Geopolitical Power Changes
This is an excerpt from the paper...
With the fall of the Iron Curtain, the world left behind the relative stability of a bipolar geopolitical structure and entered into what some call "multipolar madness". Certainly this is a time of transition. Many observers consider this a unipolar situation - with the United States as the sole remaining "superpower" now that the Soviet Union is no more. Others consider the "new world order" an inherently unstable situation - in post-(Cold) war trauma, so to speak - as the U.S. staggers away from victory as damaged as the former U.S.S.R.; in the power vacuum that is currently underway, the argument goes, the United States steadily loses ground while new power entities compete for position and dominance. This last scenario would certainly fit into a geopolitical model based on Modelski's theory of cycles. Short-term predictions are chancy, however, since the geopolitical map is often too close to see in its entirety. Rather than being caught up in the details of the contemporary moment, trying to sort out the nuances of the status quo, one might be better employed looking ahead twenty years. What will be the balance of geopolitical power in twenty years? It is the prediction of this writer that it will resemble the multipolar balance-of-power situation that prevailed in Europe during the 1800s - although with different players. Before proceeding to support that prediction, it is necessary to elaborate on the situation in the 19th century as I interpret it to hav
. . .
d diplomatically as core members because of their size and military capabilities, but they will not have the economic strength of the other core powers and, hence, will not be in the same decision-making position as the Japan-U.S.-E.C. trio.
About Russia: the general prognosis for the central state of the former Soviet Union is that it will take several decades to re-establish an internal structure capable of defining the type of nation-state it is - and capable of supporting a stable, unified economic system. Again using a Weberian analysis, it boils down to a question of legitimacy. Although the Soviet Union was ostensibly anti-capitalist, it was really an extension of the Czarist empire - a permutation of "the form of capitalist imperialism that came to dominate in Rome". Now that the Czarist/Soviet empire is dead, much of the Russian government's internal legitimacy is in doubt. Regional civil wars already eat at its borders and interior. Still, because of Russian nuclear capability and its strategic position in the heartland of the Eurasian continent, it will be to the core members' continued interests in the future to placate Russia - even while making very little investment in that nation's internal structure.
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Soviet Union, Unlike Russia, Cold War, China Russia, United Nations-style, Rome Czarist/Soviet, Muslim Iraq, Gulf War, Deng Xiaoping's, Bernard Shaw, core powers, cold war, status quo, gulf war, multipolar balance-of-power, 19th century, soviet union, european community, third world, industrialized nations, middle eastern nations, internal structure china, former soviet union, drexel burnham lambert, european community japan,
Approximate Word count = 2741
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
