israel and Iran in terms of nuclear power. While Iran insists on manufacturing nuclear weapons to protect itself from any sudden attacks, Israel claims that these weapons are a threat to regional and world peace (Krepinevich 27). The irony in this theory by Israel is that Israel itself has nuclear weapons but is opposed to Iran acquiring the same. However, the relationship between Israel and Iran has not always been conflict-based considering that there are no territorial and economic disputes between the two (Arreguin-Toft & Mingst 53-142). When Iraq lost its status as a regional power, both Israel and Iran saw this as an opportunity to gain more regional power, with booming economic and border relations. As such, if Iran can be convinced to give up on its nuclear armament mission, like the Soviet Union was convinced to bring out the Berlin Wall, then the stability of the Middle East can be assured under a bipolar system. If this is achieved, Haas writes that Iran will be able to liberate countries such as Palestine from Israel’s control (77). The future of international polarity The existing international system is branded by the United States being a hegemonic state, judging from the country’s military and economic capabilities (Arreguin-Toft & Mingst 265). After the fall of the Soviet Union and the successive folding of the Cold War in the initial years of 1990s, the US has been the most powerful state in the world, thus influencing global affairs, politically and economically. For the past two decades, it seemed as though the hegemony of the United States would last forever, but recent activities in the international arena are putting this notion to doubt. In recent years, several states around the globe have been gaining military and economic power to an extent that the superiority of the United States is being challenged capabilities (Arreguin-Toft & Mingst 265). China is one of the fastest developing economy on the globe today, in addition to making numerous advances in its military capabilities (Arreguin-Toft & Mingst 265). The rate at which China is gaining global power sets the stage for the re-emergence of a bipolar system of international relations, with the US and China becoming the new world super powers. Once considered as a totalitarian state, China has made tremendous changes in the recent past to ensure that it has the characteristics of a global power. According to Arreguin-Toft & Mingst, China has amended its domestic laws to comply with the regulations set by the World Trade Organization in as far as price controls are concerned (265). China has also improved its bilateral and multilateral diplomatic policies, thus accommodating relationships with other actors in the international filed. For example, since China has limited natural resources, the country has forged economic ties with African countries which allow the Chinese to invest in them and in turn China gets to utilize their natural resources (Arvind 69). In line with these developments by China, bipolarity is inevitable in the future of international relations. China will definitely catch up with the US, and the two states will exercise a fairly equal level of influence over global affairs. In this case, different states will align with either power according to their ideological preferences and will strive to ensure that the balance of power does not shift to either state or other states. The ultimate result will be more stability in international relations with each block keen to preserve the bipolarity and not lose to the other. Conclusion In conclusion, it is clear that international relations is a complex field with a variety of theories to explain relationships among states. The most dominant theory is that of realism, which views international relations as being characterized by polarity. Over time, global affairs have moved from a multipolar system in the years before 1914, to a bipolar system after the 2nd World War up to 1991, and a unipolar system from 1991 to date. Evidently, a unipolar system is considered as more likely to ensure world peace and stability, considering that it has been effective in the Middle East and is expected to work once China and the United States become the global superpowers. References Arreguin-Toft, Ivan. & Mingst, Karen. Essentials of International Relations, 6th Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 2014. Print. Arvind, Subramanian. The Inevitable Superpower. Foreign Affairs, 90.5(2011), 66-78. Print. Haas, Mark. The Clash of Ideologies: Middle Eastern Politics and the American Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. Print. Krepinevich, Andrew. Critical Mass: Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East. Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. 2013. Print. Read More