World Stability Essay Sample
- Word count: 693
- Category: assignment
Get Full Essay
Get access to this section to get all help you need with your essay and educational issues.Get Access
World Stability Essay Sample
World stability is recognized in the international arena as somehow relating to world peace. This is to say that all nation states are in its harmonious state in terms of security and economy. There are, however, underlying reservations regarding the anarchic world order as to how peace within various nation states can transpire with all these actors varying interests in consideration. Scholarly concepts such as hegemony and multipolar system sprouted to define the relations of different world actors and the levels of consent each individual actor gives to other actors in pursuit of its interests.
The status quo, according to Daniel Linger, describes the world order as purely hegemonic with United States acting as the unitary superpower of the world. However, there are emerging studies relating to the possibility of this current world order to soon develop to a multipolar system as states such as Europe and China are eyed as probable candidates to assume the role of world superpowers.
This research argues that for world stability, in the context of peace in a sovereign state’s economy and security, to be achieved, potential superpower candidates should assume the roles and settle with a multipolar world system order for (1) it will provide a wider set of options for all the nation states of the to better their economic standing and (2) it will instigate check and balances within all the superpowers, thus military action becomes more of a liability to ones state rather than an advancement of ones interest.
The United States, in the hegemonic state, is assumed to have an advantage in the politics of international economy. This is to say that what US wants is what they can actually get. In the status quo, it is perceived to be more befitting to be in accordance with the interest of US rather than being in disagreement with it. It is because the US, privileged of its unitary superpower position, is the sole provider of trade agreements and financial aid.
All other nations are theoretically dependent on the United States as it is the sole actor which has the capacity to hold its linkages to countries that do not cooperate with it. This lack of cooperation is deemed to be a reason for a non-hegemonic state to wane down economically specially for the third world countries. However, if a country has no choice but to cooperate with a hegemon to the extent of disregarding what is best for its diplomatic affairs and economy, then absence of progress is definitely inevitable; a world order where poor will always be poor, and undeveloped will never develop.
This only means that for a country to eliminate their issues of economic struggle and to achieve a much more stabilize financial system, there should be more available options in the world, other than the United States, to have transactions with. Wider options only mean that there are at least one alternative that would best help ones state. One good choice after another will consequently instigate development. In addition, the status quo has never been stable in terms of international security.
This has been a testament to globalization as borders become more transparent and differences are more visible. This is true to United States, as the hegemonic state, when they were terrorized out of the 9/11 attack. They were accused of transgressions which lead the world to an adverse state. When one actor seeks to use force to get even with another actor, damages is inevitable. However, if there is a third-party to mediate and take sides, damages can be avoided. This is true to the multipolar system because actors then become wary of their moves in the international arena.
One mistake from a nation state can actually turn other nation states against them; states which has the same military and economic capacity. In conclusion, radical views on the status quo only signify that it is not in its most stable state if stability means economic welfare and full security. A multipolar system decentralizes the threatening power of a hegemon, thus provides more choices of dependable alliances for third world nations and eliminates the power o a single state to initiate force without the international approval.