IR - Was the unipolar international order created by the US hegemony in the 1990s PDF

Preview

Summary

Was the unipolar international order created by the US hegemony in the 1990s...

Description

Was the unipolar international order created by the US hegemony in the 1990s a more stable form of international society than the Bipolarity and multipolarity that preceded it? I argue that international order created by the US hegemony in the 1990s was a more stable form of international society, in a particular perspective, than the Bipolarity and multipolarity that preceded it. When looked at stability through the lens of war and peace and the occurrence of total wars, Unipolarity excluded the possibility of total wars talking place between super or great powers. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US obtained the sole position of the global hegemony. With its preponderant material power no other state was capable of threatening US global dominance. In addition to that, US military might was back with structural power that shaped other states preferences and interests. Most states followed the foot steps of the US (bandwagoning) by adopting free market policies and capitalism. That minimized system incompatibility in between states. On the other hand, during Bipolarity, fierce competition between the US and USSR unfolded the Cold War. Although no direct military confrontation took place, yet the world was at the brink of an unclear war between the two superpowers during Cuba’s missiles crisis in the 1960s. Proxy wars on behalf of the USSR and US broke out in third world countries such Latin America , Korea and Vietnam

all leading to the death of around 25 million human being. Both superpowers agreed on “unspoken rules” during the Cold War such avoiding a nuclear war and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation. But as mentioned previously, those agreed on rules didn’t preclude both from competing over global dominance. Multipolarity was not much different if not worse. When several great powers existed in Europe during the first half of the 20th century two great wars took place bring menace and destruction. Greta powers fought over dominating Europe’s mainland and obtaining control over colonies in Asia and Africa. Both wars resulted in the death of millions in Europe and around the world, while belligerents came out of war with distressed economies except for the US and USSR. When comparing both eras against Unipolarity international order fr9m the perspective of total war occurrence or possibility of occurrence, I argue that unipolar international order created by the US hegemony in the 1990s is more stable.

Which best describes the current international situation: a balance of power or hegemonic stability? The balance of power theory in international relations suggests that states may secure their

survival by preventing any one state from gaining enough military power to dominate all others. If one state becomes much stronger, the theory predicts it will take advantage of its weaker neighbors, thereby driving them to unite in a defensive coalition. The doctrine of hegemonic stability means that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single nation-state is the dominant world power or hegemon. Thus, the fall of an existing hegemon or the state of no hegemon diminishes the stability of the international system. When a hegemon exercises leadership, either through diplomacy, coercion, or persuasion, the study of the praxis of behavior in any international society will depend on the number of dominant actors within it. (Polarity). Power is the ability to achieve the set objective and the process of influencing others. Trajectorially, the international society has witness both theory and international practice of a balance of power and hegemonic stability, and a comparison can quickly be drawn concerning the preference. For instance, during the Cold War, an international society dominated by two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States. Professor Cox and Campanaro identified three main types of polarity; multipolarity, bipolarity, and unipolarity. Multipolar societies contained three or more dominant actors. A description of a balance of power and its consequences indicates different things. Multipolar societies, for example, European international society of the UK, France, Germany,

Italy, and the USSR during the first world war 19141919. Bipolar societies are arranged between two dominant actors — uni-polar societies one dominant actor. The decade after the fall of the Soviet Union saw such a society develop, with the United States standing alone astride the world. See NATO an indication of America Hegemony after 1991. No one will argue that the world returned to the period of the First and Second World War because, in the current time, international society enjoys relative stability and peace. If that is the case, hegemonic stability is gaining ground, but the question of is, does the hegemon in control enjoy the legitimacy of all? The anarchical international structure makes it difficult for hegemon stability, given its bandwagon effect. Will the East ever give up in the power shift game with the West? The imperial is still here, and they will remain here. Balance of power provides the opportunity to cheek abuse and activities, not in common interest of all. But at what cost? Policing the international society will be difficult for a hegemon. God forbid another 9/11....