7.2C - Geopolitical Stability and Risk
Different patterns of power bring varying degrees of geopolitical stability and risk.
Patterns of power vary over time, and can be characterised as:
- uni-polar: one globally dominant superpower, or hyperpower
- one hegemon, unchallenged by other countries (in cultural terms, as well as economic, political and military)
- bi-polar: two opposing superpowers, with different ideologies, but broadly equal in status
- multi-polar: many broadly equal powers, with regional influence but less global influence
Over time, patterns of power have changed
1800-1919: British Empire - uni-polar
1919-1939: Inter-war period - multi-polar
1945-1990: USA vs USSR, Cold War - bi-polar
1990-2030: USA globalised era - uni-polar
2030+: Future - Unipolar? Bi-polar? Multi-polar?
Which pattern of power is more stable, and which brings higher risk?
- A uni-polar world should be stable
- there is only one 'top dog', but the costs of being a hegemon are high and hard to sustain
- the USA has been called 'the world's policeman', meaning it is involved in numerous trouble spots all at the same time - increases stability? helps make world safer?
- Bi-polar situations, such as the Cold War, involve a tense stand-off between opposing powers and might be described as high risk 'scary but stable'.
- During the Cold War, there were occasions where the USA and USSR almost ended up in a 'hot' war
- Between the First and Second World Wars, the world was multi-polar with no dominant power. It could be argued that this created a power vacuum allowing the rise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, with no country prepared to stop them