Polarity of the International System: Current and Future

International relations scholars, who consider themselves “realist”, believe that the international system is predicated on the actions of states(nations)—mainly just the handful of powerful states. These realist scholars believe in the notion that the condition of international relations, at any point in history, stems from a few states competing for, global and/or regional, power; since all states desire survival, they must attain power and influence to persist. This innate need for power, as a means to continue, creates a global distribution of power, and like any distribution, there are states that amass far more power than their contemporaries.

International relations scholars have identified different types of structures for international balances of power—polarities. The term refers to the different types of a power structure that dictate the international system: uni-polarity (the Roman Empire), Bipolarity (Cold War, Peloponnesian war), Tri-polarity (post-WW2: UK, USA, USSR), and multi-polarity (pre-WW1).

Currently, almost no person would dispute that the international system is in a state of uni-polarity, with the United States of America as the preeminent state. Though, through simple historical observation, that international structure is never permanent. No state is capable of being the paramount state forever; their dominance begins to atrophy while peer nations begin to rival their strength—consequentially transforming the international system into a state of multi-polarity or tri-polarity. And that is where I believe the state of international relations will be in 20 years.

Uni-polarity:

Again, I believe it is fair to say that no person would question the current global supremacy of the United States of America. After the collapse of the U.S.S.R. in the late 1980s, America is unquestionably the most powerful state of her contemporaries. As of now, no other states rival America’s preeminence, economically, militarily, or even its cultural influence. It is easy to observe the current state of uni-polarity. Like former-president George W. Bush once said (*I’m paraphrasing because I could not find the quote): America acts, and the world reacts.

America has the largest GDP of all states (U.S.A.’s GDP: $18.6 trillion) --only China comes close to being viewed as an economic peer (China’s GDP: $11.2 trillion). Although, China’s economy is significantly more dependent on the United States than the United States is dependent on China, and the Chinese government officials know this. That is why they must always consider the United States when making consequential decisions (e.g. trade agreement). America’s economy is so robust that even its largest state (sub-state) would have the 5th largest economy in the world if it were a sovereign state ($2.5 trillion)—an economy larger than the United Kingdom.

When it comes to America’s hard power, it military, no other states are comparable; America controls the world’s most powerful and capable military, maybe even histories most powerful military. America spends allocates more money to their military than the next 10 most funded militaries combined (America’s Department of Defense budget: $690 billion). America also operates over 800 military bases in 70 different states—the most by a huge margin.

Besides their two most overt hard strengths, economy and military, America also possesses an arsenal of soft strengths, e.g. diplomatic and cultural influence. America has diplomats in every corner of the globe and it also dominates the entertainment industry—American culture sells. Currently, the international system is in a state of post-Cold War uni-polarity, with the United States at the global steering wheel.

Tri-polarity:

America’s current global dominance will not persist. Because America is the sole global hyper-power, they have taken on the responsibility of maintaining global stability with an adverse and complex international dynamic. These over-commitment will, inevitably, begin to burden the United States. The United States will begin to wain in power because of their exorbitant global commitments. While the United States is increasingly burdened with the aforementioned global commitments, like on securing the west (i.e. NATO) and engaging in foreign conflicts, other states will have the opportunity to ascend to superpower status. In 20 years, I believe the nations that will rival the United States in power will be China and the European Union; the world will enter a state of tri-polarity.

China is an obvious inevitable rival for the United States. Their economy is nipping at the heels of the United States, and if China’s economy continues to grow at its current rate, it will soon eclipse the United States as the world’s largest economy. China has also begun to increase its military spending; China, currently, has the second largest military budget ($175 billion). China’s current head of state, Xi Jingpin, has ambitious plans to raise China’s international status and become an unquestionable global superpower and they will be if the trend of their growth continues.

The other nation I believe will eventually become a member of the potential power trio is the European Union. Currently, the European Union resembles a quasi-state, but I predict they will consolidate within the next couple of decades and become a genuine state—something like the United States of Europe. Most states in Europe are already members of the European Union and have developed an inter-dependency on all other member states. I have no reason to believe any other nation will extricate themselves from the Union; Britain is currently regretting voting to leave because they have, too, developed a dependency on the Union’s free-trade market.

European heads of states, like French President Macron and German Chancellor Merkel have begun to promulgate pro-European Union sentiments, and these two are the leaders of Europe’s most powerful nations. They want to strengthen the “euro-zone”. Also, Both France and Germany increased their military funding and are both proponents of a single European Union military—most likely in the aim of decreasing European reliance on the United States’ military. With the rise of a unified Europe, Russian’s influence and power in the region will begin to peter; they neither have a strong enough military or the economy to combat a unified Europe.

Conclusion:

Within this current international system, we are experiencing uni polarity, with the United States being the dominant global superpower, The United States hold this sole superpower status because of their ability to effectively wield both their hard and soft powers. It is ubiquitously known that the United States has the world most powerful military and the largest economy. These hard powers, military and economic, are coupled with robust soft powers, like diplomacy and cultural influence.

Though, because of the United States’ sole superpower status, they have taken the mantle of the global police; taking on the responsibility of maintaining global stability. Like every great sole superpower that preceded the United States, their overcommitments will begin to burden them while other nations take the opportunity to become superpowers too. Within 20 years, I believe the state of international relation will operate under a tri-polarity dynamic. Every person knows that China will eventually rival the United States, especially economically. And I believe a consolidated Europe, with or without the United Kingdom, would also become a considerable match for China and the United States, especially militarily.

Bibliography

• Chandler, M. (2018, June 3). United States of Europe moves CLOSER as Angela Merkel backs Emmanuel Macron EU reforms. Retrieved September 28, 2018, from https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/968888/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-eu-united-states-of-europe

• P. (2018, February 12). DoD Releases Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Proposal. Retrieved September 28, 2018, from https://dod.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1438798/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2019-budget-proposal/

• Lundestad, E. B., & Jakobsen, T. G. (2013, February 5). A Unipolar World: Systems and Wars in Three Different Military Eras. Retrieved September 28, 2018, from http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/02/05/a-unipolar-world-systems-and-wars-in-three-different-military-eras/

• VARISCO,, A. E. (2013, June 3). Towards a Multi-Polar International System: Which Prospects for Global Peace? Retrieved September 28, 2018, from https://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/03/towards-a-multi-polar-international-system-which-prospects-for-global-peace/

• * https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp

#America #EU #EuropeanUnion #China #Polarity #InternationalRelations #EmmanuelMacron #AngelaMerkel #XiJinping