Uni-polar or bi-polar world?

[Q Classic]

so you'd rather be groped by several different people than by one or two?

let's ask china how she felt during the 18-20th centuries...

[yago]

so you'd rather be groped by several different people than by one or two?

That's just what I mean. -> That was a UNIpolar world, with mainly Europeans thinking, hey, we're great, let's take it all !!!!

Now, China is a at least a semi-pole. Soon a full-pole. But better off than earlier, don't you think ?

[Q Classic]

eh, i wouldn't call it a unipolar world. the europeans themselves, during that time, engaged in strategic competition with each other. hence, china was split amongst britain, russia, america, usw...

meaning that even though they all hailed from one part of the world, they were sufficiently competitive with each other that they might as well have been multipolar.

[gsmoove23]

There is no reason a bipolar world would be unstable unless the 2 poles were agressively confrontational. If we're talking about a balance between the US and a unified Europe, both remaining in cooperative competition then you would have a natural barrier to the excessive displays of power and tendancy toward hubris that any unopposed superpower will naturally come to.

In the end a unipolar world is inherently unstable in the sense that it is only waiting for the rise of a balancing force. The US cannot stamp out opposition in the traditional sense and its natural tendency to use its power in its own best interest (human tendency, not specifically US tendency) will be a catalyst in itself in creating unified opposition in the form of Europe or some other surprise.

[yago]

.

meaning that even though they all hailed from one part of the world, they were sufficiently competitive with each other that they might as well have been multipolar.

Ok, that was persuasive.

Than I say, a world full of poles, but no pole can be exploited by the others.

And to those idiots that are called Europeans. They created two blocks (Russia, UK, France versus Germany, Austro-Hungary) and started to massslaughter themselves.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by yago
.

Ok, that was persuasive.

Than I say, a world full of poles, but no pole can be exploited by the others.

And to those idiots that are called Europeans. They created two blocks (Russia, UK, France versus Germany, Austro-Hungary) and started to massslaughter themselves.

And don't forget the Poles, themselves.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
There is no reason a bipolar world would be unstable unless the 2 poles were agressively confrontational. If we're talking about a balance between the US and a unified Europe, both remaining in cooperative competition then you would have a natural barrier to the excessive displays of power and tendancy toward hubris that any unopposed superpower will naturally come to.

In the end a unipolar world is inherently unstable in the sense that it is only waiting for the rise of a balancing force. The US cannot stamp out opposition in the traditional sense and its natural tendency to use its power in its own best interest (human tendency, not specifically US tendency) will be a catalyst in itself in creating unified opposition in the form of Europe or some other surprise.

Yep, that´s it

I´d compare this question about a Uni-/Multipolar World also somehow to the question wether a Government should be a dictatorship or a Democracy.

A Unipolar could in my Example be compared to a Dictatorship:
A Dictatorship where one Person rules can be beneficial, as long as the Person on the Top of the State issues Orders which benefit all the people within the State.
In this case a dictatorship could even be more beneficial than a Democracy, because there won´t be any Discussions if things have to be done, but instead the things the Leader on the top of the Governments wants to be done will be done (and, as aforementioned because the leader wants only the best for all the people in the State those things will be good things).

In a Unipolar world this would be if the most powerful country makes Decision, which benefit also the other countries in the world.

But if the Person on the Top of the State is someone like Saddam, it wouldn´t be a State most people would want to live in (as long as they aren´t among the small number of people, who benefit from the Leader, such as the Members of his ruling Clique).

In an unipolar world this would be if the most powerful country uses his power mainly for his own benefit.


A Multipolar world with some Structure like a UNO Version 2 (where you had for example no Veto-Rights) could be compared to a Democracy:

In a real Democracy the Process of Decision-making will be more tedious.
There will be more Discussions among Commitees if Things have to be done, but at least the Danger that someone uses the State only for his own benefit will be much less than in a Dictatorship.
There won´t be a single Person on the Top of the State but wthere will be a couple of parties which try to influence the decisionmaking within the Coomitees according to their own agenda.


I for my Part would prefer a multipolar world, because you couldn´t say for sure, if the President of the most powerful state in a unipolar world would use the Powers of his state for the benefit of all other states or just for the benefit of his own country.
But of course I could understand that many members of the most powerful state in the world would be tempted to prefer an unipolar world

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DanS

Stability is not a good thing to go after, because the ends will always justify the means. Freedom will always be subsumed by Colonialism.

I agree that stability at all costs is not good, but with a growing number of countries that are able to get WMD it seems to get more important in the future. OTOH effective measures against proliferation could require more cooperation at least in certain fields between several big powers and the US, which means those who cooperate there get more political weight.

[GePap]

I think DanS's anlysis was by far the most correct: the US is not a mighty unipolar power: our conventional power is immense but it is still higlhy expensive, I mean, it took about 40-50% of our military to ahcieve the results we wanted in Iraq, and Iraq was the weakest of all our enemies. And many sections fot he world are relatively immune to US power, because of unconventional capabilities or size.

I also agree that this weak unipole is seeking to destabalize the world at this time, since the ideologues running it distrust and dislike the status quo, and in fact are seeking to make the US a greater unipole at this time. In essence. the US is not only the great power, but more of a revisionist states than any of the "rogues" states are. I don;t view this thoghy as benignly as DanS, since I think the people running this country have greatly oevrestimated their ability to change the world in the manners they are willing to use (purely military but little in nation building)

[St Leo]

Apolar!

[MichaeltheGreat]

The bipolar "stability" of the cold war is a lot more myth on a global scale. You had stability for the major powers and their close satellites, but constant (and in many cases debilitating) destabilization or support of oppression out on the fringes. Somalia in '93 was an offshoot of US-Soviet maneuvering for influence in the horn of Africa, Congo-Zaire-Congo, Angola, South Africa and Mozambique, Iran and Iraq, much of central America, Chile, Cuba, much of southeast Asia and the Korean peninsula also have paid very high prices for that "stability."

In many cases, they're still paying the price.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with gsmoove. Bi-polar is best. Right now you have a unipolar system, which is just waiting for a rising power to challenge the hegemon (us). When that happens, there will probably be a conflict, if it is China that is that rising power. If the rising power is the EU, then it will be a peaceful transition. Bi-polar, however, is most stable.