New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Any student of modern history can attest that the cold war era saw an international system structured in a bi-polar manner. On the right was the United States, its satellite states, and its allies; on the left was the Soviet Union with its satellite states, and its Communist allies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the international system that the world had become accustomed to suddenly collapsed. Like all current affairs, to fully comprehend the nature of today’s international system we must first analyze those of the past.

Throughout the 1990’s, foreign relations experts debated over the nature of the current international system, indeed it was possible to assert that the world was now in a uni-polar system whereby the United States was the single great power and where all other actors were unable to challenge it either militarily or economically.

Other’s contended that the world was in the midst of a diffuse polar system in which international actors were not tied to a major global player. The proponents of diffuse polarity point to globalization as evidence that no single actor can wholly influence the actions of all other nations.

Perhaps an allegory to economic systems would be the best way to describe the different stages of the international system in the 20th century. Let us say that the world is a single market and the actors (only nations in this instance) are firms.

The international system prior to World War One was most reminiscent of an Oligopoly, or a market structure in which a small number of independent firms constitute the entire market; in this instance those firms would have been the major European powers (France, England, Germany) and the United States.

The world system changed with the Allies victory over the Axis powers in World War Two. From the end of WWII to the collapse of the Soviet Union the world witnessed a bi-polar system, wherein the USA and the Soviet’s both sought to export their values.

It is after the collapse of the Soviet Union that political scientists begin to express disagreement. With the collapse of the Soviets’ some argue that the US was left as the only “firm” standing; giving the US a monopoly over the international system. Other’s argue that while the world market for military, political, and economic power was not perfectly competitive, it was more akin to that of monopolistic competition. This theory suggests that each world actor was independent of others and that there no states were able to collude together to achieve common goals. Events in the 1990s, such as the first Gulf War, international peace keeping operations, and US involvement in global economic development all provide strong evidence to the contrary, that many nations during the past two decades depended greatly on the United States. The world was much closer to a uni-polar system than a diffuse one in the decade prior to 9/11.

Surely, the events of September 11th did not bring about the end of US global dominance, but many of the events that have shaped the new international system of today occurred around the same time as the infamous terrorist attack. These events at the dawn of the new millennium include the beginning of global recognition of China’s and India’s presence as major economic players, the start of a period of rising commodity prices, the entrance of the standardized European currency (the Euro), and the election of President Vladimir Putin in Russia.

Since the year 2000, the international system has again changed.

Eurozone countries (nation’s in the EU using the EU currency and relying on it’s central bank) now have a greater combined GDP than the United States; with the impending implementation of the Lisbon Treaty it appears that the European Treaty is moving ever closure towards a federation.

The rise of India and China economically and militarily have also drastically changed the power dynamic in the pan-Asian geopolitical zone; Japan and South Korea, nations that once carried most of Asia’s weight, now find themselves having to sit at the negotiating table with Vietnam, Thailand, China, and India.

The dynamic in the Middle East has also not remained stagnant, with the UAE (Abu Dhabi and Dubai primarily) rising as the regional cultural and business capitals, and with the old guard (Iran and Saudi Arabia) competing to maintain some military, economic, and political dominance. The rise of the UAE city states and other nations such as Qatar are marginalizing the economic and political power that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran all once possessed.

Changes are evident in the America’s where NAFTA and other treaties are making continental trade and development easier.

If anything, globalization has made world actors more dependent on one another.

Given the changes in global dynamics over the past decade, it would be safe to assume that the world is once again moving towards an Oligopoly like that prior to the first World War. If there is one staunch opponent to this, it is Vladamir Putin.

Putin has a different view of the current international system than many in the west. Many residents in the ivory tower and practicing experts in the field of international affairs foresee a system filled with competing regional multinational and supernational organizations. Indeed it would be possible to see the expansion of existing regional leagues and treaties (such as the Arab League and NAFTA) to better compete with the growing competition arising from Europe. Putin however, does not see the number of power players in the world growing; he still believes that an the rivalry between the East and the West exists.

This fact has become clear with Putin’s staunch opposition to the US-run missile shield for Europe. Despite his efforts, he was unable to persuade European countries to abandon plans for the joint EU/ US missile shield and it passed with a unanimous vote in NATO. Putin’s goal was to try and reignite at least some of the cold war era Eastern opposition to US policy, but he has been unable to accomplish his goal. Over the past two days, the Russian foreign ministry has significantly toned down opposition to the missile shield in recognition of their inability to stop its passing. Putin has hoped that his opposition to the missile shield and other NATO policies would once again cement Russia’s place as a competitor to the US and the large European nations.

Putin by now has realized that his efforts to re-energize cold war tensions have been fruitless, indeed American pundits and talking heads have done more to further his cause than he has. American’s perceive China, Iran, and North Korea all to be greater threats to US interests than Russia, a fact that does not help his cause of increasing Russia’s political influence.

The world has reached a stage where state actors on their own no longer have the clout they once did. Small nations have known this truth for years and it has given rise to many of these regional leagues such as the Arab League, the EU, OAS, and APEC. The United States has a significant advantage over other large international actors such as China and Russia because of its diplomatic efforts over the past two decades to become deeply integrated into multinational organizations. US membership in the Organization of American States, the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation, and of course NATO has extended US influence into Asia, Latin America, and Europe.

Russia under Putin has in fact moved backwards from the proactive involvement of Yeltsin in the 1990’s. Yeltsin gained Russia G8 membership and even tried to move it closer to NATO, whereas Putin has attempted to juxtapose Russia as a competitor to NATO. Putin’s practices have only increased the isolation of Russia, had he not embarked in seven years of extreme nationalistic policies, it is likely that rising oil prices and globalization would have carried Russia much further than where it is today.

Whether or not US hegemony in the 1990’s has led to its involvement in many multinational organizations is up for debate, but it cannot be argued that the US is not in the best position of all global powers in the international arena. As the world seems to be moving towards a series of federations, the nation best ready to adapt to this new international system is the United States.

The inability of China and Russia to enter into proactive diplomatic relationships and multinational organizations may hinder their ability to compete with the United States in the future. Recent actions by China including exporting a great deal of economic development indicate that the Communist Party of China recognizes their need to become economically and diplomatically tied to smaller countries, the same cannot be said for Russia.

With Medvedev’s impending oath of office, it is apparent that Russian policy will remain much the same as it has been because of Medvedev’s strong ties to Putin. The continuation of Putin’s international policies will only continue to distance Russia from the international community and Medvedev’s election represents more of a threat to Russia’s sphere of influence than NATO and the US missile defense shield ever could.

Last 5 posts by Eftychis

• Russian oil slump fuels supply worries - April 15th, 2008
• The Global Food Crisis - April 15th, 2008
• "Off-the-Record Obama" - April 14th, 2008
• McCain's first general election ad - March 28th, 2008
• Hillary and Obama: Tearing the party apart - March 26th, 2008

Popularity: 58% [?]

The Putin’s inability to alter the international system by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.