International system of states transformation, Peter W. Schulze, Co-Founder, DOC Research Institute
Summary
TLDRThe video script discusses the evolution of the international system, from the bipolar era of the Cold War to the current multipolar world. It highlights the shift from a US-led unipolar system to a polycentric one involving China, Russia, and the US. The script emphasizes the different roles and challenges faced by these actors, with the European Union caught in the middle. It also touches on the impact of this geopolitical landscape on domestic politics, particularly the rise of nationalist parties.
Takeaways
- 🔄 Hegemons are only dangerous when challenged, and currently, no global hegemon is being seriously challenged.
- 🌍 The international system has evolved from a bipolar structure, where the U.S. and Soviet Union balanced power, to a more complex, multi-actor system.
- ⚖️ The bipolar system of the Cold War era relied on a balance of power, avoiding direct conflict due to the risk of mutual destruction.
- 💣 The Cuban Missile Crisis was a critical moment when the stability of the bipolar system was at risk but ultimately led to better communication between the superpowers.
- 🇺🇸 After the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, the U.S. became the dominant global hegemon, promoting a liberal, rules-based international order.
- 🛡️ The U.S.'s global dominance has been rooted in both military strength and the promotion of universal values like democracy and human rights.
- 🌏 A new multipolar system is emerging, with three primary actors: the U.S., China, and Russia, followed by the European Union as a secondary player.
- 💼 Russia, despite being a military power, has limited economic influence, while China's global outreach is relatively new but expanding.
- 🇪🇺 The European Union faces a dilemma between aligning with the U.S. or developing more independent foreign policies, influenced by differing national interests.
- ⚖️ Europe’s military weakness but economic strength position it as a potential mediator in international conflicts, although current leadership lacks the capacity to fully realize this role.
Q & A
What was the nature of the bipolar system that existed after World War II?
-The bipolar system was characterized by a balance of power between two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. They balanced each other and avoided direct conflict due to the potential for mutual destruction, a concept known as MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction).
How did the balance of power during the bipolar era influence international relations?
-During the bipolar era, the balance of power led to a policy of non-interference in each other's spheres of influence. This was due to the understanding that any major conflict could escalate to a nuclear war, leading to catastrophic consequences.
What is meant by the term 'unipolar system' as described in the script?
-The term 'unipolar system' refers to a period where one single superpower, the United States, dominated the global landscape after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This hegemony was based on both military power and the promotion of universal values such as democracy and human rights.
How did the United States establish its hegemony after the bipolar era?
-The United States established its hegemony through a combination of military strength and the promotion of liberal values. It positioned itself as the global arbiter of justice and order, often intervening in other nations' affairs under the guise of promoting these values.
What is the significance of the term 'polycentric' or 'multipolar' in the context of the current international system?
-The terms 'polycentric' or 'multipolar' suggest a shift towards a world where power is distributed among multiple major actors, such as China, Russia, and the United States, each with different visions for global order. This contrasts with the previous unipolar era dominated by the United States.
What are the key differences between the military and economic positions of Russia and the United States as discussed in the script?
-Russia is described as a military giant, controlling a significant portion of the world's nuclear weapons, but economically it is relatively weak. In contrast, the United States has both significant military and economic power, although its economic influence is waning.
How does the script suggest the European Union should navigate its relationships with the United States and Russia?
-The script implies that the European Union should carefully consider its alliances, as its interests may not always align with those of the United States or Russia. It suggests that Europe is in a position to mediate and play a balancing role between these powers.
What challenges does the script highlight for the European Union in the current international system?
-The script highlights the challenge of aligning with either the United States or Russia, as doing so exclusively could be unrealistic and too weak. It also points to the rise of more nationalist parties within Europe, which have different outlooks from established parties, contributing to domestic policy instability.
What role does the script suggest for Europe in terms of mediating international conflicts?
-The script suggests that Europe, despite its military weaknesses, could play a significant mediating role in international conflicts due to its economic strength. However, it also notes the current lack of politicians capable of effectively delivering this role.
How does the script characterize the current transitional period in the international system?
-The script characterizes the current period as a transformative one, moving from a unipolar system dominated by the United States towards a more polycentric or multipolar system with multiple major actors influencing global affairs.
Outlines
🌍 International System Evolution
This paragraph discusses the evolution of the international system of states. It starts with the bipolar system post-World War II, characterized by a balance of power between two superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, which prevented direct conflict due to the threat of mutual destruction. The paragraph then transitions to the unipolar system following the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, where the US emerged as the sole superpower, establishing a liberal order based on military power and universal values. The US's hegemony was challenged by its economic decline, leading to a transformative period towards a new polycentric or multipolar system.
🔄 Shifting Power Dynamics
The second paragraph delves into the current transition phase towards a multipolar world order, featuring China, Russia, and the US as the main actors. It highlights the different approaches of these nations: China's focus on domestic affairs and emerging global outreach, Russia's military strength contrasted with its economic weakness, and the US's declining economic might despite its military capabilities. The paragraph also discusses the European Union's strategic position, caught between aligning with the US or Russia, and the need for Europe to define its own interests. It concludes with the challenge of finding effective political leadership in this shifting landscape of power.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Hegemon
💡Bipolar System
💡Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)
💡Unipolar System
💡Polycentric or Multipolar System
💡Nuclear Weapons
💡European Union (EU)
💡National Interest
💡Transformational Period
💡Global Outreach
💡National Center Parties
Highlights
Hones are never dangerous unless challenged, leading to a hegemon.
We are in a transformative period with structural changes in the International System of States.
The bipolar system lasted from 1949 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The bipolar system was characterized by a balance of powers to prevent mutual destruction.
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) was a key feature of the Cold War era.
After the Soviet Union's collapse, the US emerged as the sole superpower in a unipolar system.
The US established a liberal institutional hegemony based on military power and universal values.
The US considered itself exceptional, justifying interference in global affairs.
The hegemony of the US is not over but has been reduced in effectiveness.
We are transitioning to a new polycentric or multipolar system.
China, Russia, and the US are the three major polycentric actors in the new system.
The European Union is a significant actor but has to decide its alignment in the new world order.
China is focusing on internal affairs and slowly moving towards global outreach.
Russia is a military giant but economically weak, creating an asymmetry.
The US has a strong military but is weakening economically and financially.
The fate of the International System will be defined by the three major actors and the EU.
Europe is shifting between the poles of the US and Russia, seeking its own path.
The rise of National Center parties in Europe reflects the instability in the International System.
Europe's economic strength is well-suited for a mediation role in conflicts.
The lack of capable politicians is a challenge for Europe's role in the new world order.
Transcripts
[Music]
hones are never dangerous because they
control
everything unless they are
challenged and if they are challenged
there is already then inent
hegemon and this is not the case I
mean we are still in
a transformative
period of structural and con
constellation changes in the
International System of States we have
had the bipolar system which was B which
originated after the breakdown of
European States due to the second world
war and the results it lasted from
1949 approximatively up to the demise or
the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991 and this bipol system was
basically in structure a system of the
old nature of the 19 century namely a
system of balancing
Powers Yeah two bipolar superpowers
balancing each other they do not want to
go to war with each other because it
would have meant either the end of
mankind or definitely the end of Europe
Pulver nuclear pulverization of Europe
and therefore they accepted their fears
of
influence and when eruption happened in
the East the West did not
interfere and the East did not really
interfere in the west as well though it
was a kind of we don't harm each other
because we can kill each other this was
the
magic balance of Terror balance of of
annulation it's called it was called mad
Mutual assured
destruction and it was interesting I
mean this this was a very stable um
system and um um it was once to the
brink in the Cuban crisis of getting
really nasty and breaking down but after
the Cuban crisis there started then an
enormous communication between the two
superpowers but Europe doesn't exist it
you was just the union partner in the
west with the United States in the East
with with with Soviet Union in Moscow so
after the collapse of the Soviet Union
in
1991 um there was an unipolar
system with the hegemon the definite
hegemon of the United States and then
and this hegemon established a liberal
institutional
hegemony built on two two things on
armed power because they are still up to
today the most
developed um Power in regard to arms
technology nuclear arms and conventional
arms and secondly on
values they occupied the whole realm of
universal values democracy the rule of
law human rights itaka and so forth and
so forth and so forth on the other side
on and and nobody and and and and they
forc basically this kind of of
Paradigm yeah on other nations and
States so when we when you can say in
the 19th century or up to the and end of
the up to the 50s or 60s we have had a
kind of a eurocentric view on global
affairs from 1991 onwards we have had an
American centered view on things the the
United States considered themselves as
exceptional yeah in in and and and and
being exceptional you can interfere
everywhere where you like you don't need
it not you don't do it out of national
interest this is really
pity
it's only all states are doing this but
the global heon is not doing this a
whole Global hagon is striving for the
establishment of rule order and Justice
and of course um um uh by doing so um
putting the um um this kind of stances
into the um realm of smaller middle
States so this kind of situation in the
International System lasted from
1991 maybe up to n up to 2003 or maybe
up to
200 7 78 or 9 whatever it was an
intermediary in in in inter interim
system so the the hegemony of the United
States is not over but has been reduced
in Effectiveness and enforced
dramatically yeah and now we are in a
transition stage to a new system yeah
the new system is called often
polycentric or
multipolar and we have three polycentric
actors or multipolar actors which is
China Russia and the United States and
then comes a huge pause long pause and
then comes the European
Union so it it is a system composed of
three plus one as four actors in total
and of
course these actors have
different perceptions of how a world
order should be
established uh the Chinese are looking
much more inter into the internal into
the internal domestic affairs and only
slowly
and starting to move out and having a
kind of a Global
Outreach this is very new it's just
starting it could lead to clashes yeah
Russia has been on its feet or crawling
on the ground for 20
years in military terms a giant because
Russia and um the United States
control more than 80% of all nuclear
weapons in the
world but you cannot use nuclear weapons
yeah but they control this is their
Mighty factor of being called in again
or being back from the out of the cold
into the international scenery but
economically Russia is a dwed basically
non-existent so it's an enormous
asymmetry be between military
potentialities and economic reality the
United States is different the United
States have as well an enormous
potential in weapons and nuclear weapons
but as well in Conventional Weapons yeah
and they are they have been um but they
are getting weaker and weaker in
economic and financial terms so we have
here a very fragile and floating
constellation of forces but the
let's say the fate of the International
System will be defined by these three
major actors and the European Union has
to decide to a certain degree to with
whom they want to go together I mean
this is the situation this situation is
on since the end of the bipolar world
yeah of course there is an an enormous
tendency and strength among Western
middle States or in European member
states of aligning them themselves with
the Atlantic Community or going together
with the United States but on the other
hand they see as well European interests
do
not can differ as well from the American
national interest one example was Iraq
2003 yeah um or the situation in um in
in in Syria nowadays or and or or other
factors
so Europe has to get this act together
and this this some somehow where to go
and I think the situation is very
difficult uh because you can because you
cannot develop an altern and a sole
alternative you cannot go only with with
the United States and you cannot go only
with the with Moscow this is anyhow too
weak and and and and and not realistic
so Europe has is somehow shifting in
between the two poles yeah and um um and
and this kind of um instability of
course penetrates domestic policies of a
member states we see it now with the
rise of more National Center parties
yeah which have a different Outlook than
the established parties and I think that
this kind of process will continue but
but
Europe um um out of out out of this
weakness in military terms but its
strength in economic terms is very well
adopted as well to play a kind of a
mediation role in conflicts but so far
we don't have the politicians in the
states who can deliver that's a problem
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Group 1: The History of International Monetary Systems
🌍 GEOPOLÍTICA MUNDIAL - PARTE 1 | Quer Que Desenhe
The Next Global Superpower Isn't Who You Think | Ian Bremmer | TED
Review Buku Sejarah Indonesia Modern 1200-2008 |Sejarah Minat|
Scott Ritter & Dan Kovalik: GAME OVER for Israel as Putin and China Humiliate IDF with This Move
Sejarah Perkembangan Teknologi Persenjataan Militer dari Prasejarah sampai Revolusi Industri 4.0
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)