fiscal, political, technological as well as military aspects impact on international relations forces

1.0: CHAPTER ONE

1.1: Introduction to the Study

Numerous fiscal, political, technological as well as military aspects impact on international relations forces. As well, globalization, military power, and also technology expertise have led to the rise of more accessible interactions, which may complicate the global system. As such, analyzing the worldwide network and forecasting presents various challenges. While a nation’s defense system is perhaps an imperative factor, not determining the significance of an international order, other elements such as the economy are crucial. According to Wilde [1] in his work on the interdependence Theory, the author posited that the attractiveness of war decreases while the complexities of interdependence increase, which avail solutions for diffused interstate warfare. As such, the author suggests that there is a causal interaction between levels of interdependence with the use of political power.

Over the years, the distribution of power has shifted in diverse ways. For instance, there are situations in which there have been multipolar systems where more than two states have nearly equal amounts of power as relates economic, cultural as well as an economic power. Multipolar systems, according to some classical realist theorists such as E.H. Carr, suggest that multipolar systems are more reliable as nations can gain influence through alliances. However, opponents claim that due to states misjudging the intentions of other countries on organizational culturesuch as security, and then multipolarity becomes moot. Instances of multipolar systems include the great powers of Europe assembling to tackle problems such as World War One and Two. Equally, bipolar systems extend in much larger systems, although the influence is divided into two distinctive groups[2]. The significance of the World Wars is that they were divided into two distinctive spheres. When two countries such as the United States and China have the majority of military, cultural, and economic influence, they create a bipolar distribution of power. The Cold War is an example that would demonstrate the importance of two distinctive groups, as many Western nations supported the United States capitalist Stance. On the other hand, most communist states supported the USSR. The shift in power from the USSR and US relationship began after the Sino-Soviet Split in 1960, which made China a possible superpower that has become a dominant force today.

At the end of the Cold War, the bipolar international system became disintegrated. Waltz described the situation after the Cold war as unipolar as the United States remained the only superpower[3]. However, as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union, there was an imbalance of power and an absence of competition, making the US a unipolar power due to the nation’s economic, scientific, and military and technology dominance. Bergsten describes the power of the United States with the ability to have the leading source of FDI. As shown in figure one, the United States and China have become the leading nations in terms of the imperative dynamics that avail influences in an international system. However, the ability for the existence of a bipolar or a multipolar order will be determined by the ability to lead nations to blend the most fiscal, cultural, expertise, and other factors that influence the international system.

1.2: Background

There is no doubt that there are two vital foundational texts that help to formulate this study as they are imperative texts in the study of international relations.  Firstly, the 1939’s discourse The Twenty Years Crisis by E.H. Carr and secondly 1948’s Politics among Nations by Hans Morgenthau have been identified as an underlying theory in international relations.  These works are vital in three key respects firstly because both created a broad framework for understanding global connections in different eras and, as such, gave theoretical tools to comprehend general patterns in how powers attain power and influence. As well, both discourses explained in detail how international law and shared objectives through institutions such as the United Nations and the League of Nations could not tame a state’s power to gain power and influence or security.  Most importantly, both asserted that an international relations system that did not consider the struggle for power would fail.

Structural realism is crucial as it builds on Carr and Morgenthau’s texts. More specifically, there are three types of neo-realism concepts developed by Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Walt, and John Mearsheimer that are vital for this study. Overall, realism pushes the ideas of the human need for power and the archaic nature of the international system. As such, realism explains why there has been continuous conflict and why that is not likely to change. States are vital components of a global network, and an individual country will seek to seek security over uncertainty. As such, realists such as Walt posit that safety is guaranteed through augmented military capability and to joining with other states to limit autonomy risk. However, a state’s relative power is the underlying aspect of the realist theory as states with most power become great powers. On the one hand, classical realists such as Morgenthau affirm that “Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature” [4] I am thus affirming that an international system is inescapable due to man’s nature. Equally, structural theorists assert on determining factors as the leading cause for the structure of the global network, for instance, anarchy, which makes states act as they please to survive.

Hence, while both types of realism focus on the balance of power, structural realism focuses on the systemic, unlike classical realism, which affirms human factors. Understanding this divergence is vital because the recommendations at the end of the study will be based on structural realism. Also, following the difference creates an appreciation for states acting not for inherent human flaws but because of other benign factors such as survival and in effect a state may only be aggressive to another if security and autonomy is threatened and that also means that the great powers may not be necessarily in constant conflict which is Morgenthau’ implication. As such, this study will focus on John Mearsheimer’s offensive realism as part of structural realism based on his five assumptions, which are profoundly systemic and not inherent in human nature.

1.3: Statement of the Problem

The United States and China are more potent in comparison to other states. The difference between the Cold War and the new rivalry between the US and China is that the competition is likely more, creating more instability. While sea barriers that exist limiting significant competition, it still increases the risk for frictions involving the US and China in Maritime East Asia. It is imperative to note that superpower rivalry between the two nations consists of all the vital elements such as economic, technological, military as well as cultural factors as evidenced by the Trade Wars that may negatively affect both countries due to the substantial investments of both nations to either territory. There is a lot on the stake for export and import, and once if one country does not trade with the other country, both ending up losing the economy inside the states. Tunsjo affirmed that while there may not be proxy wars as during the Cold War or confrontation, a maritime conflict is a serious concern. While the States is the Superpower, China is still powerful enough to be a second “pole” in the international system[5]. Tunsjo examined the bipolarity in the context of geopolitics, which he delineates as “geostructural realism” due to the narrowing gap between the United States and China and the widening gap between China and any other third-ranking power. In this case, Tunsjo extends John Mearsheimer’s bipolarity argument[6].

1.4: Significance of the Study

The US-China relationship differs in crucially significant respects from the Cold War bipolarity, which may have severe implications for the study. The significance of this study is that first is that this study distinguishes the world powers interactions from the Cold War. While the Cold War was marked with global competition and ideological hostility, this study associates bipolarity with a broader range of interactions between dominant powers, including cooperation and competition patterns. Indeed, the level with which either state will need either cooperative or competitive behaviors depends on either country’s economic interdependence as well as domestic partisan beliefs. Hence, this study is crucial as Maher demonstrates that the shift towards a bipolar structure is entirely divergent from other past bipolar systems such as the Cold War as China, unlike the Soviet Union, compares favorably in terms of various aspects such as the GDP[7]. The study is thus vital as understanding the rise of a bipolar system could impact all elements of international politics such as alliances as well as political foundations to new levels of economic interdependence and, most importantly, the composition of global organizations.

Overall, this study is significant because, firstly, it will elaborate on bipolarity in the 21^st century and globalization. There is extensive literature on the Soviet-US bipolarity. However, bipolarity is still vaguely understood in international relations, especially as it relates to how bipolarity today relates and compares to historical bipolarity[8]. Secondly, this study is critical in that it will define important elements that will define bipolarity, which differ with the US-Soviet bipolarity and other historical bipolar systems. Most importantly, this research will provide recommendations towards political violence or interdependence and the challenges that the US and the allies to the superpower might face due to the US-China Bipolarity.

1.5: Theoretical Foundation and Organization

The study’s theoretical framework includes a collection of interrelated concepts that guide the research as it determines elements to evaluate and relationships to look at. Thus, the theoretical framework of the study ought to be well thought and specific for the study. To fulfill the objective of this study, the researcher asserts that the current multipolar equilibrium will shift to a bipolar structure making the United States and China two powerful states that no other nation can control. To provide a complete analysis of this argument, the researcher uses Mearsheimer’s critique of Kenneth Waltz’s theory of neorealism. Mearsheimer’s theory thus uses his realist theory to explain why multipolar systems will shift to a bipolar structure with the US and China at the center of power. While all elements of the international system to gain influence are vital, the researcher will only use the trade war as an example of how it serves as a function for great war politics.

Mearsheimer’s realism theory explains why contemporary US-China relations will shift the current international system making bit states rivals and enemies in the new bipolar order. Firstly, the researcher will begin by outlining and analyzing Mearsheimer’s five assumptions of Mearsheimer’s offensive realism. After analysis of every assumption, the researcher will find historical examples that support the theory from pre-world war, multipolar Europe, the Cold War era as well as instances from post-Cold war from 1991-2019. The final assessment of the approach will form a liberal comprehension of the international system.

1.5.1: Mearsheimer’s Offensive Realism

Mearsheimer began by affirming that every power is always looking for methods to have more influence over other rivals with unipolar superiority under consideration. Thus, unless the aim is to attain preponderance world powers do not accept status quo[9]. Thus, the central assertion from Mearsheimer is that world powers are always seeking to maximize world power. As a result, Mearsheimer derived five assumptions that explain why nations strive for solitary influence by behaving aggressively but not necessarily being competitive.  Most importantly, Mearsheimer noted that special powers perceive it best to pursue hegemony over other types of systems because the international orders endorse that every force must seek more influence over other states.

The first assumption advanced by Mearsheimer is that the international system is anarchic, meaning that all the global systems comprise of different states that do not have any central ordering principle or central authority above all states[10]. Unlike what most people would classify as anarchic as political aggression/violence and conflict, the use of lawless here means that each state would want to attain superiority because no higher ruling bodies exist that can govern all regimes.

The second assumption states that world powers in an international system integrate/ hold offensive military capability, which gives them the influence and ability to attack other states making states potentially dangerous to each other. However, some states have more military control over others. As seen in figure one, as adapted from Özkan, the United States compares favorably in military might to all other powers in the world in both military expenditure and workforce. Thus, Mearsheimer affirmed why countries would be aggressive and want hegemony is because a state’s power is highly determined by military capability.

Thirdly, Mearsheimer noted that states might need to gain influence that would ultimately lead to unipolarity because no state comprehends the intentions of the other states. To be specific, no nations are guaranteed that one nation will not attack countries due to rivalries. For example, Iran is an incomplete rivalry with the United States, but there is no way to understand if Iran will attack the US allies or interests. Noting that there are numerous causes for aggression, it is impossible to comprehend state motivations. Also, because the international system in nature is highly complex, this characteristic makes states pursue hegemony.

The fourth assumption advanced in Mearsheimer’s theory is that powers attempt to sustain their survival by maintaining the geographical and territorial integrity of domestic affairs. It is critical to note that as a world power losing sovereignty means that an authority cannot pursue other objectives, and hence, that is the most pertinent issue. Therefore, security above all things is the most crucial aspect of powers.

Last but not least, powers function strategically while aware of the external environment by thinking about how best to survive. For example, both the United States and China have different preferences with how they deal with the world. On the one hand, The United States makes strong alliances’ with other powers, including the United Kingdom, Japan, EU, France, Germany, by closely allying with these states. Equally, China does not pursue allies but relationships that benefit from attaining commercial endeavors.  As such, the United States’ role as a unipolar may be increased or impacted due to the relationship it holds with the allies.

Looking at Mearsheimer’s theory, it is clear that the assumptions provide great emphasis for hegemony because once all these incentives are combined, create a significant motivation to act offensively due to three primary behavioral patterns such as fear, self-help, and power maximization. It is evident that every state does not know the intentions of the other, and hence, fear becomes a primary behavior. As well, every country must protect the citizens, financial independence, and other domestic aspects because that is the reality of every nation. Moreover, states self-help because a government cannot rely on another state due to, for instance, the clash of ideologies. Mearsheimer provides an outstanding example for this by noting that during World War Two, the United States allied with the Soviet Union and China against Germany, but during the Cold War, the US-allied with West Germany and Japan against China and the Soviet Union. Most importantly, states assess power distribution to:

Maximize their share of world power. Specifically, they look for opportunities to alter the balance of power by acquiring additional increments of power at the expense of potential rivals. States employ a variety of means-economic, strategic, and military-to shift the balance of power in their favor, even if doing so makes other countries suspicious or even hostile. Because one state’s gain in power is another state’s loss, excellent skills tend to have a zero-sum mentality when dealing with each other. The trick, of course, is to be the winner in this competition and to dominate the other states in the system[11].

Hence, as Mearsheimer noted that the international system powers will always be aggressive because they seek to survive, and they do so by attaining the most influence.  As a result, this theory demonstrates that there will be a shift from multipolar to the bipolar structure as China and the United States can become rivals and enemies in the endeavor of each power attaining global hegemony. Most importantly, it is crucial to note that power will always seek to become more influential because it cannot stop until a state attains hegemony[12]. Keohane asks to what level is power acceptable as enough for the power to stop seeking more power[13].

1.6: Study Limitations

While the study could gain imperative perspectives from interviews, the review cannot utilize interviews to understand contemporary characteristics of hegemony, bipolar and multipolar systems, and the language challenge to understand the Chinese perspective would slow the project and thus is not an ideal methodology approach. As such, the researcher mitigates this issue by using a literature review of historic polarity systems to understand whether Mearsheimer’s is an accurate depiction of this argument. As such, the answer is to create a content analysis by creating themes that would directly look for elements of bipolarity since the French Revolution to now and how these aspects are vital in demonstrating a move from multipolar to a bipolar structure in the international system with the United States and China as opposite poles.

1.7: Definition of Terms

1. Balance of Power: The theory suggests that a state can use means necessary to mitigate another country from having unipolar dominance.
2. Bipolar: A situation in international relations that causes two countries or two groups of nations (WW2) to have more economic, cultural, military power, thus having to create global dominance over all other states.
3. Multipolar: in international relations, the multipolar potential exists when three or more states have equal amounts of military and cultural as well as military strength.
4. Polarity: How power in the international system is distributed in a given era in a region or on a global scale. For example, the United States is a regional hegemony, while China is not.
5. Unipolar: a unipolar system is where one state encompasses the most extensive global dominance over other countries in terms of economic, cultural, and military means.

[1] Wilde Jaap de. Saved from oblivion: Interdependence theory in the first half of the 20th century. A study on the causality between war and complex interdependence. University of Groningen, 1991).

[2] Jiang, Shiwei. “Is Bipolarity a sound recipe for world order–as compared to other historically known alternatives.” In ICD Annual Conference on Cultural Diplomacy in the USA” Options on the Table,” Soft Power, Intercultural Dialogue & the Future of US Foreign Policy. 2013.

[3] Waltz, Kenneth N. “Globalization and governance.” PS: Political Science & Politics 32, no. 4 (1999): 693-700.

[4] Morgenthau, Hans. “Politics among Nations: Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred and Knopf.” (1948).

[5] Tunsjø, Øystein. The return of bipolarity in world politics: China, the United States, and Geostructural Realism. Columbia University Press, 2018. 288.

[6]. Ibid. 289.

[7] Maher, Richard. “Bipolarity and the Future of US‐China Relations.” Political Science Quarterly 133, no. 3 (2018): 497-525.

[8] Wagner, R. Harrison. “What was bipolarity?.” International Organization 47, no. 1 (1993): 77-106.

[9] Mearsheimer, John J. The tragedy of high power politics. WW Norton & Company, 2001.Pg.30.

[10] Ibid. 30

[11] Ibid. 34

[12]. Ibid. 34

[13] Keohane, (Robert Owen). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University, 1984.