Poli225 Essay

Andrew Leahey POLI-225 Exam Essay Questions Essay #1 There are several types of international systems, when classifying these systems based on the number of power poles they have. Power poles can be defined as individual actors, or sovereign states, powerful enough to impact international policy, as well as alliances and inter-government organizations (IGOs) such as the United Nations or the European Union (54). The number of power poles can range from one, in a unipolar system, to two competing poles in a bipolar system, or many, in a multipolar system. The simplest system to explain is a unipolar system, that is, there is one actor that holds more sway than any of the others. To some degree this can be said to be the system in which we currently exist. No entity wields a sufficient enough amount of 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 subordinate powers (57). The European Union has been said to be created to “[create] a single European superstate to rival America on the world stage” (54). Unipolar systems, like all of the other international systems, have specific rules of operation. They tend to dominate the military and economic world, and consequently are usually employed 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 could progress towards the creation of a bipolar system. A bipolar system exists when there 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 two competing poles (55). This can be seen in the tension between the USA and the USSR, during the Cold War era. Emerging out of World War II, there were two central power poles on the international stage. Each side had the desire to eliminate the other, but had the good sense to avoid outright conflict. Since a bipolar system is marked by two near-equals competing for the same space, it is unwise for the poles to engage in direct conflict. The best way to consolidate power and attempt to undermine the other pole is by expanding your area of influence. This is seen in the USSR’s expansion across Europe in the years follow WWII, and the USA’s involvement in the Vietnam Conflict, attempts to expand influence and prevent that expansion (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 a third state or IGO was to arise, that system might progress in to a tripolar system. A tripolar 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 when you 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 upsetting the balance of power. The balance of power is maintained in a tripolar system, so long as each pole maintains the status quo. As long as no member attempts to consolidate 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 up beyond three poles. The rules for a multi-polar system, like that of the tripolar, are to 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 your influence 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 the largest number of people, relative to those that are denied it, this configuration is definitely preferable. In a unipolar system, every actor save for the power pole is in a constant struggle to keep its head above water. At the same time, the unipolar power is struggling to keep them from gaining any meaningful influence (56). In addition, human nature comes in to play. Subordinate powers will continually struggle against the power pole, due if nothing else, to pride (56). This of course would always be the case, as even in a multi-polar system, there will be actors struggling to become equal to those poles already established. However, limiting the 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 plainly visible today. When the US declared war on Iraq, there were many countries that refused 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 that pole’s dominance. If nothing else, pride prevents meaningful cooperation in a unipolar system.

Essay #2 There are two central theories of international relations. These theories are based on competing ideas as to what causes actors in international relations to act the way they do. The first thing that should be noted is that the terms are largely self-appointed by the people that subscribe to it. Therefore, when one discusses the “realist” (as opposed to the “idealist”) school of thought, one should not mistake the definitions to mean that the realists operate within the confines of reality, and the idealists are merely wishful thinkers. A more accurate assessment would be that realists are pessimistic in regards to human behaviors impact on international relations, while idealists are optimistic (12). To say realists are pessimistic, the definition must be clarified. Realists base the future on the past, and largely see human beings as self-serving individuals, always acting in their own best interest (13). Unfortunately, history tends to bear out this assessment. Realists argue that power is the beginning and end, when it comes to international relations, and security. They tend to lean much more on the side of peace through power, and believe that wars are inevitable, and can only be limited by their swift execution. The father of realist thought is Thomas Hobbes (14), who surmised that humans are, by nature, dominant creatures. He argued that

enemies are created when two individuals, or two groups, desire the same thing, but both cannot have it (14). This policy is employed in international relations by a reliance on sovereign states competing for power. The idea here is something like political Darwinism (16). Those groups that gain the most power, deserve that power, and all the security that comes with it. Consequently, the best way for a realist head of state to increase security, is to increase power (15). Likewise, clarification of the term “optimistic” as a definition of idealists is required. Idealists (sometimes confusingly referred to as liberals) believe that humans are capable of cooperation, and are not inherently aggressive by nature (15). They may concede that historically we have acted out of a greed for power, but that we must not give up a press towards cooperation and diplomatic relations, over conflict. Idealists take many of their philosophical beliefs from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued that human beings as a species formed groups because operating alone, in each individuals best interest, was no longer working. He further surmised that, just as we faced extinction if we did not find ways to work together for our mutual betterment, we again would have to find ways to cooperate if we wanted to stave off destruction (15). Idealists believe that the application of power is not the driving force behind international relations, and that ethical considerations, and an emphasis on principles, must reign over power in policy (16). Realism has very likely been the more dominant mode of thought for a few key reasons. First, political entities are made up of human beings, so it follows that one would find the application of an understanding of their nature beneficial towards the understanding of politics. Additionally, if we operate solely by judging future performance by past behavior, the application of realist policies makes sense

(19). Competition, not cooperation has shaped the course of human progress. This is true on the individual, as well as group, or state-level. Even during times of peace, many times that peace is held in the balance only by a realist ideal, the inability to fight a winnable (19). It is understandable then, that heads of state would not want to risk destruction by relinquishing their state’s power and adopting an idealist policy. The adoption of an idealist policy would require a worldwide agreement to adhere to its standards. And, with no state having any power to enforce the agreement, how long would it be before some group deviated? I do believe, however, that if more countries adopted an idealist policy, more peace would follow. At the very least, it would avoid an ever-increasing power struggle like that of the Cold War. Also, there is something to be said for cooperation, and idealism, not being in direct conflict with realism. There are certainly times where it is in the best interest of all involved to act within idealistic principles (19). This can be seen by the decrease in wars fought internationally, as well as the increase in interdependence among states (18). As each individual state more relies on others for its existence, the benefits of adopting more idealist policies increase. No longer, then, is it a zero-sum game. Other states prosperity can be beneficial to your state, as well (18).