Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Andrew LeaheyPOLI-225 Exam Essay QuestionsEssay #1 There are several types of international systems, when classifying thesesystems based on the number of power poles they have. Power poles can bedefined as individual actors, or sovereign states, powerful enough to impactinternational policy, as well as alliances and inter-government organizations (IGOs)such as the United Nations or the European Union (54). The number of power polescan range from one, in a unipolar system, to two competing poles in a bipolarsystem, or many, in a multipolar system. The simplest system to explain is a unipolar system, that is, there is one actorthat holds more sway than any of the others. To some degree this can be said to bethe system in which we currently exist. No entity wields a sufficient enough amountof political power to seriously challenge the United States on the world stage.However, that is not to say that there are no challenges from other subordinatepowers (57). The European Union has been said to be created to “[create] a singleEuropean superstate to rival America on the world stage” (54). Unipolar systems,like all of the other international systems, have specific rules of operation. Theytend to dominate the military and economic world, and consequently are usuallyemployed to settle international disputes between subordinate actors. Additionally,they must suppress attempts by subordinate actors to challenge their position (55).If the EU continues on its path to rival the American superpower, it couldprogress towards the creation of a bipolar system. A bipolar system exists whenthere are two competing power poles, each wielding equal, or close to equal,international power. Like unipolar systems, bipolar systems have specific rules by

which they operate. By default, there tends to be a hostility between the twocompeting poles (55). This can be seen in the tension between the USA and theUSSR, during the Cold War era. Emerging out of World War II, there were two centralpower poles on the international stage. Each side had the desire to eliminate theother, but had the good sense to avoid outright conflict. Since a bipolar system ismarked by two near-equals competing for the same space, it is unwise for the polesto engage in direct conflict. The best way to consolidate power and attempt toundermine the other pole is by expanding your area of influence. This is seen in theUSSR’s expansion across Europe in the years follow WWII, and the USA’sinvolvement in the Vietnam Conflict, attempts to expand influence and prevent thatexpansion (known in the USA as the containment doctrine), respectively (32).If both the EU and the USA were to be members of a bipolar system, and athird state or IGO was to arise, that system might progress in to a tripolar system. Atripolar system exists when there are three poles, each wielding near-equal power,and influence, on the international stage. The rules get a little bit more dicey whenyou progress passed two poles. The objective for each individual pole is to, at worst,have a working relationship with the other two actors. At the same time, however,each pole must be weary of the other two poles forming an alliance, and upsettingthe balance of power. The balance of power is maintained in a tripolar system, solong as each pole maintains the status quo. As long as no member attempts toconsolidate power with another, against the third, the tripolar system is stable. The multi-polar system works in a similar way to the tripolar, just scaled upbeyond three poles. The rules for a multi-polar system, like that of the tripolar, areto oppose any alliances or consolidations of power that would upset the balance of power (55). In essence, the name of the game is keeping everyone down, so no one

actor wields more power than the rest. It would be preferable to expand yourinfluence and power, but it is necessary to at least maintain your power (55).In my opinion, the polar system most likely to bring about global “peace”would be a multi-polar system. If our goal is to achieve peace and prosperity to thelargest number of people, relative to those that are denied it, this configuration isdefinitely preferable. In a unipolar system, every actor save for the power pole is ina constant struggle to keep its head above water. At the same time, the unipolarpower is struggling to keep them from gaining any meaningful influence (56). Inaddition, human nature comes in to play. Subordinate powers will continuallystruggle against the power pole, due if nothing else, to pride (56). This of coursewould always be the case, as even in a multi-polar system, there will be actorsstruggling to become equal to those poles already established. However, limitingthe number of “out” actors by maximizing the number of “in” actors, in a system,should inherently limit pride conflict.Furthermore, real life examples of the failing of a unipolar system are plainlyvisible today. When the US declared war on Iraq, there were many countries thatrefused to back them (57). They more than likely were not pro-Saddam Hussein,they were just not about to assist the sole power pole, and in so doing prolong thatpole’s dominance. If nothing else, pride prevents meaningful cooperation in aunipolar system.