Holsti introduces several historical system that exemplify multipolar and bipolar systems, with a bipolar system being found in the history of the Greeks, and the multipolar system being found in the history of Chinese politics. We will be assessing the data from the Greeks and Chinese and use the data to justify a hypothesis. “A system is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts united by some form of regular interaction” (Mingst 108). As well will see, the system of multipolar and biploar systems arise due to the fact that “system polarity simply describes the distribution of capabilities among states in the international system by counting the number of poles” (Migst 109). What is important is the comparison between various system to predict the further success of possible imminent global affairs situations, characterized by different international set ups that affect the national interests and well being of both the state and individual. We search for stability, which is a fair balance of power and internal domestic jurisdiction and sovereingty. The instance of bipolarity is the dominant distribution of power where two states own the greater among of economic, military and cultural influence both in the international and regional field. They develop their own spheres of influence. One example of a bipolar system was the United States and the Soviet Union, with smaller state represented by capitalism sided with the United States, and Communist states siding with the Soviet Union. The interests of these two nations completely dominated international politics and interests. There has been a prediction where “they also hypothesized that the closer the system is to bipolarity, the more war it will experience” (Mingst 114). This is true because while two superpowers are vying for their self interest, they may disregard, exploit, or annex smaller, less influential countries. One example of the multipolar system is the 19th century balance of power among the UK, Austria, Russia, France, and Prussia. “In multipolar systems several states, at least three or more, enjoy relative power parity” (Mingst 109). By the use of institutions across many different countries in the multipolar system would allow to the flow of interests and calls for human needs across the various actors, in other words, there would be a growth in international organizations, and thus development. With more actors in the system of multipolarity, there is an increase in fair representation. Greater cooperation would be followed by the decrease in international anarchy. Key is the stratification of the country system, since natural resources are of pertinence, economic cooperation is a must, therefore countries must work together in a multipolar scene, and economic flow could be equitably represented, without resort to imperialism or colonialism. It is furthermore terrible that powerful countries are willing to resort to war in order to attain resources, less powerful countries have a right to not being manipulated economically. An important implication of the collective security concept was that a collective security system would emancipate small and weak states from the precarious position which they occupied in a balance of systems. A multipolar system would assure that each state is treated more equitably, with a balance of the system such that the weak and small states have a voice and say in expressing their interests. Super powers tend to dominate politics and the economy, therefore neglecting the smaller voices and institutions. “Theoretically, in multipolar, or balance of power systems, the regulation of system stability ought to be easier than in bipolar systems” (Mingst 114). It is said that “bipolar systems are very difficult to regulate formally, because neither uncommitted states nor international organizations are able to direct the behavior of either of the two poles” (Mingst 112). Therefore it is imperative to create an equal and responsible balance of power, with more flexible policy making and less preoccupation with the interests or more dominant, and sometimes corrupt, superpowers. In the balance of powers is the theory that national security is bettered when capabilities are allocated so that there is no hegemon, in this case, two hegemons defined by the bipolar system. If a single or two states obtain inordinate power, those in the defensive will form a coalition, and action unfortunately defined by fear and not representation. With no authority above the state to come to its rescue in the event of an attack by a hegemon, states attempt to prevent a potential hegemon from arising by balancing against it. Especially in a bipolar system, it is natural that international decisions be made for strategic purposes and the maintenance a balance of power. An instance of peaceful multipolarity in the Concert of Europe, a period after the Napoleonic Wars to the Crimean war. Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr assert that multipolar systems are more secure than bipolar systems, power is from alliances and petty wars are for the most part insignificant or not in the mode of challenging other powers. It is also safer in terms of mutually assured destruction where there exists a multipolar system because of the focus on a number of powers. The hypothesis we wish to prove and attain is that a multipolar system is very much more agreeable, successful, effective, and long lasting than a system that is bipolar. In the multipolarity situation, we will go into depth about the Chinese Chou dynasty. The Chou dynasty had a system of large independent states that replaced feudalism. The bureaucratic organism created from the monarchy was well established and governed and were compartmentalized to serve a myriad of government functions. Feudal lords received land from the monarch, and there were at least 130 large feudal states. Within their estates, feudal lords achieved much freedom. Splitting the land between relatives and subvassals created a smaller political unit. During the Spring and Autumn period the authority of feudal lords grew quickly, at the expense of the centralized Chou jurisdiction. There was construction of walled cities, and the lords become quickly self sufficient. There were able to resist the interests of the central monarch. Princes could organize peasant militias and armies to fight for them, and the lifestyle, culture and dialect were noticeably between different various states. Chou dynasts could hardly control the burgeoning growth of power among vassals. States became self sufficient, and lords would consolidate political, military, and administrative power. Smaller units were eventually incorporated into larger entities. The government of the Chinese changed from a feudal type to a collection of powerful states, because states were isolated from the central power. There were seven major states and three smaller entities. In the state no one state was predominant, alliance patterns shifted quickly, and leadership was passed back and forth. There were three powers in the North: Ch’i, Chin, and Ch’un, and in the South there were Ch’u, Wu, and Yueh. Power was gravitated toward the Ch’i, Ch’u, and Chin. There were many diplomatic exchanges such as the ch’ao, a court visit paid by one ruler to another; hu, a meeting between permanent bureaucrats from different states; p’in, friendly interactions of information and inquiry, shih, exchange of emissaries, and finally shou, hunting parties. These states had permanent diplomatic communications with each other. A valid form of interaction was commercial exchange. States created economies through other states, by obtaining and requesting important resources. There was of system of powerful, willful and independent states. There was constant negotiations and bartering. Alliances created peace and cooperation and alliance members. Small states that have been frequently victimized met in a conference of states, and a multilateral treaty of nonagression was created, signed, and agreed upon to be in effect. Medium and large states had a considerable amount of freedom. While the smaller states were less small, they were generally safe and regarded as satellites. If power is diffused, the depth for choice of foreign policy is substantial, and outside attack ocurences are comparatively low. For the bipolar system we will take a long at the history of the Greeks. In Greece there was proliferation of the “polis” or city states. Polis were a center for individuals seeking liberty, and provided a place to provide justic, promote fellowship and harming and improving personal character. The Greeks endorsed limited political organization. Many polis sent politically untrustworthy citizens to fill honorific positions. The system became stratified and rigid. Due to external danger, the Hellenic League was established as a military alliance and placed Greece under the leadership of Sparta. Two military alliances were created under the Peloponnesian Wars. There were two bloc created, namely, the Athenian Empire with Rhodes, Miletus and Corcyra, and on the other hand there was Sparta with the Peloponnesian League, Ellie, Arcadia, and Corinth. Because of military and economics power, Greece and Sparta were dichotimized. While Sparta had strength in its military, Athens was noted for its culture achievements and commercial viability and flourishing. Peace treaties were enacted for a small and limited time. There were many invasions of the city states in Greece, as well an internal revolts Athens that attempted to punish and deter allies or city states to join Sparta. There was a great deal of military violence. Wars and conflicts intensified as quarrels over economics increased. There was a long bitter time period between these two blocs of Greece and Sparta. Using war and violence to settle conflicts, led to the the exhaustion of major city states. It was hard for the small city states, unproportional in size and capacity, to defend itself in lieu of a major power such as Sparta. With the multipolarity of China and the bipolarity of Greece we can assume that multipolar states are far more successful than bipolar states, especially in considering the balance of power, vulnerability, perpetration of a meaningful and long lasting culture and humane development, diplomatic frequency and efficacy, ability to fight and defend, government involvement, and overall liberty of the state and individuals. Lords in the historical Chinese society were able to hold diplomatic relations and protect smaller lands by incorporating them. The division between Greece and Sparta is delineated by frequent war and disagreement, mostly due to an uncompromising nature and inability to integrate the strengths of each nation to the other. In other words, Greece lived in perpetual fear while members of China lived in relative peace and engaged in numerous and effective diplomatic negotiations, with such extensive appellations, rituals and events as outlined in the previous paragraph. Historical China has maintained a sophisticated system of negotiation, diplomacy and peace, while the Greek system was highly unstable and fearful, therefore providing a historical basis to prove that indeed, those with a multipolar system will be given the accolade, acknowledgement, and exemplification a tantamount multi-national, multi-state, system capable of self maintenance.
Posted on: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:17:19 +0000