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.

How did US involvement with the creation of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank lead to it becoming a global hegemon?

A global hegemon is a supreme leader of world order emphasizing leadership and dominance over other nations. The United States is the most current and prime example of a global hegemon today. Mostly using techniques of 'hard power' through dominance of global economies and military power. Some of these hegemonic qualities can be related to the nations involvement with Intergovernmental Organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Firstly, one of the most important relationships in answering this question is between the US and the United Nations. The UN was set up after the victory of World War II by the US and European states and agreements were signed by 51 states including China, UK, India, USSR etc. This was set up with the aim of maintaining peacekeeping, now with 193 member states. US involvement in the UN is also what makes it controversial, with the UN headquarters located in Manhattan. For instance, the US has one of the five permanent seats on the Security Council, which means it has phenomenal power in terms of international decision making and vetoing decisions made against their national interest. This IGO is considered the creation of the US, with then President claiming "Roosevelt saw the United Nations as his crowning achievement of his political career." The Bretton Woods Conference was also held in 1944 to establish a monetary and trade regime which was stable and predictable, upholding Western values of opening world markets, providing liberal economy and privatization which are principle factors of the IMF and World Bank.

The International Monetary Fund is an organization of 188 countries which contribute funds to a global banking system with the ability to then borrow money and other resources. Despite evidence of aiding economic stability and reducing poverty, the IMF has been controversial due to it's biased nature towards rich core countries such as the US, UK, Germany, France and Japan, with these countries holding most of the voting power, with the US voting share being at almost 18% while other countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa all possessing less than 1%. This means that the IMF is set up to further the ideas and values of countries like the US. This also furthers it's status as a global hegemon, promoting Neoliberalism. This allows the US and other developed nations to have a dominance over other less developed countries, IGO's such as the IMF can be criticized for furthering elements of Neo-Colonialism.

In terms of the World Bank, there are striking similarities to the biased nature of the World Bank, with the US leading international decision making as they have the largest percentage of voting power, followed once again by countries such as the UK, Germany, France and Japan. The World Bank has been highly criticized by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) arguing that the system was set up promoting inflation and a world in which international trade is state dominated, with the free market ideology possibly leading to policies which are damaging to the weaker global economies which is seen as a way in which the US holds powers over other nations via. exploitation of economies. The introduction of the conditional loaning system offers loans to less developed nations on the basis of high interest rates, opening up trade and privatizing businesses to global TNC's (often those of the United States). The interest of the World Bank is dominated by a small group of the most economically powerful nations.

Ultimately, the United States involvement in the creation and agendas set by these Intergovernmental Organizations such as the UN, IMF and WB  is very strong, it's emphasis on the United States role in international decision making and the dominance of global economy consolidating the nation's role on the world stage as the most influential global hegemon, furthering their status as a uni polar superpower.

Is conflict between Islam and the West inevitable?

The realist view that war is inevitable is difficult to deny when applied to the relationship between Islam and the West. The conflict can be traced back to it's origins in the thesis of Samuel P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" in 1993. The causes of past conflicts in the Middle East can be surmised as caused by the United Nation's support of a right wing Israel established by the Western World, The West's insatiable thirst for dominance of resources in an opportune area of the world cementing itself in neo-colonialism in other corners of the planet or the responsibilities of developed core countries to help those in less fortunate places in terms of human rights and humanitarian aid.

"Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel P. Huntington
looks at the relationship between the contrasting
civilizations, particularly Islam and the West.

In the four to five centuries, Islam has found itself in disrepair, once being the center of civilization for around 800 years in regards to philosophy, arts, medicine and technology it's a culture shock for the Middle East to find itself dominated and exploited by a unbeatable Western Civilization and left behind by the 16th Century. This is most likely the origin of the Muslim or Arab animosity towards the West.
In the post-Ottoman Empire age beginning after the events of 1918. The drawing borders between states by the victors of World War I has been considered a mistake made by England and France. Prior to World War I, the Middle East operated as a whole, but after the drawing of international borders of Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria  between states conflict and domination have been rife in these areas.

A reason for the inevitable conflict between Islam and the West is ideological based, lying in religion. This creates a global culture in which Christianity or Atheism cannot co-exist with Islam without the prevalence of conflict. For centuries, this has been the reason behind wars, executions etc. This inevitability of conflict results in "Holy Wars" - a war declared or waged in support of a religious cause. These can be discovered and tracked back to the Crusades. The spread of these two religions has caused a clash that reaches to one another's borders.

Western support of Israel is also an important factor in the fractured relationship between the Middle East and the West. An example of how this can cause conflict is the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Due to the US support of Israel in this Middle Eastern conflict, helping by supplying weapons to the IDF (Israel Defence Force) spurring the OPEC countries to slow their oil production in an attempt to raise prices to countries in the West on the side of Israel, despite production only decreasing by 4% this caused panic buying of oil and the skyrocketing of oil prices which in effect caused tensions between the civilizations once again. However, could the oil industry be preventing an inevitable conflict between the West and Islam? despite oil production being the primary reason that the Middle East is able to compete with Western powers economically, it could be considered as a catalyst for treaties - if not peace.

Culture and customs of the two civilizations also do not mix, the values held by the West are not upheld in the Middle East which will never improve while the Middle East is not embracing a more democratic policy focused on human rights, equality (particularly that of women), freedom of both speech and religion etc. However, due to religious differences, this is feared not to be occurring anytime in the near future. Furthermore, there is a lack of willingness, almost a rebellion against the neo-colonialism of the US and other nations as their influence of capitalism and democracy is rejected in reaction to "Westernization" that can be seen in the Far East particularly. However, this is contradictory of the many Islamic or Muslim people which move to UK etc. which despite racial and cultural tensions, for the most part are encouraged to live in harmony with natives in these countries. Not only does this promote the ethnic mixing of varying cultures, it means that we are now more able to understand the more non-radical views and values that go against the stereotype of culture and religion in the Middle East.

The last point leads on to the current situation regarding ISIS and the prevalence of other Jihad extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These reactionary movements in reaction to Western intervention in the Middle East are only gaining momentum and are leading towards a situation which inevitably will end in war. Terrorist organizations, often looking to provoke nations into intervention cause tensions between states. ISIS is an example of how radicalism resorts to war crimes and killing of innocent people which coaxes the West and Islam into war time and time again - examples of this also lie in the war in Afghanistan as Taliban harboring of Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks resulted in an all out war in 2001, which only ended in October 2014. This is also a way in which the civilizations are mixing with negative consequences, with Western countries seeing thousands of their populations disappearing to fight for Islamic State. This shows how conflicting ideologies are propelling us towards conflict not only in the Middle East but in countries around the world including up to 2000 fighters from the UK, 493 from Chechnya, 3000+ from Tunisia, 930 from France and 1500 from Morocco.

The origins and targets of Terrorism map showing the countries where
terrorism effects most, particularly in the Middle East; Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq and Libya as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan where influence is
spreading.

Exploitation and Neo-Colonialism of the Middle East is seen in the way that the West attempts to side with and exploit countries such as Iraq and Saudi-Arabia due to their vast oil reserves by which OPEC produces oil for 60% of the globe's consumption. This is a reason for NATO and UN interest in aiding the Middle East. 61% of Americans agree at an ever increasing rate, that US intervention in the Middle East was a mistake, and most believe there was no clear plan to the 2003 War in Iraq. Questions have also been raised particularly since the US left Iraq in early 2014 and the emergence of Islamic State on the effectiveness of the US intervention. It has been theorized by realists that the war Iraq was very little about the protection of the Iraqi people and more about the protection of US national interest, primarily being the overseeing of oil production and installing a democratic government which has recently happened in Afghanistan. By intervening, the West keeps up the appearance of an increased relationship in the Middle East. However, as these terrorist organizations previously mentioned grow in power and influence, the need for them to be removed grows stronger alongside the relationships between Western and Middle Eastern countries. The coalition to remove Islamic State has seen a new found diplomacy between rich core countries such as the US, UK and Australia and Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Syria (previously in political tensions with the West under the civil war led by Al-Assad's corrupt regime) the West supports countries which puts an emphasis on the proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Although the coalition with these countries is unstable and the countries themselves do not support Western values, is this not a promising expression of peace?


Ultimately, the belief in who is to blame for the inevitable conflicts fought in the Middle East by the West is shifting from the stereotype of Islamic causes to the issues of US foreign policy. It explains the idea of the United States acting as the "global police" to protect national interest and finite resources which are rich in the Middle East. To answer the question "Is war between Islam and the West inevitable?" liberals would argue that with co-operation and the promotion of a harmony of interests we could end all war and conflict with the Middle East, however, in Western terms, the distance from democracy and equality in the Middle East is still too far to be embraced. In realist terms, they would argue that Islam and the West will always be heading towards a "Clash of Civilizations" and that cannot be changed while the world still maintains the same contrasts in values and culture, believing that any peace is only temporary and treaties or coalitions between these states will be illusionary and not long lasting.