Polar Systems
I was just wondering what everyone thinks about the polar systems we covered in class. Whichdo you think would be the most taxing and most difficult to maintain for a specific government? Multipolar systems would be difficult because of the number of governments and states you have to keep tabs on but at the same time there is a sense of balance inherent in the system due to the number of checks and balances. Then we have a bipolar system where you as a government would be SOLELY responsible for keeping tabs on the other world power.
What does everybody think? I am interested in this topic and what everyone thinks.
10 Comments:
I think that a Bipolar system would be the most difficult because, as you mentioned, each power is concerned on keeping tabs on the other power to ensure the balance of power. I think this is clear from the Cold War and how tense relations were between the US and the Soviet Union. I thought it was very interesting to hear Robert McNamara's first hand account of what was happening during the Cuban Missile Crisis and that Castro didn't care about what would happen to Cuba and that he had actually requested the use of the missiles. Scary!
I would have to agree, i think a bipolar is the most difficult to maintain and the cold war is evidence of this. Even though other countries got involved with the cold war happenings such as the cuban missile crisis they were in a sense only pawns of the larger powers.
I agree - bipolar systems are difficult to maintain. But, the great wars that this world has seen have come out of multipolar systems. What does that tell you? I think one nation can effectively "keep tabs" on another nation. Difficult, but doable. I think History shows that the opportunity for GREAT disaster lies in situations when five or six powers are competing. Of course, the world is different now than it was back in the 30s and 40s - maybe it could work now. But here's another question: in this day and age, if a multipolar system were in place, would all the powers in that system be content as "one of the many"?
I'm not sure that the United States at this point could be content to be the "one of many." I think that that is the direction we are heading in, but the United States is so huge and other countries depend on us so much that I'm not sure the US would be willing to slow down at this point to be equal with any other nations. Something to think about.
I think this is a really good discussion. I hope it continues. One quick interjection:
If the world system is evolving into a different system, what system do you think it might evolve into in the future? Who would be the major actors? What type of system might we prefer? Why?
I agree with the textbook that seems to imply that the world is slowly evolving into a more federation-like system. I don't really see what the negatives of this type of futre would be, but I must be overlooking something major. But in my opinion, a more federation-like system would include more cooperation which would hopefully solve some of the most critical issues today such as the environment, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and the horribly unequal distribution of wealth and resources.
Can anyone let me know what some of the cons of a federation-like system would be?
If you're interested, here's a blog post from Belgravia Dispatch (one of several blogs I keep tabs on) that discusses the future of the US-European transatlantic alliance. Keep in mind that it's while it's written by someone really smart, it does come from a specific point-of-view.
After reading the blog post about the US/European Transatlantic Alliance, it seems to me as though some of the cons to this type of system is that with so many countries taking part in the decision making process, it is hard to make anything happen. I got the impression from the blog post that countries are too tied up in confrences discussing every little detail to make any decisive moves.
If you are concerned with too many countries trying to come together to make a decision, then you have to take a look at the UN. They are no better- anytime anything NEEDS to get done, it never does. With the kind of veto power that each of the major countries have, how COULD anything get done.
I do hope for an internation alliance of some sort, but I fear that with the audacity that the US and some other key countries carry, I doubt we will ever settle on one ruling country. Therefore, hopefully it will be a non-country affiliated third party... a gonvermental party existing outside the confines of a nation-state.
Then again, utopia can never exist- its been proven. For now, these are just words and thoughts.
I think which Biopolar or Multipolar will work better will depend on condition of IR.
Since WW1 and WW2 are all happened when the world in Multipolar system, I think sometimes multipolar will be less stable than biopolar. I think during biopolar system, we won't be able to attach each other, because their interest will be same. Such as Soviet knows attacking US will cause nothing good and US also knows attacking Soviet will cause nothing good too. And of course, those other small countries won't have enough power and influence to cause big war. But in multipolar, I think situation will be different. It is easy to happen that one of the powerful countries attack the other one for their benefit. And finally, it will raise big war.
But I think these days, the development of technology such as Internet and other communication tool helps communication between countries. And UN also did a good job for discussion between countries So, I think those factors are preventing wars.
Post a Comment
<< Home