Bipolar structure of the world is more stable than the multipolar one. Comment. (UPSC CSE Mains 2022 - Political Science and International Relations, Paper 2)
- International relations theorists belonging to the neo-realist school of thought suggested the ‘poles’ systems as a way to understand the international system and the interaction between states. According to this theory, the international system is considered bi-polar when there are two dominant adversarial superpowers and multi-polar if there are numerous powerful states (or organisations) that share power. The most significant example of a bi-polar system is the Cold War that dominated the international system for the second half of the twentieth century. Multipolarity is much more frequent, as it was the prevalent system both before and after the Cold War.
- The First World War came as a result of the division of the superpowers of the multi-polar system into two major camps and the fact that these powers were reluctant to abandon their allies and their interests. Similarly, it can be argued that the Second World War was also a result of an unstable multi-polar system in which it was not clear which states were willing to join in an alliance to check the growing power of Nazi Germany. Contrary to both of those multi- polar situations, the bi-polar Cold War was ‘fought’ by only two actors: the USA and the USSR.
- these two superpowers were much more powerful than any other state, ally or foe. They were powerful enough to ignore the demands of their allies and, instead, independently track their own foreign policy towards each other. Alliances were not tilting the balance significantly – even when France and China (both nuclear states and relatively strong allies) abandoned NATO and denounced the USSR respectively, the behaviour of the two superpowers was not altered.
- In a similar way, the fact that the alliances were also separated by ideological differences offered no opportunity for a change of sides, which meant that both superpowers had almost perfect information of the other and of its allies. This meant that both camps knew about the plans of the other side and this, in turn, implied both sides had an awareness of the other side’s ‘red lines. Almost perfect information and more or less consistent behaviour on the part of the USA and the USSR meant that they could avoid serious miscalculations, a usual cause of wars.
- The rising tension in times of crises helped the superpowers to understand the other actor’s tolerance. The most useful illustration of this is the behaviour of the superpowers following the Cuban missile crisis, which was arguably a turning point in the Cold War.
- Hence despite the fact that the Cold War was a period where antagonism and tension were high, it seems that at least the bi-polarity of the international scene was more predictable and stable compared to the multi-polar nature of previous eras. There was at least relative transparency and less complexity compared to the systems that dragged the world into two major wars (the World Wars).
- With the collapse of the Soviet Union, many thought that nuclear war was no longer a threat and money would be diverted to economic and social development schemes instead. The post-Cold War era created some immediate gains for the international community – the apartheid in South Africa was dissolved and peace negotiations resumed in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. But the bloody conflicts in Bosnia, Angola, Kosovo, Congo, Chechnya and elsewhere resulted in a surge of ethnic division. It was a desperate and angry form of ethnic hatred in a highly unstable global system, with conflicts resulting in genocides and ethnic cleansing. Ethnic and religious identification, an issue lying dormant during the Cold War, was woken up by the instability of the new system as the remaining Cold War superpower USA failed to act as an international peacekeeper.
- In the post-Cold War world, many states or groups choose to defy both the remaining superpowers (the USA, the EU etc.) and also international organisations like the UN. This, in turn, creates a global uncertainty, as it seems that superpowers can no longer control states that have a tendency towards becoming more ‘rogue’. Hence it is said that bi- polar systems seem more stable than multi-polar systems and the Cold War, although not completely safe, was in many ways more stable than today’s multi-polar international system.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies