Hegemonic Stability Theory is Valid

Overview HST can take on many forms and theories, and even those can be sub-divided. However, I will be defending HST in relation to security. Most literature today focuses on HST and its relation to neoliberalism. C1: Alternative Systems The first alternative system is a system coined multipolarity – a global system consisting of multiple and semi-equal dominant countries in terms of military and economic strength. A multipolar system has not really been seen since the era of WW1 and WW2. I would contend that analytically multipolar systems are unstable from the point of view of escalating conflicts. Escalating conflicts refer to armed conflicts that essentially snowball from bad to worse. This would be true because multipolarity compels nation states to form rigid alliances. Empirically we know this to be true through an analysis of WW1, where the European concert system of nations was the best example of true multipolarity. As a result of this rigid alliance system a small conflict in the Balkans escalated to a conflict of world-wide proportions. Moreover, I would contend that analytically arms races and proliferation would be common in a multipolar system based in the logic that if simply one nation decided to build up its armaments then other nations and their allies would naturally respond – this is known as counter-balancing. Counter-balancing in terms of a multipolar system fails to mitigate escalation because as the amount of nations in a multipolar system increases so does the amount of unknown intentions and angst occur. The second alternative system is coined bipolarity – a global system consisting of two dominant powers. I would contend this system is an unstable system because, even though its physical escalation is not as fast as a multipolar system, the existence of proxy wars will become commonplace. Analytically this makes sense because as two dominant powers strive for regional dominance 3rd parties will naturally and logically get involved. This is true because as a way to preserve resources and too prevent overstretch these bipolar powers will geopolitically maneuver themselves and make small alliances, etc. Empirically this is true as we can see this has occurred numerous times throughout the Cold War. The Soviet Union had Indian support, and as a response the U.S. counter-balanced by supporting Pakistan. The Soviet Union sought to expand soft-power hegemony in Korea and Vietnam, and the U.S. counterbalanced with support for South Korea and South Vietnam. The Soviet Union sought direct expansion in Central Asia, the U.S. counter-balanced with support for religious insurgencies. The Soviet Union sought political hegemony and sought to inspire Marxist revolutions in Central and South America, the U.S. counter-balanced with anti-communist buildup. The list goes on, but I will stop there. [1] Even though a risk of an escalating war exists within a multipolar system, it also exists within a bipolar system though probably at a lower rate. The difference however is in a bipolar system, whereas the probability decreases, the magnitude increases. In other words, even though these escalating conflicts would be rarer, if they do occur the devastation would be of much greater fold. This is true because as the powers attempt to counter-balance through proxies, the main build up and proliferation in the dominant power would remain unhindered. We can only imagine the devastation that would have occurred if the U.S. and U.S.S.R. engaged in nuclear warfare. The third alternative is known as an apolar system (and most likely the most across the board unstable system) – a global system where no power is dominant. Apolar systems tend to exist when a hegemon is artificially compelled to remove itself from the global stage, rather than a natural cycle of hegemon diminishment and thus the replacement of one hegemony with another. To put this into perspective, let us look at some areas of the world. In Asia: Japan, Taiwan and South Korea would all have incentives to develop nuclear weapons as a way to deter their rivals, China and North Korea. This being the case if Chinese expansionism and North Korean expansionism doesn't occur first. The regional competition and instability between India and Pakistan would most likely increase without the US being the mediator. And in the Middle East: Iran could continue the creation of nuclear weapons without much hindrance. This plus the fact that Iran has the strongest conventional military in the Middle East would make Iran a regional hegemon. Saudi Arabia without the assistance of the US could not compete. And this would probably create an arms race in the Middle East. [2] C2: A unipolar-hegemonic system is the most stable [3] Wohlforth writes, “Unipolarity favors the absence of war among the great powers and comparatively low levels of competition for prestige or security for two reasons: the leading state's power advantage removes the problem of hegemonic rivalry from world politics, and it reduces the salience and stakes of balance-of-power politics among the major states.” First, HST: He continues, “The theory stipulates that especially powerful states ("hegemons") foster international orders that are stable until differential growth in power produces a dissatisfied state with the capability to challenge the dominant state for leadership. The clearer and larger the concentration of power in the leading state, the more peaceful the international order associated with it will be. The key is that conflict occurs only if the leader and the challenger disagree about their relative power. That is, the leader must think itself capable of defending the status quo at the same time that the number two state believes it has the power to challenge it. The set of perceptions and expectations necessary to produce such conflict is most likely under two circumstances: when the overall gap between the leader and the challenger is small and/or when the challenger overtakes the leader in some elements of national power but not others, and the two parties disagree over the relative importance of these elements. Hence both the overall size and the comprehensiveness of the leader's power advantage are crucial to peacefulness. If the system is unipolar, the great power hierarchy should be much more stable than any hierarchy lodged within a system of more than one pole. Because unipolarity is based on a historically unprecedented concentration of power in the United States, a potentially important source of great power conflict-hegemonic rivalry--will be missing.” Second, Balance of Power Theory: He continues, “Waltz argued that bipolarity is less war prone than multipolarity because it reduces uncertainty. By the same logic, unpolarity is the least war prone of all structures.38 For as long as unipolarity obtains, there is little uncertainty regarding alliance choices or the calculation of power. The only options available to second-tier states are to bandwagon with the polar power (either explicitly or implicitly) or, at least, to take no action that could incur its focused enmity. As long as their security policies are oriented around the power and preferences of the sole pole, second-tier states are less likely to engage in conflict- prone rivalries for security or prestige. Once the sole pole takes sides, there can be little doubt about which party will prevail. Moreover, the unipolar leader has the capability to be far more interventionist than earlier system leaders. Exploiting the other states' security dependence as well as its unilateral power advantages, the sole pole can maintain a system of alliances that keeps second-tier states out of trouble.” [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Robert J. Lieber (Professor of Government and International Affairs @ Georgetown University) 2005 The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century [3] Wohlforth. The Stability of a Unipolar World. Good luck to my opponen! :D