To what extent is the global system now multipolar? (45 marks)
Multipolarity refers to an international system in which there are three or more power
centres. However, there is debate about whether the contemporary system is now best
described as unipolar or as multipolar.
• A unipolar global system is one in which there is a single pre-eminent state. Many have argued that the end of the Cold War can be seen as the ‘unipolar moment’, the end of an era of superpower bipolarity and the birth of the world in which the USA stood as the sole superpower. Some have seen this as the creation of some kind of ‘American empire’, a trend resulting from US economic successors during the 1990s, coupled with the ongoing difficulties of other competitors, such as Japan, Russia and the EU. The USA’s unassailable position in global affairs was evident in the unilateralist tendency of US foreign policy, particularly following the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and in particular by the so-called ‘war on terror’. This has been interpreted as an attempt to preserve and reinforce the USA’s ‘benevolent global hegemony’ through a kind of ‘new’ imperialism that was based on unrivalled military strength, the USA’s strength in promoting democracy worldwide, and an interventionist foreign policy that was based on the idea of ‘regime change’, achieved by military means and possible through preemptive attack. These tendencies were a clear indication of the existence of unipolarity.
• However, the ‘unipolar moment’ in world politics may have passed, partly due to the tendency of the USA to succumb to the problem of imperial over-reach. Although the USA accounts for around 50 per cent of global defence spending, its proportion of GDP is well below 50 per cent and declining in relative terms. The economic fragility of the USA has been further illustrated by the global economic crisis that started in 2008. The rise of China, India and other new powers creates the prospect either of the return of some form of bipolarity, in which global politics in the twenty-first century will be characterised by Sino-US relations, or the emergence of a truly multipolar system consisting of five or possibly more major world actors. China’s rapid economic progress, its growing military capacity and its greater involvement in global affairs, Africa and elsewhere all demonstrate that the global system can no longer be seen as unipolar. Other rising powers include India, Brazil and Russia. Trends towards multipolarity can also be seen in the implications of globalisation and the rise of non-state actors ranging from transnational corporations to terrorist groups and new social movements. In this view, globalisation has strengthened a tendency towards pluralism in global politics, highlighted by the permeability of the state and the dispersal of power amongst governmental and non-governmental actors. Finally, growing interdependence and the effects of the information and communication revolution have, arguably, changed the nature of power itself and made it more difficult for power to be concentrated in a small number of hands. This is evident in the declining significance of ‘hard’ power, particularly military power, and the growing importance of ‘soft’ power.
• A unipolar global system is one in which there is a single pre-eminent state. Many have argued that the end of the Cold War can be seen as the ‘unipolar moment’, the end of an era of superpower bipolarity and the birth of the world in which the USA stood as the sole superpower. Some have seen this as the creation of some kind of ‘American empire’, a trend resulting from US economic successors during the 1990s, coupled with the ongoing difficulties of other competitors, such as Japan, Russia and the EU. The USA’s unassailable position in global affairs was evident in the unilateralist tendency of US foreign policy, particularly following the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and in particular by the so-called ‘war on terror’. This has been interpreted as an attempt to preserve and reinforce the USA’s ‘benevolent global hegemony’ through a kind of ‘new’ imperialism that was based on unrivalled military strength, the USA’s strength in promoting democracy worldwide, and an interventionist foreign policy that was based on the idea of ‘regime change’, achieved by military means and possible through preemptive attack. These tendencies were a clear indication of the existence of unipolarity.
• However, the ‘unipolar moment’ in world politics may have passed, partly due to the tendency of the USA to succumb to the problem of imperial over-reach. Although the USA accounts for around 50 per cent of global defence spending, its proportion of GDP is well below 50 per cent and declining in relative terms. The economic fragility of the USA has been further illustrated by the global economic crisis that started in 2008. The rise of China, India and other new powers creates the prospect either of the return of some form of bipolarity, in which global politics in the twenty-first century will be characterised by Sino-US relations, or the emergence of a truly multipolar system consisting of five or possibly more major world actors. China’s rapid economic progress, its growing military capacity and its greater involvement in global affairs, Africa and elsewhere all demonstrate that the global system can no longer be seen as unipolar. Other rising powers include India, Brazil and Russia. Trends towards multipolarity can also be seen in the implications of globalisation and the rise of non-state actors ranging from transnational corporations to terrorist groups and new social movements. In this view, globalisation has strengthened a tendency towards pluralism in global politics, highlighted by the permeability of the state and the dispersal of power amongst governmental and non-governmental actors. Finally, growing interdependence and the effects of the information and communication revolution have, arguably, changed the nature of power itself and made it more difficult for power to be concentrated in a small number of hands. This is evident in the declining significance of ‘hard’ power, particularly military power, and the growing importance of ‘soft’ power.