historical as well as contemporary rivalries among global powers that have created various polarities
2.0: CHAPTER TWO
2.1: Survey and Review of Literature
Chapter Two outlines and analyses historical as well as contemporary rivalries among global powers that have created various polarities. The aim is to find if Mearsheimer’s theory extends to historical data. The literature review will seek to extend Mearsheimer’s claim in chapter three that it should be apparent that unlike what most optimists that countries are more likely to define their greatness in constructive ways through cooperation are wrong. Instead, Mearsheimer asserts that states are more concerned about the balance of power and that powers are more likely to compete against each other[1]. One of the main reasons that Mearsheimer uses is international anarchy as the driving force behind excellent power behavior. However, in the 21st century, China is the most severe threat to the United States.
Thus, moving forward, twenty-first-century world politics still use the five assumptions mentioned in Mearsheimer’s discourse as actors of the international system operate in an anarchic order, that powers seek to gain security through military capability, that states are never guaranteed that other countries do not have hostile intentions, that excellent skills place a high premium on survival and most importantly that states are more likely to choose effective strategies that maximize their chances of survival. Mearsheimer uses one example, “sovereignty at bay” to indicate that contrary to common opinion that states can cooperate using institutions to dampen security competition is misplaced as the United Nations (UN) is the only organization that wields much power although the fact that some nations have Veto power make the UN virtually impossible organization to enforce influence to limit policies that limit powerful states[2] In Asia, there are no single institutions with such power, and other organizations such as NATO and the EU do not limit the power’s need to act independently. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
2.2: Background to Literature
2.2.2: World War One
The Great War is perhaps a vital aspect of this research as both World War and World War Two encapsulate the polarization within the international system. As well, these two wars are crucial because they depict how great powers interacted in the 20th century and how the relationships led to the rise of two great powers. Russia and the United States and how the wars further led to the US hegemony and the rise of China. Thus, while the French Revolution may be constrained while still availing an imperative perspective on autonomy, the Great War, on the other hand, does elaborate on a bipolar structure and the aspects that led to the war based on Mearsheimer’s five assumptions that determine a competitive international system. Thus, assessing both wars must be aligned on Mearsheimer’s theory and ultimately assert on the claim that states are more concerned about the balance of power and that powers are more likely to compete against each other. Because a bipolar system extends much further than just sovereign states to much larger structures such as alliances, both world wars had two concentrated groups, which made them bipolar statures. Taking two powers, for instance, Japan and the United States were divided into two respective spheres. The division of power between the two groups was central powers and Allied powers (World War One) and Axis and Allies in World War Two. However, in both instances, it is crucial to understand the aspects that led to the war and the reasons that led to the bipolarity in comparison to offensive realism.
The treaty of Versailles is one of the most important peace treaties to date and the most important during World War One (WW1) as it was the sole reason why both the Central Powers and Allied Powers ended the war five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand the main for WW1. The treaty of Versailles signed in 1919 compelled Germany to disarm, lose territories, and to pay reparations to Britain, France, and Russia. The central powers, on the other hand, included Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. The Treaty of Versailles humiliated Germany despite the “peace without victory” stance a vision deliberated by President Woodrow Wilson of the United States outlined in his famous Fourteen Points in 1918[4]. Thus, while the treaty was successful at ending World War One, some claim that the underlying issues that led to the war were not tackled. More specifically, the ultra-nationalist sentiment which led to the rise of Nazi Germany and the beginning of the Second World War could have been fuelled by the monetary distress and resentment after the Versailles treaty.
The international system before World War One was purely Multipolar, although nations in Europe were making mutual defense agreements that pulled partners into battle. These bilateral defense alliances meant that if one country got attacked, allied countries were compelled to defend them. For instance, Russia had a defense relationship with Serbia while Germany had a long-standing defense alliance with Austral Hungary. Equally, France understood that if it were facing military war Russia would come to defend it while Britain with Belgium and Japan with Britain. Therefore, once Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia was compelled to support Serbia. Then ultimately, France had to come to Russia’s defense, and since Germany attacked France through Belgium, Britain was pulled into the war. Japan, an ally of Britain, also entered the war, pulling Italy and the United States. As such, while the battle began with sovereign powers within a multipolar structure, they were drawn due to creating bipolar organizations.
Mearsheimer’s claim that countries will seek to compete against each other is thus valid as, during the World War One era, there was a rise in Imperialism mostly due to the need for raw materials in Africa and Asia. Before the war the most lucrative parts of Africa, for example, were a severe point of contention as powers desire for empires led to the confrontation and helped push for WW1. It is essential to assert that Mearsheimer’s claim precisely explains the world between 1914 and1920. Firstly, there was no system built to check world powers at the time, and it only after the Versailles treaty that President Wilson’s speech considered to create a democratic system. According to Carl, in his text “The Twenty-Year Crisis: 1919-1939,” one of the most crucial aspects after WW1 was the creation of the League of Nations to solve international conflicts[5]. However, the League of Nations was not sovereign or above any powers as powers still held their independence. Secondly, controls encompass their own military strength and thus have the capability of attacking any country. Indeed in the 20th century, the arms race among powers had long begun, and Germany had the most extensive military build-up. The Navy and military build-up at the time especially had a significant impact on public policy in Russia and Germany[6].
Mearsheimer’s assumed that states are never sure about other states’ intentions and hence powers will always act in competition due to hostile intentions regardless of them being benign. For example, Belgium was a mostly neutral country during world War One, but it becomes involved in the war anyway. The act of Germany trespassing on the land meant a possible cause of aggression, and as Mearsheimer stated in a political system, uncertainty about a power’s intentions is unavoidable. Another critical reason is that authorities seek to survive and maintain their territorial integrity and autonomy. Clearly, the commencement of World War one was due to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by a member of young Bosnian was a direct breach of autonomy by Serbia and thus a reason for a war declaration. Besides, Slavic people in Bosnia and Herzegovina wanted to be part of Serbia and not Austria, and thus, this nationalism directly led to the war. Also, the United States entry into World War One was considered a breach by Germany on the US autonomy after sinking of the Lusitania and unrestricted submarine warfare that kept the US right from reaching Britain as well as Zimmermann’s Telegram to Mexico to attack the US. Such acts to a country’s autonomy resulted directly in WW1. Most importantly, powers are rational actors and deliberate strategically on how to react/respond to the external environment. The fact that all nations had significant mutual defenses tells a lot about survival strategy among nations.
2.2.3: World War Two
As evidenced in WW1, the world powers are more concerned about the balance of power and that powers are more likely to compete against each other. After WWI, major powers created the League of Nations, a global organization for sustaining peace. Also, Germany was severely served with harsh terms that ensured peace in Europe lasted for a short time. Germany was furious about the treaty as citizens perceived as a dictated peace (diktat) the ultimate burden for reparations. Perhaps one of the most notable critics as John Maynard Keynes, who predicted that the responsibility for Germany was so significant and the whole European economy would collapse if Germany paid the reparations[7]. The feeling of the betrayal set a stage for Nationalist Workers Party who affirmed on reversing the Versailles party humiliation. With the onset of the Great Depression there was adequate economic unrest that allowed for Nazi leader fateful rise in 1933.
Carr affirmed that the main reason that caused failure in the Versailles system is due to a crash of ideals between powers[8]. The main objective of the treaty at Versailles included a global organization, universal law and most importantly military disarmament. For instance the international organization such as the League of Nations would resolve power conflicts through military sanctions. Similarly, international law was to sustain the treaty as concerns the agreement of the League of Nations for resolving issues amicable and also to mitigate the Kellogg-Briand Pact that bans pursuit of State’s own political interests. Equally, the third and an imperative aspect of the Versailles treaty were to establish military disarmament to limit the risks of another World War. However, it seemed that the agreement was mostly idealistic as real politics among nations were not considered to mitigate another war.
For instance, WW2 began after Germany invaded Poland in 1939 after staging various false border incidents. As a result the United Kingdom gave ultimatums to Germany for military disarmament but after failure to seize military operations France and other empires declared war on Germany. It seemed that Germany wanted to become a world power by demonstrating military dominance and the United Kingdom and additional power needed to subdue Germany for similar reasons. To explain the role of power in Ww2 Booth suggested in his political discourse that:
Power enables one actor’s will to prevail over another’s, despite resistance, in a case where the actors’ interests conflict. Secondly, influnce is considered as a simple quantitative capacity, one actor has more power than another and, therefore, prevails—whatever it is that enables actors to compel others to submit to their will is generalized into a single quantum. Thirdly, power is a zero-sum game: what one actor gains, the other loses, and thus an actor’s capacities can be judged necessarily by outcomes—who ‘has’ power is who prevails [9].
Germany and the Axis partners lost the war but since 1939 consisted various events led to this culmination. After World War Two the Allies prevailed and thus they became more powerful and assertive despite severe losses on both sides. More precisely Weber distinguishes power as when an actor or actors realize their will through collective action against others in a similar respon[10]. Weber’s definition is imperative because it describes how powers would align together with common ideals to attain a common objective. The significance of exerting influence made the United States a world power by the end of the war when judged based on Booth’s third definition particularly with the ending of the world war with a nuclear bomb. One notable event that shifted the power in the international system then began after the war however, booth indicated that from a realist point of view power determined the outcomes of state interaction.
As with WWI WW2 involves an interaction of war to power concentration and as Wayman suggested bipolarity that occurred in WW2 has two components including power distribution and alliance clustering[11]. However, even in the second war it is clear to see that states are more concerned about the balance of power and that powers are more likely to compete against each other. Some of the elements in Mearsheimer’s assumptions ring accurate as other powers in Europe needed to contain Germany if they had to remain sovereign which became a key reason after Germany’s attack on England. Another consideration that forced countries into a competitive bipolarity is that neither camp could actually comprehend the other camp’s intentions.
Most importantly, powers at the start of WW2 had amassed considerable military capability that made it possible to join in the alliance clustering. Clearly, WW2 grouping was a strategic endeavor that created both the Allies and the Axis. Thus, as Wayman noted bipolarity is more likely to war and more notably alliances bipolarity resulting to power for some superpower or no hegemon. After WW1 and prior Adolf Hitler’s rise the United States became a power multipolar and a cluster multipolar. However, the emergence of a group multipolar in WW2 clustered states among fascist and anti-fascist notions albeit power multipolar with Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States supporting each other against the Axis.
2.2.4: The Cold War
The Cold War is a precipitate consequence of World War Two and led to the rise of a new bipolar structure and the rise of two world powers Russia and the United States. The interactions between both countries until 1990 are crucial as it established the US a world power by the end of the war. The significance of the Cold War is the result of the rise of a third world power creating which could be the most significant threat to the United States today. As Mearsheimer argued in his discourse China is by far the most significant threat to the United States and thus the theory of offensive realism is critical as it would help elaborate the move to a bipolar structure due to the claim that states are more concerned about the balance of power and that powers are more likely to compete against each other.
The end of WW2 did not signal a return to normality but a new conflict. After WW2 two new global superpowers emerged compelling other states to choose either superpower. After WW2, the Soviet Union excelled through victory against the Germans with especially at Stalingrad. Also, USSR did not demobilize after the war as USSR wanted to create an ideological, monetary and cultural model to the world[12]. Thus, based on Booth’s second definition of power USSR had power than any other nation in Europe due to the numerical superiority as concerned military power. Equally, the United States suffered severe human and material losses and it also demobilized the army after the war.
However, the United States still integrated one of the most unsurpassed military powers as until 1949 it was the only nation with nuclear capability. Most importantly, the United States was also a leading power in economic terms as it traded more in industrial and agricultural production volume. Idealism was the leading cause of conflict as the USSR accused the West of pushing the imperialist expansion while the United States accused Stalin of breaking the Yatta agreement (right on peoples’ determination). Eventually, the Cold War reached a climax after the Soviet Union blocked Berlin. Indeed Winston Churchill’s prediction that an Iron Curtain had divided Europe came to pass.
Yazid indicated that international relations between after the WW2 can be viewed from a traditionalist, revisionist and post revisionist viewpoints. In a traditionalist perspective the USSR foreign policy was aggressive and expansive while the US policy was mainly defensive. Thus, the US and allies in the Second World War feared the USSR’s communist view shared with China, Korea, Peninsular and Vietnam. A revisionist’s perspective however claims that after the war the US was responsible for the cold war due to Harry Truman’s capitalism agenda and the need for the US to have secured international trade led to the cold war.
Hence, the United States need to remain hegemony paved for instability in politics and economics in the international system. Similarly, the post revisionist approach to the global system is divergent as it explains that the cold war was bound to happen because unlike 1n 1939 when there a multipolar system the end of the war only meant that there were only two superpowers. Due to this bipolar structure both powers were bound to be embroiled in conflict as both wanted to expand their sphere of influence as both nations did not wish to either country to dominate Easter Europe and South East Asia region. Hence, it is clear that both powers had different ideals but at the core the Cold War and states need for influence coincides with Mearsheimer’s claim that countries want to exert their influence and hence the competition to be a hegemony.
Mearsheimer’s claim is thus precise for this case as the bipolar structure after WW2 became an opportunity to access the power vacuum in East Europe as well as South East Asia. The power struggle dominated world politics until the fall of USSR in 1991. However, it is crucial to note the rise of China after it became a communist state in 1949 under President Mao Tse-Tung and the role China played in amplifying communism in the region and the ultimate rise of China after the Cold War to make China a possible third world power.in the 1970’s USSR was no longer a threat and thus, China’s new leader Deng Xiaoping started a series of reforms that encouraged global trade and foreign capital investment. Some of Mearsheimer’s assumptions from the bipolar structure in the Cold War world emerged including a reliance for states to align strategically to attain their national interest. For example, China in the Cold War aligned with the Soviet Union until Russia was no longer a threat in the 1970s. Another important theme that arise from Mearsheimer’s text is that overall all countries have offensive military capability evidenced by the United States massive military assets including atomic warfare ability. Most importantly, powers seek to survive and sustain their territorial integrity and thus, Soviet Union’s continuous occupation of Poland breached America’s idea of democracy and freedom of free determination. However, one crucial element arises that is the rise of China as a world power to destabilize the United States as being hegemony.
2.3: Current Perspectives
2.3.1: Post Cold War: Early Years
The Post-Cold War begins after the rise of the United States as a superpower and the fall of the fall of Soviet Union after the Sino-Soviet Split. Also, the post-Cold war is also the period that led to the rise of a possible superpower China. The significance of this section is critical as it will establish an understanding of Mearsheimer’s claim that states are competitive and they will seek to have more influence. By understanding these aspects the post-Cold war will set a course for understanding whether China and the United States can integrate formulate a bipolar structure. According to Murray China benefited from foreign investment and is currently rated second worldwide after the United States[13]. Perhaps it is essential to consider that the United States is the biggest economy in terms of financial, military and overall production however and has been since the end of the Cold War but China has been growing faster making both nations have unrivalled power from all other countries. Understanding how the United States is no longer hegemony in a multipolar system and why the Chinese and the United States might create unsurpassed influence that might over other countries to develop a bipolar structure needs an evaluation of both nations since the post-cold war era.
It is essential to recognize that China became a communist nation 1n 1949 and thus obviously collaborated with the Soviet Union until China changed to a suitable foreign policy in 1969-1970 to pursue a more engaging with the United States from 1970 to 1981 and to a more independent foreign policy between 1982 and 1990. The significance of understanding this relationship between the China, Russia and the United States is vital because it explains how China embarked on one of the most innovative economic development programs. As a result, China’s GDP was 9.3% per annum between 1979 and 1993 and a further growth of 11.8% in 1994 and 9.8% in 1996. Thus, China’s growth was most vital as the rest of the world only experienced a 2.6% growth in the same period. In that Period China’s need to pursue a more independent foreign policy was so that would China an essential power in the World economy as well as a lucrative partner. Some authors argued that a stronger Chinese would be imperative for regional stability that includes alleviating the Cambodian civil war and the 1994 Korean crisis.
Economics is not the only aspect of economy that China specialized in. When the Cold War begun China was only a state but could not compete with other powers let alone the Soviet Union or the United States. Today China has invested heavily in military capacities to surpass all other nations but the United States. In the early 1990s China had already invested in Russian Su-27, FC-1 light fighter and the F-10 multi role fighter, XXJ fighter and F-8 11M interceptor while still creating accurate ballistic missiles along with submarine technology with nuclear powered boats. However, the west has criticized China for collaborating with countries such as Iraq ran and Pakistan as China has provided such nations with military capability to score foreign policy points yet some countries are perceived as dangerous when supplied with weaponry technology. However, other aspects besides military capability give China the advantage as it is the most populous nation on earth inclusive of Hong Kong and Macao and in 1999 represented over 22% of the world’s population. The advantage of such a community advanced various positions such as having the most extensive military force.
2.3.2: Post Cold War: Today
There is a reason to believe that the significant political weight of China’s population could be a sole factor for the more aggressive foreign policy. The importance of China as a dominant force in Asia as suggested by Ross has increased stability in China however, other states that are much smaller such as South Korea could reconcile to mitigate the China threat. However, Johnson and Ross suggest that other more significant economies such as Japan and India may include a more aggressive policy against China. China’s dealings with Asia impact on the United States and particularly Japan because the nation is a United States ally. Japan and India for a long time as Bradley stated to be in territorial conflict with China an issue that directly impacts on the international system. However, the question of China and the United States is more complicated as both powers compete to be hegemony and hence clarifying that states are more concerned about the balance of power and that states are more likely to compete against each other. It is essential to establish that today China and the United States are nations that exceed all other countries in terms of economic and military and cultural strength and thus no other government can challenge both countries but they can join to become spheres of influence.
According to Swaine the US and China are facing the most significant tensions in a relationship established over four decades ago. Worsening relations moved from contentious and mutually beneficial interactions to a growing antagonistic, destructive relationship. As a result, both countries as opposed to have optimist bilateral trade the nations are facing zero-sum mind-set in almost all areas of engagement. Foot and King acknowledged that the relationship between the United States and China deteriorated in the second decade of the 21st century due to various aspects including a change in the administration, a shift in relative power after the global financial crisis and most importantly China’s determination to reform global governance and to play a crucial leadership role. As well, Foot and King suggested that China is at the height of technological innovation creating both trade and military implications. On the contrary the United States is aggressively looking for methods to mitigate technological threats that could put citizens at risk. While China and the United States are countries that are both competitive to attain global hegemony it seems that countries are tied to the waist as China has heavily invested in the United States after purchasing United States shares during the great recession and hence they both share a deep rooted relationship. For that reason China is accountable for holding the debt meaning that China cannot sell the debt without decrease the value of the dollar that China needs for economic progress.
The economic disputes which have escalated to become the United States-China Trade War have intensified over the years. China became part of the World Trade Organization in 2001 leading to an acceleration of imports to the United States in China creating a trade deficit that resulted in the loss of over two million jobs between 2001 and 2011. Thus, China’s imports grew from the one 1% that China traded with the United States in 1991. Perhaps one of the most vital elements influencing the trade deficit is due to China’s undervaluation of the Renminbi relative to the US dollar. Notably, Fred Bergsten affirmed that between 2003 and 2014 China was a currency manipulator by purchasing over $300 billion to inhibit Chinese upward trend of currency by making the dollar stronger and the Renminbi exchange rate weak making China’s competitive rank stronger by up to 30-40%. China has been recognized as a currency manipulator even in the United States although that status was eradicated to pave way for trade deals. Thus, trade deficits and undervaluing of the Renminbi have been key events that have led to the China-united States conflict.
The trade war with China is in nature a contest of influence between two of the world’s biggest economies. By 2012 the rising trade tensions rose between the two economies after the US trade deficit with China rose to $295 billion in 2011 from a $273 billion deficit. However, other issues such as indicting Chinese nationals in 2014 were also crucial aspects for the deepening mistrusts between the two states as the United States signaled evidence of Chinese involvement in hacking office of personnel management. Thus, military actions have also been crucial to deepening mistrust 1n 2015 when United states warned China over the South China sea especially on China’s placement of military equipment on artificial islands. Despite Trump asserting on the One China policy in 2017 Trump breaks the established order and speaks to the Taiwanese leader on telephone. 1n 2018, the rift and evidence of a bipolar system emerging increases in 2018 after Trump sweeps tariffs of over $50 billion and by July of 2018 new taxes by the United States to China affect $34 billion Chinese goods. With the trade war intensifying the United States and China are still facing standoffs especially for technological supremacy for instance with Tech giant Huawei as the United States is again launching an aggressive campaign for countries not to use Huawei equipment to build 5G networks due to security reasons. Before, the trade deal was announced on 15 January 2020 the United States had raised 10-25% on $200 billion Chinese goods while China retaliated with tariffs increase of $60 billion United States goods.
The Trade War with the two countries seems could escalate maybe not in china or the United States but a power struggle could lead to catastrophic events in the south China Sea. Unlike an idealist’s assumption that powers will seek to find constructive methods to end conflicts Mearsheimer asserts that states are more concerned about the balance of power and that states are more likely to compete against each other. In the end, authorities will want to have most considerable influence and become hegemonies. From the current Trade War the United States and China are both seeking more power while trying to influence other states. While WW1 and WW2 involved two different groups of numerous countries the current international system a bipolar structure of two biggest economies today. Most importantly, both nations differ divergently on idealism as China is a communist party while the United States is a capitalist and the fact that the United States affirms on democracy and freedom of self-determination makes the United States the biggest threat to China. For example, the United States created a law to support the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act to support Hong Kong supporters. These issues continue to increase tensions and thus the United States-China bipolar structure.
[1] Ibid. 363
[2] Ibid. 364
[3]Young Sarah, Bruce Andy. BREXIT Closure: Johnson Wins commanding victory in the UK election. Reuters. 13 December 2019. Accessed 21 January 2020.
[4] Booth, William James. The eighty years’ crisis: international relations 1919-1999. Vol. 24. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[5] Carr, E. H., Cox, M., & Cox, M. (1946). The twenty years’ crisis, 1919-1939: an introduction to the study of international relations (pp. 170-201). London: Macmillan.
[6] Elders, Christiane, and Albrecht Lüter. “Research note: Germany at war: Competing for framing strategies in German public discourse.” European Journal of Communication 15, no. 3 (2000): 415-428.
[7] Keynes, John Maynard. “The reparation problem: a discussion.” The Economic Journal 39, no. 154 (1929): 172-182.
[8] Carr, E. H., Cox, M., & Cox, M. (1946). The twenty years’ crisis, 1919-1939: an introduction to the study of international relations (pp. 170-201). London: Macmillan.
[9] Booth, William James. The eighty years’ crisis: international relations 1919-1999. Vol. 24. Cambridge University Press, 1998.pg. 133.
[10]se Max. Weber, ‘Class, Status, Party’, in H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1948), p. 180.
[11] Wayman, Frank Whelon. “Bipolarity and war: The role of capability concentration and alliance patterns among major powers, 1816-1965.” Journal of Peace Research 21, no. 1 (1984): 61-78.
[12] Yazid, Mohd Noor Mat. “The Cold War, Bipolarity Structure and the Power Vacuum in the East and South East Asia after 1945.” Journal of Global Peace and Conflict 2, no. 1 (2014): 121-128.
[13] Yazid, Mohd Noor Mat. “The Cold War, Bipolarity Structure and the Power Vacuum in the East and South East Asia after 1945.” Journal of Global Peace and Conflict 2, no. 1 (2014): 121-128.