Multipolarity - French, Russian and Chinese Foreign Policy - Risks and Benefits

Outline the Theory of Multipolarity, as favoured in French, Russian and Chinese Foreign Policy. Can this idea help balance the International System, or does it have risks as well as possible benefits.

‘At the end of the Cold War came the belief that being governed by a balance of power and the associated realist approach to international relations was no longer required.’ The United States was preserving a unipolar system reflective of the hierarchical system of the medieval period, the threat of war which some considered associated with the balance of power theory, was considered no longer a threat to the international system. When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991 and the bipolar system of international order with states arranged in bipolar alliances based on whether they were in support of either the United States or the Soviet Union appeared to be moving into a Unipolar system with the United states becoming the main power due to its extensive economic and military strength and reflective of its mission for global reform. Both Russia and China promoted the development of a multipolar system for maintenance of international order in response to this movement as they identified a unipolar system was not in their national interest and was a threat to their survivability as there would be no balance of power which would mean limited cooperation and competition between states would not be equal but based on the United States foreign policy. Similarly European states were supportive of a multipolar system as opposed to following the movement towards a unipolar system as it was reflective of their heritage. Henry Kissenger identified European foreign policy as being reflective of the balance of power system whilst the United States foreign policy was primarily based on the self appointed mission of global reform. Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, an American writer from the nineteenth century, ‘believed that America should be strong and wield a positive influence in international affairs and throw her weight into maintaining a balance of power in both Europe and the Far East instead of pursuing a form of isolationism for the common interests of civilisations.’ Both were reflective of their own unique circumstances.

To define Multipolarity one needs to have an understanding of the balance of power politics that in essence deals with states administering their sovereignty over their territory and advancing their national interests inclusive of power within an international system with other states to maintain a form of international order. The focus of this essay will be on the theory of multipolarity, as favoured by the French, Russian and Chinese Foreign Policy and how it can balance the International System. Although there are risks and benefits associated with a multipolar system, a state that is cognisant of these risks and benefits can ensure that they position themselves effectively increasing their susceptibility towards maximising the benefits and reducing the risk ensuring their survivability. Before we can forward on assessing whether the theory of multipolarity can balance the international system, the idea or essence of power needs to be defined in context with international order and the international system. In this paper it is intended to define power, international order and how multipolarity, and the balance of power concept, affects the international system. Eurasia, concentrating on the Caucasus and Central Asia, being the center of the new game for international political interaction, will be used to highlight the effects of this theoretical approach to international relations.

Power and the way states pursue power is interpreted differently by different states based on their societal architecture, ideology, historical political experience and their economic stability. Their idea of power, how to gain it and how to exert it is usually reflective of their experiences, knowledge and perceived experience of other states.
States that follow either a classical and structural realists ideology ‘argue that power is the most significant factor in international politics is reflective of human nature. Structural realists go further in identifying that the anarchic structure of international politics shapes most international systems as states pursue power to preserve their security as opposed to the pursuit of power being reflective of human nature.’ Hans Morganthau identified that a state’s power is related to its ‘geographical size, the quality and quantity of the population units, quality and quantity of armaments and the conduct of foreign affairs. He further elaborated that the conduct of foreign affairs is probably the most elusive and most important when defining a states power as it is how a state interacts and uses its power to influence the actions of other states. To clearly identify each element accurately is difficult but it is only once there is either a crisis or war that the relative strength of a state’s power is clearly defined in terms of the balance of power. Power predominantly was identified as being reflective of military power and conflict was quite common between the states as they flexed this power. Walter Lippmann, an early twentieth century writer “defended the thesis that plans for national security and world order must always be consonant with the realities of power.” During the Cold War where power politics was at the for front of a states foreign policy, especially for the Soviet Union and the United States, the balance of power was bipolar and predominantly stable with the exception of the Cuban military crisis where the potential for a crisis to escalate towards war, possibly nuclear, between the two super powers was abated through diplomacy via negotiation as opposed to military force in their efforts to alleviate the crisis and regain stability. The movement of Russian military hardware to Cuba was seen as a movement towards a change in the balance of power on behalf of the Soviet Union and with any change provoked a reaction from the United States that observed it as a threat to their security and survivability to operate as a super power equal to the Soviet Union. Today, the United States and Russia are still dominant powers but they now compete with the European Union, China, Great Britain, India and smaller states that form alliances or ally themselves with other states to improve their power base.

Hans Morgenthau further elaborated how the desire of a state to attain power is equivalent to the desire to revolt against power and that as the intricate web that makes up the balance of power can prevent crisis, similarly this web can also cause a crisis. Dependent on a competitive state’s power and the power of those states that are aligned with it, influences a states’ desire to challenge the power of the competitive state through war even if the state being challenged is the weaker state. Today with the effects of globalisation we need to consider the balance of commerce as well as the balance of power to effectively identify the strength of a state. Susan Strange, a twentieth century structural realist ‘identified four distinct structures of power being; the power to influence ideas of others, the power to control their access to credit, the power to control their prospects for security and the power to control their chances of a better life as producers and consumers.’ She has been able to define the balance of power incorporating the balance of commerce within her four structures of power that has overlapped the influence of territorial advancement and military capability in analysing a states power and ability to influence the actions of other states in today’s multipolar system. The newly independent states of the Caucasus and Central Asia, being small and underdeveloped, are susceptible to the influence of the more stronger states of India, China, Russia the United States as well as the European Union that are pursuing their own national interests within this geographical location that has been identified by many scholars as the area for the new Game. Due to the strong Islamic base of the neighbouring southern states to both Central Asia and the Caucasus and their own strong Islamic culture, they are also influenced by the Islamic states of the Middle East, most notably Saudi Arabia providing financial support for the development of Islamic schools and Mosques.

During the Cold War Central Asia and the Caucasus were seen as a stable area internationally as it was not an area contested by the United States and its Allies and the Communist and Communist associated states. The system that the states operated in under the Soviet Union can be defined as Unipolar with Russia assuming the role of the major power exerting its influence over the smaller, weaker Republics and territories. Internally the states were subject to instability as they had been socialised with little regard for their ethnicity, culture, race and religion with many Republics being subject to internal conflict. Islam being a major influential factor amongst the states was not embraced by the Russians accordingly which along with having no experience in running a modern state has led the way for the current instability associated with the states of the Caucasus and Central Asia today. Russian staff were moved to the states to fulfil public administrative roles for the management of each republics advancement and the advancement of the Soviet Union economy that was based on cotton production, mining and resource extraction at the peril of food crops causing the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus to be dependent on imports. Localised industries were streamlined or not cultivated resulting in a dependence relationship developing between the Republics and Russia for their wellbeing. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the bequest of Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine, ‘an act that was identified as a declaration that the Slavic (white) part of the former Soviet Union no longer wished to share responsibility for helping cope with problems in the Asian part, the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus were left to deal with their personal administration for advancing their own national interests within a dependent relationship on Russia whilst dealing with the fact that race, culture, ethnicity and religion would play influential roles in their advancement within the international system.’ The states have had to pursue significant reform mechanisms to advance themselves both economically and socially, pursing relationships with other states whilst being cognisant of their historical and current strong dependence relationship with Russia. Russia’s historical relationship with the people of Central Asia and even the Caucasus has been turbulent with its application of policy towards the Islamic majority community causing much of the internal conflict identified today within the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Since the sixteenth century, Russians have exerted their power over this region, trying to convert the people to Christianity by ‘redistributing land to Russian nobles and monasteries, colonising the region with Russian peasants and artisans, destroying mosques, closing Quran schools and waqfs seized by the Russian territory. Although throughout history, this persecution has not been consistent, as with the new policies that were introduced by Catherine the Great in 1773 where she encouraged commercial success as opposed to religious persecution that opened the way to European education and eventually stimulated an intellectual enlightenment. It is pertinent to mention China and its application of policy towards Xinjiang (formerly eastern Turkestan), considering China is a major power pursuing its national interests within Central Asia similar to Russia has a historical relationship with Central Asia. Similar to Russia, China’s policy towards Islam has not been consistent. China has had an affiliation with Central Asia most notably since the Ming Dynasty where it adopted a more liberal approach towards integration as ‘it allowed the indigenous population to remained a politically subordinate non-Chinese population that was provided with security and commercial prosperity, the population was not required to assimilate similar to the Chinese Hui .’ Today with the influence of Islam and the influence of the idea of Islamic fundamentalism, both Russia and China have pursued an interdependence approach to their relationship with the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Russia has an interest to ensure the integrity and stability of these southern states as many Russians reside in these states and they form a security perimeter to the unstable non-modernised Islamic state of Afghanistan. The creation of the SCO although not an alliance has identified that the member states view each as an ally with regards to security and cooperation and dealing with the Islamic revival as each member state, especially since September 11, has had to revisit the Islamic question and the policies they have pursued for Islamic integration within their state system as well as dealing with the old territorial disputes of redefining borders to prevent cross border disputes and illegal trafficking of drugs and personnel.

The model for a states application and gaining of power is based on the lessons learnt from either their own experiences or the experiences of other states. For the states that make up the Caucasus and Central Asia; where independence is only new, internal stability is limited, there is still a strong dependence relationship with Russia, and their relationship with international actors as other states, international organisations, non government organisations and multinational corporations is haphazard, applying their new power base and gaining power through their potentially strong resource based economy has been a difficult transition for them. The influence and rules of a multipolar system have been thrust upon these states as they have gone from a unipolar relationship with Russia under the guise of the Soviet Union into a multipolar system with access to other states to form alliances or ally themselves with as well as becoming members of international organisations and engaging multinational corporations to assist their domestic state building and international integration within the International system of diplomacy, balance of power and balance of commerce politics. ‘The mindless armaments race and rigid alliances of the bipolar cold war where the United States and the Soviet Union established spheres of influence were no longer reflective of the balance of power relationship that prevailed in the new multipolar world.’ The Caucasus and Central Asian states with independence were able to pursue alliances and alignments with states other than Russia for their economic and social advancement. This pursuit was hindered by their strong dependence relationship with Russia. Their administrative staff being of Soviet origin and their resource based industries being streamlined, Uzbekistan with cotton and gold production, Kyrgyzstan with military production and Azerbaijan, Kazakstan and Turkmenistan with oil production or none existent industries as with the other states of Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia and ‘the republics themselves prior to independence running up large trade deficits that were covered by union transfers. Armenia, Georgia and Tajikistan have also had to deal with protracted regional conflict or civil wars, which affected and are still affecting, their economic and political transitions whilst Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have had to deal with being land locked, their transport infrastructure being orientated towards the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and a resultant rapid build up of large foreign debt.’

With independence, other states, realising the resource and power potential of the area and finally being able to deal directly with their state administrations’ as opposed to dealing with Russia under the guise of the Soviet Union, have courted them providing a dynamic political arena for the states to operate within. Although these states can be classed individually as weak states, troubled by ideology based internal conflict with limited development and modernisation, the multipolar system and associated balance of power has allowed these states to become empowered and able to provide some weight to negotiating foreign policy, aide and trade agreements. It has given the states a chance to become proactive in their financial affairs and demand world prices for their resources as opposed to the reduced prices placed on them by the Soviet Union prior to independence. This was more effective for the states with an agricultural based economies than the states with the energy based economies that were competing with the states of the Middle East. ‘State’s such as with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were able to be more dynamic in their choice of alliances and trade partners as their natural resource industries were well developed where as the states of Azerbaijan and Kazakstan required expanded infrastructure to support their natural resource industries and are reliant on outside investment to support these industries.’ The political administrative staffs for these states are predominately soviet citizens that have loyalty towards Russia that requires balance against their responsibility for the welfare and advancement of their own state. Similarly Russia has an interest in these states as there are a large number of Russian citizens residing in them and their ability to contain internal conflict and prevent the spread of Islamic militant movements threaten Russia’s national interests and its borders. The emergence of India, China , the European Union as strong political powers with national interests, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt with ideological interests within this geographical area along with the traditional powers of Russia and the United States with national interests have placed the states of the Caucasus and Central Asia in the center of a dynamic multipolar system with the balance of power being dynamic as it is continually challenged and adapting with the change in the environment.

In essence the ‘balance of power theory assumes that major powers, in the pursuit of increased security and influence, will combine forces with other nations that share the same interests. These alliances will change as situations change however every major power’s essential identity will be preserved.’ Zlatco Isakov reiterating the writings of the German philosopher and poet Freidrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), and that of an American historian Steven Lukes ‘politics is in separable from power, and states and governments exist to wield power, whether it be domestic or international and consequently, politics itself is defined as the struggle for power or vis versa, the ability to rule, mainly implying the ability to impose one’s will upon another which is often but not always achieved through ones use of force, i.e. Coercion by economic or military means to achieve ones own goals or interests.’ Kenneth Waltz identified that ‘a balance of power politics prevails whenever two and only two conditions are met; that the order be anarchic and that it be populated by units wishing to survive. He further elaborated that in a multipolar system, states rely on alliances to maintain security and identified this as unstable, as there are too many powers to permit any of them to draw a clear and fixed line between allies and adversaries. A state that may be an ally in one area may also be an adversary in another dependent on its national interests at the time and the states it chooses to define as ally or adversary. Dependent on the weighting placed on the area being negotiated will influence the strength of the ally or adversary relationship in relation to the ally or adversary relationship that it defines within another area.’ The strength that ties states together on one issue of national interest can be counteracted by the strength of mutual disagreement within another issue requiring them to seek alternative states to foster relationships with common national interests. Although Waltz identifies that a multipolar system is unstable, the will of a state to survive within it in itself induces stability as a state pursues a change in alliances, cooperation through international organisations and engages multinational corporations to meet its needs for survival and ‘allowing the principle of reciprocity to function it provides information about others’ preferences, intentions and behaviour ensuring its survivability and the survivability of its allies.’ Instead of pursuing the historical realist approach incorporating coercive diplomacy and possibly war a state has the option to pursue an interdependence approach engaging all actors, on all levels and in all environments.

A multipolar system for the balance of power is not new and can be traced back to the eighteenth century when the European states of Spain, Portugal, France, England, Russia, Prussia and Austria dependent on their national interests and security needs would form and break alliances with each other on a regular basis, and would acquire territories through colonisation or acquisition by force, continually changing the balance of power and preventing hegemony and dominance by any one state. The loss of a colony through independence did not necessarily mean the loss of power to a state as the colony was ‘still linked by culture and speech easing trade between the two even though the political link was severed.’ The Central Asian and Caucasus states were originally seen by Russia as an extension of their territory as opposed to colonies and were indoctrinated into Russian society assuming a common language, integrated transport and communication systems, adopting similar architecture and having their industries streamlined for the common good of the Soviet Union as opposed to the common good of the individual Republic or territory. Their power was reflective of the power of Russia and the Soviet Union on the whole, individually within this national system they were significantly weaker, plagued by civil unrest, lower education levels and restricted to predominately primary industries. With independence came a chance for the states to pursue alliances and ally themselves with states other than Russia, it gave them choice and a chance to advance their own culture and power within an international system. Allowing for the United States to establish military bases in their efforts to fight terrorism within Afghanistan within their borders has also opened up opportunities for them to pursue security and economic advancement through the joining of international organisations and the engagement of multinational corporations for the development of alternative industries as well as consolidating the extraction of their natural resources within their requirements and requests. The Shanghi Cooperation Organisation(SCO) is one cooperation that was formed in June 2001 to promote stability and economic cooperation between China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. These states have pursued a mechanism of cooperation, where they can pursue dialogue to advance their national interests and power within the international system. It has not managed to change policy but has advanced cooperation between the states and has been successful in attracting further membership as with India pitching for full membership and the states of Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia maintaining observer status. Issues dealt with by the SCO are pertinent to all member states, even though the SCO cannot change domestic policy of the member states as is available to the European Union the transfer of dialogue, ideas and experience influences the policy of each member state. Although Russia and China are significant powers in their own right and provide a significant amount of the funding for the SCO, through the cooperation the power base of Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have increased significantly. These states with similar interests are able to utilise the SCO to increase their overall power, provide themselves with competitiveness within the international system, especially with regards to security and economic development. The effects of globalisation, significantly improved transportation and communication systems, has also provided these states with further opportunities that were not available to them when they were part of the Soviet Union. Especially, considering the ease in which they have been able to advance their status by pursuing cooperation between states via such mechanisms as the SCO or pursuing bilateral or multilateral arrangements in trade, military activities, education and social advancement to ensure their economic viability and security.

As balance of power is central to both a bipolar and multipolar system and has been referred to continually through this paper, it would be pertinent here to identify what is actually meant by balance of power. Muthiah Alagappa defined balance of power as where there is an existence of two or more great powers with overall similar capabilities are able to balance each other out. One state may be more advanced militarily but with a weak economy but in comparison they both possess similar powers. This is a simplistic view of defining the balance of power but does identify that it encompasses both hard and soft power. For hard power we are referring to a States military power, its ability to foster alliances, court allies and align itself with other states to boost its perceived military power. Military power can be broken into two aspects personnel and hardware. For the personnel aspect you would consider the size, training, experience, endurance, flexibility, age and the command and control structure encompassing the personnel that make up its military. For hardware you would be considering age, sophistication, redundancy, numbers, interoperability, maintenance, source, munition stocks and technical aspects related to its military equipment. Equipment that is easily sourced maintained well and in abundant supply will ultimately boost a states military power. Within a multipolar system the sourcing of equipment and training for military means is diversified, quite competitive and complex. Initial expenditure by the state is significantly reduced as they are able to negotiate a suitable package considering that they are not restricted to one supplier. The disadvantage with utilising different sources is exposed in the maintenance, repair and replacement costs associated with equipment that is not interoperable. If the supplying state suddenly classifies the recipient state as an adversary, the supply chain is cut leaving the recipient state with aging equipment and training support that is unable to be effectively maintained, repaired or resupplied. The recipient state would be required to source equipment with similar capability from alternative sources resulting in the initial low cost of expenditure being increased significantly. The exchange of military capability is one avenue for increasing or decreasing a states power base as it identifies a states likely allies in time of conflict. Agreements are made between states to ensure that the recipient state does not release the technology or training to an adversary state of the supplier and Vis versa that the supplier does not release the technology to an adversary of the recipient state. With changing alliances and changes to the balance of power a state that is defined one day as an ally can be equally defined the next as an adversary, providing confusion as to technology ownership and usability. Edward Kolodziej succinctly identified soft power as power pursued through advancement in scientific knowledge, technological innovation, economic wealth and ideological values to ensure their competitiveness within the global system and their attractiveness to other states that pursue similar areas for advancement and power. A state that is significantly technologically advanced with a small population can in theory balance out a state that is rich in natural resources with a large population in the economic sphere. Both states balance as they become dependent on each other to pursue their own national interests. The first state provides the scientific knowledge and technical innovation for the extraction of the second’s natural resources; whilst the second, provides the labour and source for resources required by the first. Zlatko Isakovic identified power in the terms of political power “which comprised of three basic elements of social power (population, territory and economic potential) and elements specific to political power (military force, political system, ideology and morale).’ Referring back to the example referencing population and technological advancement, it is only since the Industrial Revolution that such states have been able to balance each other out as prior to, the state with the larger population would have been able to wield more power as it would have been able to employ more personnel within the military and numbers as opposed to weapon sophistication which directly correlated to a states political power. Today resources and technological advancement increases a states political power significantly as it directly relates to a states economic potential which as a soft power has become more influential on the global stage than military might. A states sovereignty, unless there is a morale or ideology issue not reflective of international consensus, is less likely to be breached by another states’ or actors (regional or global security cooperation ie. European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO), United Nations(UN)) military organisation. Military force can serve as a deterrent or can be used for coercive action, similar to economic sanctions dependent on the issue. For the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, on the whole are rich in natural resources but lack the scientific knowledge and technical innovation for the independent extraction or production of these natural resources as well as having been left with large trade deficits lack the capital to fund such extraction or production. During the Soviet error they were dependent on the scientific knowledge, technical innovation and financial support from Russia to maintain and develop these primary industries. Russia’s approach was based on its own national interests and did not significantly advance these industries to their full potential leaving the respective Republics under developed, with little modernisation planning and with their current social problems with inadequate integration of Islam within society for the large Muslim population living with in these Republics, in civil crisis. Their military is significantly Russian orientated with Russian hardware and training. Since independence and the war against terrorism that allowed the United States to establish bases within the states of Central Asia, this restriction or dependence on Russian hardware and training is likely to cease as a new market for equipment and training, predominantly western sourced is likely to improve their military power base increasing their ability to prevent escalation of internal conflict or movement of internal conflict from neighbouring states across their borders.

Realists and neo realists agree that the desire to pursue power is a permanent and fundamental property of the international system that is directed upon the state. Alternative to neo realist theory and its reliance on a state pursuing military power, alliances or allying themselves with other states to improve their power position on the global and regional stage, states can also pursue power by other means, as the enhancement of their soft power. The way that this power is allocated, utilised or configured is dependent on how states develop their own power base and how they interact with other states within the international system to maintain international order. ‘As envisioned at Westphalia as a laissez-faire process to maintain international stability through the balance of power, the joining of states in special relationships as the pursuit by a great power to unilaterally assert its authority is certain to provoke stiff resistance by the others, as the history of the Thirty Years War and all other periods of attempt at hegemony readily reveal.’ Russia during the Soviet Union period and the Cold War unilaterally asserted its authority on those states that made up the Soviet Union and on its disintegration was in a position to continue with this authority through indirect means under the guise of trade and security issues. The states were dependent on Russia for trade as Russia was their main customer for their natural resources and source of processed consumer goods. With regards to security, on independence the states were not prepared to deal with illicit trafficking of drugs, goods and personnel as with Islamic militants as their borders were subject to dispute as they were not well defined or community based. The states had limited power to deal with these issues as they did not have sufficient military or policing expertise. Russia with twenty percent of its population Muslim was aware of the threat posed by the free movement of Islamic militants and aware that if it did not assist with the border security issues, the illicit trade would penetrate its border. Similarly China’s Xinjiang Province has a high Muslim population and the illicit trade adversely affects its stability and economic prosperity.

The military operations in Afghanistan provided an opportunity for the Central Asian states to engage the international system independently and multilaterally instead of under the guise of only the SCO. The United States was able to forward deploy service personnel and equipment to bases within the Central Asian states in their fight against terrorism and the Taliban of Afghanistan. This gave the United States and its allies ‘a better-coordinated engagement with the Central Asian states on security cooperation, development of Caspian energy reserves, political and economic reform. The advantages for the Central Asian states it provided them with leverage when dealing on the international stage with other states, especially Russia and China, both of which have the same issues relating to the region as a concern for their national interests and pursue and which they have a multilateral relationship with through the SCO.’ The relationship with the Central Asian states for the United States provided a mechanism to advance the United States national interests not only with the war on terrorism but also advancing their economic interests as with engaging with multinational corporations for trading in oil and gas extraction, production and purchase. Similarly China and India have identified this underdeveloped market and industry for oil and gas as beneficial for their own national interests and have also engaged with multinational corporations for the extraction, production and purchase of oil and gas. Diversifying the market available to the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, improving their power base for negotiating more lucrative investments that improve their social, political and cultural status. The states still need to deal with reform, as their political administrations are still underdeveloped in comparison to western standards but reform has been initiated by the various states to improve within this area. Dependent on the reform that the states have chosen to pursue and their ability to achieve it themselves is significantly influenced by the states that they have chosen to ally with and the states that they have chosen to perceive as an adversary.

Multipolarity is different to hegemony, which relies on the presence of one great power that defines the collective goals and rules within the international system. “Hegemony requires a preponderance of material resources, a sense of social purpose, the ability to control international outcomes of importance to the dominant state, and some degree of consent and acceptance from other states in the system. In reference to Euroasia, the Soviet Union, during its time can be identified as a hegemonic based on Russia, for the associated territories that were encapsulated into Union. Russia, being a secular society where there was no divine law governing human society enforced its legal system and policies affecting political, economic and social structure on the states within the Soviet Union inducing a Russian assimilation. New Republics, most notably in Central Asia and the Caucasus were formed based on geographical location as opposed to community, social or religious structures. Divided communities increased the influence of the Russian power on these Republics, especially considering that Russian citizens were moved to the territories to administer the changed formations and post disintegration of the Soviet Union, Soviet leaders and Soviet citizens predominately perform the public and administrative roles within the independent states whilst the indigenous society maintain the more traditional labour roles either in agriculture or resource extraction and were restricted from advancing in any high level education or advancement. The unipolar system became a large resource and economic drain on Russia that lead to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Similarly, on a global scale, the unipolar system identified with the United States post the Cold War has highlighted the disadvantages again of such a system. The United States’ resources both military and economic have been greatly reduced as they have been required to be involved in numerous campaigns in support of the United Nations and in unilateral engagement. This reduction can be identified as imperial overstretch highlighting that such a system cannot be maintained. Dependent on how a unipolar system is administered by the super power influences the reaction of those states operating within its influence. It can be encouraging to other states and induce support or alternatively it can be seen as bullying tactics and induce resentment resulting in structured and unstructured protest by other states or organisations based on political, social or ideological grounds. This places significant burden both morally and economically on the super power place in such a position. The advantage of a multipolar system is that no one superpower is placed in such a position. There are a number of equal great powers that through a complex web of domestic economic and military factors, pursuit of alliances and allying themselves with other states, joining of international organisations and engaging multinational corporations are able to balance out their power in relation to the power of the other states. Each mechanism available to them is a means to advance their own national interests on either a domestic, regional or global scale where an ally domestically, militarily, socially, culturally, economically or ideology may be also an adversary also either domestically, militarily, socially, culturally, economically or ideologically. Multipolarity induces cooperation, exchange of dialogue and experiences militarily, economically, culturally and ideologically, and dependent on a states national interests, can limit instability and new authoritarianism. This is evident in the number of international organisations that have been established since the cold war for economic and security advancement of states on both a global and regional scale. The international organisations, with the exception of the United Nations on a global scale and the European Union on a regional scale, are not a power above the member states but a mechanism for the states to pursue power and advancement of their national interests within dialogue and negotiation. States joining such organisations due so with the understanding that decisions and policy made within the organisations are not legally binding but morally required to be adhered to by them and other member states. Power within the multipolar system is identified as a commodity and requires the sequencing of steps or actions taken by a state to ensure their survivability and growth within the international system. A disadvantage and an area where the states take risk within a multipolar system is that with such a complex form if integration it is difficult to identify competition, or a state trying to take a competitive advantage in one area to influence their competitiveness within another area that they identify as a higher priority for advancing their national interests and foreign policy coordination. States tend to hedge their bets, assessing all avenues or mechanisms available to them, ensuring that they do not place themselves in a situation that could result in their survival being placed into question, reducing the risk that they are willing to subjugate. For the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus in their current weak state economically, socially and politically, a multipolar system offers more benefits than risks. The area is dynamic, rich in natural resources, culture, and socially accepted amongst their peers, in a political sense as functioning states able to be members of international organisations, conduct trade on a regional and global scale and to be able to engage multinational corporations to pursue their security, social and economic development. Similarly they are accepted in an ideological sense with many Muslim countries, most notably Saudi Arabia offering support for Islamic schools and mosques. The current civil unrest, movement of Islamic fundamentalism and transnational crime issues currently experienced by many of these states is an issue that can be dealt with via a multipolar system ensuring that there is a balance of power within the region ensuring a balance to the international system.


Bibliography

Alagappa, Muthiah. 2003. Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative features. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Auty, Richard M. & Soysa D. Indra, 2006. Energy, Wealth and Governance in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Great Britain: Routledge.

Axtmann, Roland. 1996. Liberal democracy into the twenty-first century: GLobalization, integration and the nation-state. Manchester: Manchester Univ Press.

Bal, Suryakant N. 2004. Central Asia: A Strategy for India’s Look-North Policy. New Delhi: Lancer Publishers & Distributors.

Bobbio, Norberto. 1989. Democracy and Dictatorship: The nature and limits of State Power. Trans Peter Kennealy. Minneapolis: Univ of Minnesota Press.

Brown, Michael. Lynn-Jones, Sean. & Miller, Steven E. 1995. The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security. London: The Mit Press.

Cooley, John K. 2002. Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism. 3rd ed. London: Pluto Press.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 1996. Pacific Russia: Risks and Rewards. Canberra, ACT.

Evans, C. 2005. Identify and Discuss the ways in which two Muslim societies in Asia have gone about restoring sharia.. Unpublished paper; University of New England

Franck, Irene, and David Brownstone. 1986. The Silk Road: A History. New York: Facts on File Publications.

Frankel, Francine R. & Harding, Harry. 2004. The India-China Relationship: What the United States Needs to Know. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Freedman, Lawrence. [1998] 2003. Strategic Coercion: Concepts and Cases. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.

Freeman, Chas. W Jr. 1997. Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Fukuyama, Francis. [1993] 2002. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Perennial.

Genest, Marc A. 2004. Conflict and Cooperation: Evolving theories of International Relations. 2nd Ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.


Griffiths, Martin. 1999.Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations. London: Routledge.

Haddad, Yvonne and Barbara Stowasser. 2004. Islamic Law and the Challenges of Modernity. Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press

Hefner, Robert W. 2000. Civil Islam: Muslims and Democratization in Indonesia. New Jersey: Princeton.

Held, David, and Anthony McGrew. 2000. The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Holsti, K.J. 2004. Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional change in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster

Isakovic, Zlatko. 2000. Introduction to a Theory of Political Power in International Relations. England: Ashgate Publishing

Ivanov, Igor S. 2002. The New Russian Diplomacy. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Johnsson, Christer & Hall, Martin. 2005. Essence of Diplomacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Kegley, Charles Jr, and Eugene Wittkopf. World Politics: Trends and Transformation. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Kegley, Charles Jr. and Gregory A. Raymond. 2002 Exorcising the Ghost of Westphalia: Building World Order in the New Millennium, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kissenger, Henry. 1994. Diplomacy. New York: Touchstone.

Kleveman, Lutz. 2003. The New Great Game: Blood and Oil in central Asia. Great Britain: Atlantic Books.

Kolodziej, Edward A. 2005. Security and International Relations. New York: Cambridge Univ Press.

Lapidus, Ira M. [1988]2002. A History of Islamic Societies. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

Laslett, Peter. [1960]1988. John Locke: Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

Lawson, Stephanie. 2003. Europe and the Asia-Pacific: Culture, Identity and Representations of Region. London: Routledge Curson.

Mansbach, Richard W. & Rhodes, Edward J. 2003, Global Politics in a changing World. 2nd Ed.Boston: Mifflin.

Miall, Hugh. [1994]1996. Redefining Europe: New Patterns of Conflict and Cooperation. London: Pinter.

Moon, Jeremy, and Bruce Stone. 2002. Power and Freedom in Modern Politics. Crawley: Univ of Western Australia Press.

Nagel, Stuart S. 2000. Handbook of Global International Policy. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

O’Hagan, Jacinta. 2000. Contending Images of World Politics. Great Britain: MacMillan Press.

Pasha, A. K. 2000. India, Iran and the GCC States: Political Strategy and Foreign Policy. New Delhi: Manas Publications.

Roberts, Jonathan M.1988. Decision-Making during International Crises. New York: St Martin’s Press

Rumer, Boris. 2005. Central Asia At the end of the Transition. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Scholte, Jan A. 2005. Globalization a Critical Introduction 2nd Ed. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.

Smith Karen E. [2000]2003. European Union: Foreign Policy in a Changing World. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Stiles, Rendall W. 2004. Case Histories in International Politics. 3rd Ed. New York: Pearson Education.

Trenin, Dmitri. 2002. The End of Euroasia: Russia on the border between Geopolitics and Globalization. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Viswanathan, Gauri. 2001. Power, Politics, and Culture: Interviews with Edward W. Said. New York: Vintage Books.

Vital, David. 1967. The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International Relations. London: Oxford Univ Press.

Watson, Adam. [1982]1984. Diplomacy: The Dialogue between States. London: Routledge