Quote:
Originally Posted by Giorgio
Don't know if I agree with your cyclical analysis of polarity, pfaff, but it's certainly interesting. You seem to acknowledge the existence of regional conflicts under conditions of unipolarity and bipolarity, but still argue that they are more peaceful than conditions of multi-polarity. I think this is up for debate, as barring the World Wars, the Cold War and the post-Cold War period have seen a huge amount of bloodshed, much of it often hidden by political or economic crises. This occurs especially in Africa and Southeast Asia. Just think of the Congo, Darfur, Somalia, or the genocide in Rwanda, or Burkina Faso. In southeast Asia there is the East Timor crisis, the Sri Lankan civil war, not to mention the Pakistani-Indian standoff. The world does not seem to tend towards peacefulness or stability during conditions of bipolarity and unipolarity. The superpower or hyperpower itself experiences more stability, and so I can understand that viewed from their perspective, the world is more stable, but this is not really the case, imho.
As for the collapse of the hyperpower and the rise of new powers to create a new multi-polar system, there is no real way to predict this causal chain. Apart from there existing no relevant precedents in history (any similar occurrences of a 'hyperpower' doubtless had a much more tenuous claim to being hegemonic in the US sense of the word), there is no reason to analytically assume that the current situation would turn multi-polar should the US collapse. It might very well become bi-polar, as the US wanes and China grows. Or if the US well and truly collapses, it might become a uni-polar system where the EU is the greatest power. There are simply not that many true global powers anymore, and it seems unlikely that future powers would arise from the 'regional conflicts' of today, as you state. The regional conflicts today are seen in the poorest and most fragmented areas of the world, not any countries with true aspirations to powerdom.
I think your analysis would be stronger if you took into account some world-system theory, as propounded by Arrighi and Wallerstein. They highlight the stratification of world politics into a core and periphery, with the periphery being theatre to the greatest number of conflicts as well as the greatest amount of poverty.
|
Well, first let me say that this is not my theory, or one that I necessarily agree with. There are parts that seem accurate, whereas others are not so accurate. I was just referring the theory itself, in case anyone wants to look into it. As I said, my post was an incredibly butchered version of a fairly more complex theory.
At any rate, I myself agree with many of your points. It is certainly a matter of perception. I believe conflict occurs regardless of who controls the power. I believe the theory was written in the 70's, and was looking at past empirics. During the rule of the Romans, there was certainly conflict, but there weren't any global wars. The same is true of the Pax Britannica (or the British Peace). Polarity theory tends to believe the global war is the worst kind of war, and the multipolarity is the least stable of the orders, and the most likely to lead to global wars (evidenced by WWI and WWII), where as since WWII and the new order of bipolarity and unipolarity, there have not been any global wars, so death is much lower. Is it correct to count peace as a body count game? I'm not sure. But unipolarity does allow for the greatest security of trade lines, so then it becomes dependent upon your world view. An Economic Liberalist would argue that it does, while a Radicalist would say that this is what leads to oppression, which is worse. I tend to be persuaded more by the Radicalist argument than by the Liberalist argument.
I would argue that regional conflicts occur regardless of the polarity system in place, but that they are worse during bipolarity system, because they become proxy wars between the two superpowers.
As far as unipolarity leading back to multipolarity? Who knows. Like I said, it is just a theory, and has not been proven. Currently, the U.S. in engaged in an ideological war with many different Arab Nations. This is not really predicted or accounted for (as far as I know) in polarity theory. Additionally, some argue that we will instead see a return to bipolarity between China and the U.S. It is difficult to say for sure.
06-20-2008, 05:16 PM
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
