What is China's role in a multipolar world, especially in reference to Russia?

The United States, after World War II, became a hegemon and the primary superpower in a uni-polar world. However, in recent decades there has been a challenge to the uni-polar global order in the form of China. Multipolarity means that there are multiple influential powers in the world, rather than uni polarity or bi polarity.

China is growing to be an economic superpower as the rise of the BRICS has meant that economic power is 'transitioning' from West to East according to theorist Joseph Nye.  With China's economy set to overtake the USA's in 2016 as researched by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), growth is seemingly exponential in most of the BRICS. The establishment of a 'new development bank' is a way for the countries promoting multipolarity to build upon infrastructure, fund projects and distribute resources as the efforts of China and Russia strive for a multilateral global order. Multilateral being the "international governance of the many." as defined by Miles Kahler.

Graph showing China's economic growth in comparison to the United
States between 1980 and 2030

In reference to Russia, the China - Russia Constructive Partnership Agreement of 1994 (China - Russia Strategic Agreement of 1996) promoted the belief of both countries not only in terms of a partnership between nations, but the importance of the presence of multipolarity in a world to achieve a fair and just society which was at that time uni-polar - and is still considered to be led by the United States in the current decade.

Overall, China is in a position to overtake the United States and other global actors in terms of hard power such as economy, however, it fails to establish itself in other ways which make it difficult for the nation to become a global superpower rather than a regional one. For instance, it lacks the influence of human rights, prominent allies, acts of diplomacy and the use of 'soft' power or 'smart' power.

Is the US in decline as a global hegemon?

A hegemon is a leader of imperial dominance, exerting it's power geopolitically. The United States, for decades, particularly since World War II, has been regarded as the ultimate global hegemon, relying on it's vast economic and military power to exert it's influence over other nation states and global groupings. However, the USA now has unprecedented competitors that have not followed the transitional model of development. For instance, the United States is being caught up by emerging economies, e.g. the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The US has also been vulnerable to rises in 'smart' and 'soft' power of other states attempting to exert their own influence.

Firstly, China is considered to be the nation catching up with the USA, mostly on an economic basis. This is partially due to the 'transition' of power shifting from the West to the East, which India is also benefiting from. As theorist Joseph Nye has highlighted, China has recovered since it's setback after the Western led Industrial Revolution, their level of production is exponentially rising. It is estimated that by the year 2021, China's GDP will exceed the United States, could this cause the decline of the US as a global hegemon? It appears that alongside economy, the US' hegemonic powers may also diminish as the world's uni polar superpower. On the other hand, this prediction by Goldman Sachs  is very much relative, undertaking a linear approach which doesn't account for issues and bumps in China's growth or the nature of it's economy, meaning that despite it's industrial growth, China is not as likely to exceed the US as predicted.

Line Chart showing the growth of China's economy in relation to the
US based on GDP, overtaking in around the year 2020.

Secondly, the type of power used by the United States is important to it's hegemony of the world. The US is based primarily on the use of 'hard power' or the sticks and carrot approach based on punishment and reward, this focuses mostly on utilizing economic and military leadership, for instance, economically, the US has the power to impose sanctions, take out patents and copyrights and give funding and on a military basis, is able to not only protect itself and threaten other countries with military intervention but can act as a type of global police. However, in recent years, as the distribution of power and global priorities have changed with the importance of individualism, human rights, climate change and energy etc. it is clear that 'soft power' is increasingly vital. 'Soft power' is the use of attempting to co-operate and influence other countries ideas and policies without the use of the carrot and stick idea. This is a type of power prominently demonstrated in Brazil (an emerging economy) where the World Cup put Rio de Janeiro on a global level, also basing it's power on it's primary agricultural industry and it's conservation of the environment. Furthermore, it's evident that the UK has topped the global 'soft power' list in it's capitalizing from the Olympics, Paralympics and success of the arts. This shows how the US has abandoned other forms of power for 'hard power' which could lead to the nation's hegemonic demise. However, is 'soft power' really the way to impose imperial dominance over countries? or should hegemony be based more on the use of 'hard' and 'smart' power? Smart power being the dilution of hard power with elements of 'soft power' promoted by Hillary Clinton. Possibly, the US will suffer from decline if it doesn't begin to introduce more policies based on diplomacy and culture based 'soft power'. The use of the term 'soft power' could be coined with 'Americanization' if it were not for the underlying elements of Neo-Colonialism and the monopolizing of global economies using TNC's etc, although this is still a legitimate approach to holding on to it's power as a global hegemon.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, is a supporter of 'smart power' and
campaigns against the use of only 'hard power' in the United States.

Also, the power of the United States has been criticized and questioned for decades based on it's resistance to global events etc. This has been further documented by Joseph Nye who claims that around every 15 years the decline of the United States has been predicted, but has never been proven as true. The nation has strongly withstood multiple economic crashes and debt crisis, terrorist attacks, long lasting wars but has remained the long running global hegemon despite these factors which have threatened in most it's strength regarding it's hard power. Despite being a country that is highly unsustainable in nature, there is no question over the United States durability and adaptation to change, which is essential in holding onto power in the 21st Century.

Finally, the emergence of the power lying behind the co-operation of global groupings must be assessed in the ways in which global distributions of power are changing through 'diffusion'. Economic Trade Blocs such as the EU or NAFTA and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO's) e.g. NATO or the United Nations, which are an attempt at spreading and sharing power equally among states, economic interdependence and military alliances. The organizations aim to provide a better platform for global relationships and development. Over time, these global groupings have grown into the main International Decision Making powers, which often are made to promote the hegemonic power of certain parts of the world, an example being the European Union, effectively separating their power from global hegemonic states such as the United States. However, the US is still dominant in most global groupings as they use these relationships and alliances as a forum for flexing their muscles in a geopolitical sense and could be seen as another way that America can elevate it's hegemony.

Ultimately, The United States by it's critics is always going to be proposed as flawed in terms of it's geopolitical power and it's relationship with other nations and global powers. But, in my opinion, it is important to remember that the US has never diminished in it's strength of hard power despite predictions that the country will decline or be overtaken by China re-emerging every 15 years. However, it should also be noted that to stay one step ahead of other leading global hegemonic powers, the nation must embrace the common values of 'soft power' that may lead to a higher level of co-operations on a global level, meaning it must enhance it's dependence on culture, environment and diplomacy rather than resorting to it's military and economics.

Realist and Liberal Approaches to International Politics

Realist and Liberal approaches to international politics, although the most prominent views on global politics, are conflicting in their ideologies. Realism in politics is the assumption that human nature is ultimately based on selfishness and on international terms, state-egoism leading to a potential for international anarchy. However, Liberalism although recognizing there is a development of selfishness, believes there is generally a basis for which harmony is found in common interests and cooperation rather than conflict.

Firstly, Realism can be related to the Billiard Ball Model as it demonstrates how nation-states collide and cause conflicts with one another rather than relying on interdependence. It is the belief or realists that international anarchy would ensue leading to bloodshed, conflict and open violence if not for the balance of power. The realist view, theorized by Thomas Hobbes is followed by theorists such as Kenneth Waltz (1924-2013) and Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980) describing the "political man as ultimately selfish, wishing to dominate others" and advocating the pursuit of national interest above moral values internationally. Realists believe state sovereignty should lie within the head of state.

Liberals, however, is a philosophy that promotes the idea of liberty and equality among nations closely linked to the Cobweb Model which illustrates how nation-states are connected and interdependent, this is the Liberal idea that is key to peacekeeping on a global level. Although since stripping the 'idealist' qualities since the 1970's, the Liberal approach is reliant on co-operation among states, using discussion, debate and negotiations with war only being the last resort. Theorists such as Thomas Paine (1737-1809) believed that "Government, in it's best state, is but a necessary evil" and promote the spread and influence of democratic power. Liberals believe that sovereignty should lie within IGO's or Intergovernmental Organizations as this is a way of ensuring interdependence and co-operations between nations and furthering liberal approaches such as collective security of global groupings such as NATO, and commercial liberalism in Trade Blocs such as the EU. Liberals believe in free trade and an open market as a "means of united and shared values among a common commerce culture." Furthermore, liberals also believe that democracy is key to peacekeeping as "two democratic states have never gone to war." (outlined in the Democratic Peace Thesis).

In comparison, there is an agreement between liberals and realists revolving around the values of mainstream politics, concerning that there is always an element of competition between states implying that sovereignty must always remain decentralized.

Ultimately, Liberal and Realist views are in stark contrast to one another, although there is a distinct idea that in modern politics, Liberalism is becoming very indistinct from Realism as the ideology evolves, the beliefs are still differing in their views on human nature, interdependence and global politics.

What is the political status of Palestine? (The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict)

Gaza has been a popular topic in recent news regarding the conflict between Palestine and Israel, this is a long standing fight based on religion and territories, particularly since the creation of Israel and has been a global political issue for on and off for decades.

Palestine has been a part of global political history as a place of conflict and turmoil, being the birthplace multiple conflicting religions, cultures and political ideologies over recent years and past centuries. The region has been in a tug of war of control since it' conception. In most recent times, the territory has been controlled by Israel and Judaism. Israel was created in May 1948 as a home place for the Jewish settlers, but was not internationally recognized until 1st May 1949.

The United Nations, dominated by the United States is responsible for the establishment of the state of Israel and came up with the original partition plan that separated Israel from the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank. In the past, before World War I, the Turkish Ottoman Empire had control of Palestine which was eventually taken over by the British Empire, however, this caused problems due to the ongoing conflict between the Jewish and the Arabs. Eventually, it was decided by the United Nations after World War II against the condemnation of the Arab leaders, that Palestine would be split between the two factions, with Jordan occupying the West Bank and Egypt in Gaza, this caused the original declaration of war.

After the Six Day War in 1967, Palestine lost it's political status even further as Israel gained both the West Bank and Gaza. In 1987, uprisings began once again in the Palestinian areas in response to Israeli occupation and attacks. But as an effect of international efforts in the early 1990's, agreements were made in co-operation leading to the Oslo Accords of 1993. This was successful as it allowed the birth of the Palestinian National Authority which meant that Palestine had gained a certain amount of sovereignty over it's own population.

However, in the year 2000, conflict began between the Israel Defense Force and the Palestine National Authority due to rising tensions and the increase of radicalism on both sides, this lasted around 5 years and caused thousands of fatalities. The Hamas leadership in Gaza since 2006 after the 2005 disengagement caused sanctions against Gaza, eventually leading to rocket attacks and violence on the ground using tunneling.

The recent Gaza-Israel conflict broke out on the 8th July 2014, sparking bombardments and attacks between the states which resulted in over 2000 deaths, mostly that of Palestinians. The war was based around an Israeli crackdown on Hamas, attempting to destroy the underground system connecting the countries with an eventual ceasefire on 26th August 2014.

To conclude, it is evident that despite it's Observer Nation status to the UN, Palestine is very much subject to discrimination as a nation-state and has very little political influence or sovereignty anymore, Israel being favored on an international scale and in terms of political status.

Rise of The State and the Nature of State Centric International Politics

The Rise of the State is a development of the world that has taken centuries and is still a concern in modern politics. However, the beginning of this concept started back in the 1500's. To set the scene, life and politics in the 16th Century would be very different. There were no boundaries or maps drawn up and people were less connected and knew less about the outside world, it was not a matter of concern. The development of the State could said to be a result of globalisation and the issues it creates. But, in the 1500's there was less structure to a country, with no governments, the country relied on both the Feudal Lords and the Monarchy which led to major differences in practice of laws etc. throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Firstly, a state is described as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." while a nation state is of a similar description but emphasizes the "unity of the population by factors of the nation, for instance language or descent." The former began specifically in Europe where Henry VII was a notable figure in English history. His victory at the War of The Roses in 1485 and his role as King resulted in a development of the nation state as he looked towards the beginning of foreign policies and alliances, trade, and the separations of power so beginning the rise of the English nation state and changed the way states began and interacted. Furthermore, 7 years later in 1492 it followed that Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain expelled the Muslim's from the country and consolidated Spain as a state. The first Russian nation state was created by Ivan The Terrible by 1584, when an absolute monarchy was created in France in the late 17th to early 18th Century, a 'dominant power' was founded in Europe. By the late 19th Century, the states of both Italy and Germany emerged as new nation states.

In 1648, The Treaty of Westphalia was established developing one of the first maps of Europe, emphasizing the importance of sovereignty of state over internal affairs legally. This Treaty not only ended the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) within the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years War (1568-1648) between the Dutch Republic and Spain. Held in Osnabruck and Munster (modern day Germany) the treaty involved around 194 states including Kingdoms of France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and many other territories. As well as allowing the independence of Sweden from Austria and the Netherlands from Spain, the Treaty also noted the importance of a states authority and sovereignty over it's own territory and disallowed the interference of other states in internal matters, therefore, strengthening the idea of the nation state and propelling state centrality further towards the modern day.

A Treaty of Westphalia era map of Europe as sovereign
 states are created in 1648.

 This is the point where State-Centric Politics come into action as it is decided that a state has the ability to govern it's own people with legitimacy without state intervention from other nations. The term 'state centric' is based on an approach that identifies "International relations that the main participants in the international arena are states and that decision making processes are done by the states as the active actors."

As study of modern Politics became more established a number of theories and models were created to record and exemplify how states interact as they develop and grow as powers and nation states. For example, the 'Billiard Ball Model' founded in the 20th Century is supportive of 'global interdependence' and is a realist theory, it determines that the distribution of power among states is relative to a pattern of conflict and cooperation between nation states. The Billiard Balls translate as hard shells that do interlink only touching each other, with only leaders and officials as points of relation and contact. Despite there being common legalities and formalities between states, it has been noticed that some states are simply more powerful than others. This is called the billiard ball model due to the fact that balls collide and deflect with different effects. However, this idea is under pressure and is debated with the emergence of superpowers and globalisation, interdependence is prevalent as states begin to rely on each other increasingly, based on the influences of economic power and trade, nuclear weapons and military and the introduction of deadly diseases and sources of non-renewable energy in some cases.

The idea of interdependence and global groupings has also been highlighted as a viable and increasing approach to global politics, the 'Cobweb Model' is an important development that has put the 'Billiard Ball Model' on the back burner as outdated. The metaphorical cobweb indicated that nation states are closely connected and rely on links to one another to establish strength and power as a nation state. This is evident through global groupings, particularly that of the relationship between the state and intergovernmental organizations (IGO's)  and non-governmental organizations (NGO's) such as the UN, G7, EU, NATO which often revolve around international decision making and distribution of global wealth and power, this has becoming very important in a constantly developing world that changes in patterns of both these factors.



The evidence shown based on approach to global politics models and nation states and treaties throughout history are all contributing factors to how the world has moved forward politically and globally and how the development of nation states, leading up to how the interconnected states work today, is an engine for the globalized world we live in today. This is clear in the links between global powers, global patterns of co-operations and conflicts and the global ties and groupings affected by this.