What is Polarity?
Many attempts to sum up international relations use the idea of polarity, the distribution of power at any given time among countries. Within this idea, scholars and observers generally agree that a bipolar system existed during the Cold War, with the United States and the Soviet Union in a class of their own as superpowers. Before that, multipolar systems existed prior to both World Wars, although the number and status of the great powers continually shifted in the first half of the twentieth century. But for example, the UK, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Japan, and the US were all considered “great powers” on the eve of World War I.
Polarity is a useful concept that explains the modern history of world politics relatively well. Especially in the European context, politicians used the idea of a “great power” to push for their country to expand economically and militarily as well as acquire colonies. Most famously, Hitler exploited feelings of humiliation and resentment towards the Allied powers to gain political support and ultimately dictatorial power. The name of the “Third Reich” emphasized that Germany should return to the empire status which it had lost as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. Mussolini similarly used rhetoric of the “mutilated victory” (following the Paris Peace Conference) as propaganda to justify imperial expansion. This kind of rhetoric reflects the centrality of status that dominated European relations at the time.
The idea of “great powers” also influenced Great Britain’s longstanding policy of encouraging a balance of power on the European continent. This policy was largely due to self-interest, as it prevented a competitor from emerging to challenge Britain’s global empire and naval power. The policy has been criticized for causing as much conflict as it prevented. In a modern context, this is logical as two or three roughly equally powerful (and hostile) states would likely engage in an arms race to gain strategic advantage over the other. However, creating a balance of power was intermittently successful in preventing major conflict, especially after the Napoleonic Wars.
Balance of power as a theory has been criticized, especially as its predictions of states “balancing” against a hegemon failed in the immediate post-Cold War era. The United States was widely recognized as the only superpower in the world, and while its foreign policies were obviously criticized by others, there has been no alliance system or coalition made to counter it. A supposedly unstable unipolar system has lasted arguably to the present day. While US national security strategies have emphasized a “return” of great power competition with Russia and China, I’d argue that the US is still far above any other country in terms of military size, strength, and certainly spending. The US has definitely lost prestige and relative power over the last thirty or so years, but this has largely been due to policy mistakes and self-inflicted wounds, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and failing to respond adequately to the coronavirus pandemic. These wars show having a uniquely powerful country can encourage it to throw its weight around anywhere in the world, causing instability in distant regions.
No system of polarity seems to have a decisive advantage in preventing conflict, as it is also questionable whether the bipolar system of the Cold War was truly stable or desirable. While major conflict between the US and USSR did not occur, devastating proxy wars, revolutions, coups, and instability were common throughout the period, especially in what was considered “the third world”. Even if one accepts the argument that the bipolar system was a net positive, I would attribute the lack of conflict between the superpowers to nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. This forced even leaders such as Ronald Reagan, who began his presidency by calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire”, to eventually change his rhetoric as nuclear conflict was unthinkable practically and morally. As the Cold War wound down, Reagan even contemplated getting rid of nuclear weapons entirely during negotiations with Gorbachev.
Recently, China’s rise economically and increased assertiveness militarily has challenged the US’ role in the Pacific. However, it is extremely unlikely that China’s leadership wants a conflict with the US. While it is working to establish regional and global influence, and in some cases has set up alternative institutions (such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) to international but US-dominated ones (such as the IMF and World Bank), this reflects a rational response to greater power and resources. Similarly, although China has a history of seeing itself as the “Middle Kingdom” and center of the world, this is not altogether very different than the idea of American Exceptionalism. It is impossible to know China’s long-term strategy (if it necessarily has one) or its true attitude to the “international order,” yet calling it a revisionist power misses the mark. The US has nothing to lose by admitting the Western dominance inherent in most international institutions, and there are many possible ways that China or other rising powers such as India could be better accommodated into those systems.
In any case, I don’t think there is any obvious or simple categorization of how polarity applies to today’s world. There seems to be some consensus among scholars that the US unipolar era is either ending or has ended. Increasingly, it also seems that types of power do not always go together: especially considering economic vs. military power. Many strong and advanced economies, such as Japan and Germany, are not significant military powers. Since both types are still relevant, perhaps considering various distributions of power (even cultural influence and “soft power”) at once would give the most insight into global politics.
