Is the actual world multipolar or unipolar?
...ily assessable. At last, unipolarity is the least stable of all structures from a neo-realist point of view. The great concentration of powers by a single state threatens other states, and causes them to take action to restore the balance. A significant contrast exists between Waltz (defensive realism) and Mearsheimer (offensive realism) theory of international systems. Waltz argues that ˇ§despite the condition of anarchy, states will stop well short of hegemony if geography or technology or social organization favors the defense.ˇ¨ On the other hand, Mearsheimer believes "the international system creates powerful incentives for states to look for opportunities at the expense of rivals, and to take advantage of those situations when the benefits outweigh the costs. A state's ultimate goal is to be the hegemon in the system" . Therefore, defensive realists come to an optimistic conclusion that although wars still could happen for any number of reasons, violent struggle for security may be avoid. It is much easier to defend than to attack and condition exist in reality that all states can be safe, even in anarchy. In contrast, Mearsheimer concludes that the state often seeks for hegemony. In response to hegemonic ambitions, states are more often act buck-passing than balancing. That is, ˇ§states pass the security buck to others if they can, hoping that another state will expend its own strength to stop or at least weaken the aspiring hegemon, leaving the buck passer stronger relative to both.ˇ¨ However, all Neo-realists agree that the world is based on anarchy; therefore states are always seeking power to maximize their security. Neo-realist theories about the world are accurate in its classification of structures and precise in its assumptions. Neo-realists questioned on growing numbers of international organizations, treaties and economic linkages, provide a path to a world that ultimately rejects the kind of rough and tumble global struggle. This is especially correct when we look at the impact of U.S hegemony. I am picking neo-realists theory because their significant contribution to our understanding of the behavior of great powers will be helpful to determine the actual global structure. Make an argument Most scholars in international relations agree that we had a bipolar structure during the Cold War period. It may be logical to conclude that there were two superpowers but since one was gone in 1990, the structure remained of course, unipolar. However, the entire world has been changing progressively since the Cold War. Do we still have the unipolar structure in actual world? To start, I would state my hypothesis in favor of unipolar structure because no one can deny that the U.S combination of quantitative and qualitative materials advantages is unprecedented. Never in modern international history has the leading state been so dominant economically and militantly. Unlike those who believe that other states will soon rise or combine to check U.S. dominance, Stephen M Walt argues that ˇ§the present distribution of power is likely to last for at least several decades. Medium powers such as Germany, Japan, and China are all far weaker than the United States [ˇK]ˇ¨ However, the formation of the European Union (EU) is a good example of a coalition of states that try to balance the power. The recent challenge from EU economics have largely threatened U.S benefit, this latter is responding by the proposal of North America monetary unification. The proposal does certainly favor for United States, but it is questionable for Canada and Mexico. The United States has been employing a realistic strategy of preponderance and hegemony that is aimed at perpetuating America's post-Cold War geopolitical dominance. Advocates of preponderance believe that United States should gain security not through a balance of power, but by creating a power imbalance in their favor. As theorized by Mearsheimer, we find a situation where a state is seeking hegemony. U.S Military Power: Offensive neo-realists believe that a stateˇ¦s security relies on its military and economics power. Other than leading in the quantity of nuclear weapon, U.S troops have the best combat strength in the world. ˇ§U.S profound military advantage lay in new high-tech weaponry, inconceivably powerful, accurate, and destructive, all based on some 80 percent of the world's military-related research. The corresponding gap in military expenditures, as well as the country's prodigious human resources, assured its ever mounting military primacyˇ¨ . For instance, the Gulf war showed the comparative advantage of quality over quantity. Iraq had a larger quantity of ground army troop than allied troop, but their use of conventional weapon and the lack of air force to efficiently cover the ground troop had quickly turned victory against Iraq. In addition, U.S claims that they are capable to commanding and fighting two large-scale wars in two different locations simultaneously. U.S is the only state that is capable to project their military forces world widely, in term of militarypower; U.S capability should not be questioned. U.S Economics Power In late 80ˇ¦s, the United States faced powerful, competitive economies in Japan and Germany. But with the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union and the unanticipated decline of the Japanese and German economies, the United States has inherited a degree of unipolarity not seen since the high point of the Roman Empire. The explosive expansion of the U.S. economy in the 1990's represented a key moment to the disparities of economic power between U.S and the rest of world. . America's constant grow in its strength relied largely on new technologies, especially the internet and telecommunications that produced a massive shift in the power of capital to generate unprecedented economic growth, mass consumption, and commercialism. Between 1990 and 1998, the U.S. economy grew by 27 percent, the European Union's by 15, Japan's by 9. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declared that ˇ§its economic power and principles placed the United States at the center of the emerging international order, prepared to lead the world to unprecedented levels of wealth, prosperity, and security.ˇ¨ Americanˇ¦s Unipolar? American foreign policy is dominated by the beliefs of universality of American values and power. Since the Cold War ended, Americans has not only held its positions across the globe, but has tried energetically to expand its power and influence. The United States has been pretending the global systemic stability (the absence of war, security competitions, and proliferation) as a function of ...