Search

Begin New Search Topic Multipolarity

41. Small States and Shelter Theory: Iceland’s External Affairs

Author:
Yeliz Kulali Martin
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:
2020’s international system, which according to John Mearsheimer “shifts from unipolarity to multipolarity,”1 is more welcoming for small states and small state studies. In this environment where the number of actors is growing, small states have a stronger voice through the alliances they make, the projects they create or the roles they play in international organisations. The book named “Small States and Shelter Theory: Iceland’s External Affairs”, analyses the current foreign policy decision-making processes of small states as system actors, with the purpose of adding a new theory to the International Relations (IR) discipline. Shelter theory, is presented as an alternative to the numerous IR theories explaining the behaviours of small states and this concept was initially introduced by the editor of the book, Baldur Thorhallsson, in 2010.2
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Book Review, Small states, Multipolarity, and Decision-Making
Political Geography:
Europe and Iceland

42. Overcoming American Hegemony: The Central Paradox of Chinese and Russian Revisionism

Author:
Adam P. MacDonald
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
Institution:
Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
Abstract:
China and Russia are adopting increasingly assertive dispositions to reconstitute local geopolitical environments to their strategic advantage, requiring the erosion of American anchored hegemonic networks in their respective home regions. Despite growing material power bases, these pursuits are and will most likely continue to be unsuccessful. First, they are seen as threatening to other regional powers who are increasingly working together to counteract them. Second, these counterbalancing efforts reinforce the importance of the United States, given its still preponderant capabilities and networked centrality, in facilitating the coordination of existing and new political, economic and security arrangements which are increasingly oriented against China and Russia. A central paradox lies at the heart of these powers’ revisionist approaches: their actions inhibit desired new geopolitical realities, principally defined by alignment patterns, from emerging by reinforcing rather than displacing American hegemonic regional networks. Despite the negative strategic results being produced, it is expected both powers will double down on their current approaches to try to impose favorable regional realities before their power capacity wanes as domestic challenges grow. China and Russia are not existential challenges to but rather re-invigorate American hegemonic networks and its leading role within them. The greatest threat to American hegemony is not external but internal in terms of domestic alienation against the hegemonic project itself.
Topic:
Hegemony, Geopolitics, Rivalry, Multipolarity, and Revisionism
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and United States of America

43. Gendering the Indo-Pacific Dialogue: Opportunities for India and Australia

Author:
Priyanka Bhide and Aditi Mukund
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Women's Development Agency (IWDA)
Abstract:
Viewing the confluence of the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean as a distinctive and interdependent strategic and economic space is fundamentally changing the way both India and Australia think about and examine their relationship with the broader region.i The Indo-Pacific as a strategic construct has grown in prominence in global geopolitical discourse, especially over the last five years. The EU, USA, and several countries in Europe have in place or are developing their own strategies for engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. The European Union collectively advocates for a ‘Free and Open IndoPacific’, designed to foster a ‘rules-based international order, a level playing field, as well as an open and fair environment for trade and investment, tackling climate change and supporting connectivity.’ii For France, the Indo-Pacific is at the heart of its vision for a stable multipolar order, and the Indo-Pacific is listed as a ‘priority and essential partner’.iii Germany too is making an active contribution to shaping the international order in the Indo-Pacific, so that it is ‘based on rules and international cooperation, not on the law of the strong.’iv The significance of the construct is varied for countries that are part of the region. The scope of the conversation in the Indo-Pacific is widening, with more diverse and varied perspectives being brought to the forefront. In this paper, against the backdrop of global Feminist Foreign Policy conversations, we focus on how Australia and India view the Indo-Pacific; marking the shifts in both countries’ approaches, along with bringing in important aspects of their bilateral relationship, highlighting how the Indo-Pacific has grown in significance to become a foreign policy priority, how both India and Australia have incorporated a gender lens in their actions, and what could be the avenues for Australia and India to apply such a lens in their collaborations.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Geopolitics, Multipolarity, Dialogue, and Gender
Political Geography:
India, Australia, and Indo-Pacific

44. Redefining the U.S.-Turkey Relationship

Author:
Sinan Ülgen
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
At present, the relationship between Turkey and the United States is in a deep crisis. The meeting between U.S. President Joe Biden and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the margin of the June 2021 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in Brussels raised expectations that the U.S.-Turkey relationship can be put back on track. And yet recovery from the present crisis is uncertain, as the underlying factors that previously shaped the relationship have changed. The end of the Cold War and the emergence of a more multipolar system have altered the nature of U.S.-Turkey engagement. In Washington, competition between global powers is now the overriding frame for U.S. foreign policy. Ankara, however, views the world very differently. The rise of Asia and the ascendancy of China are seen more as opportunities than threats. Ankara interprets these trends, as well as Russia’s growing regional activism, as signs of the lasting emergence of a multipolar world order. This understanding now shapes the strategic calculus of Turkish policymakers. Turkish political elites firmly believe that a successful repositioning of their country in this multipolar environment will benefit the nation in the long run. This growing divergence in terms of how Ankara and Washington see the world creates a challenging environment for constructively addressing the range of prevailing bilateral disputes. This paper examines five main areas of disagreement between the two countries and explores how the two sides might overcome these differences. At the top of the list of current disagreements are Turkey’s acquisition of the S-400 air and missile defense system from Russia and ongoing U.S. support for Syria’s Kurdish military and political factions. Also important are the consequences of the erosion of democratic norms in Turkey; the U.S. position on the self-exiled Islamic preacher Fethullah Gülen, who many in the Turkish government believe was the architect of the failed coup attempt in Turkey in July 2016; the possible impact of the Halkbank court case on grounds of past violations of Iran sanctions; and the Biden administration’s decision to use the word “genocide” to refer to the killings and deportations of Ottoman Armenians during World War I. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Turkey-U.S. relationship is in need of redefinition. The Turkey-U.S. relationship has long been defined as a strategic alliance underwritten by NATO. Today, this definition has become obsolete and does not capture the new reality of this relationship. Turkey undoubtedly will remain a strong NATO ally, but its relationship with the United States will no longer be shaped by the power asymmetry of this military alliance. In other words, the reality of the United States being the main security provider will not be sufficient to override and contain the centrifugal trends that have shaped the relationship since the end of the Cold War and that have gained momentum in the past decade as a result of the growing divergences between Ankara and Washington. Yet differences with Turkey cannot be managed with the same clinical approach reserved for adversaries of the United States. Turkey is not an adversary, and therefore, a categorical separation of areas of agreement and cooperation from areas of disagreement is unrealistic. Unlike in the case of the United States and its true adversaries, the perpetuation of areas of dispute will always hinder the scope of U.S. collaboration with Turkey. The underlying alliance relationship has a built-in expectation of solidarity and mutual trust. Without these values, the bilateral relationship cannot function effectively. Neither will the “grand bargain” approach favored by Ankara be successful. Turkey wants a diplomatic process with the United States that would involve deliberations on all the disputed areas in a flexible manner. These deliberations could then lead to trade-offs that would create the conditions for a mutually beneficial reset. Ankara could also showcase its flexibility provided that Washington demonstrates its willingness for compromise. And yet there is little interest in Washington in undertaking such an enterprise with the Erdoğan government. A scenario of gradual rapprochement as an alternative to the grand bargain championed by Turkey or the principled engagement currently favored by Washington can be promoted. The gradual rapprochement would entail a series of confidence-building actions. Positive areas of engagement could include future negotiations with Iran, the reconstruction of Syria, the normalization of Libya, the stabilization of governance reform in Afghanistan given Turkey’s interest to operate the Kabul airport even after the U.S. and NATO withdrawals, the countering of Russian aggressiveness (especially toward Ukraine), and collaboration in Africa to dampen the influence of China. The Turkey-U.S. relationship may in that sense be in acute need of gradual but concrete steps that over time will set a new tone for a more positive and constructive strategic partnership and reestablish mutual trust.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, Multipolarity, and Military
Political Geography:
Turkey, North America, United States of America, and Mediterranean

45. Latin America and the New Global Order

Author:
Antonella Mori
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, global geopolitical relations are being shaken to their roots, and Latin America is no different. The region is experiencing new transformations in political, economic, and societal terms. In turn, all these rapid changes are having an impact on how Latin American countries shape their own foreign policies, and on how they adapt to the challenges of an increasingly multipolar world. How are the US, China, and the EU competing in terms of political alliances and economic projection on the Latin American region? And how are some of the main Latin American countries (namely Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela) contributing to shape these new regional dynamics?
Topic:
Politics, European Union, Economy, Strategic Competition, COVID-19, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
China, Brazil, Latin America, Venezuela, Mexico, and United States of America

46. Forward to the Past? New/Old Theatres of Russia’s International Projection

Author:
Aldo Ferrari and Eleonora Tafuro Ambrosetti
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
The Covid-19 emergency will likely exacerbate many longstanding vulnerabilities that Russia has been facing for years: excessive dependence on energy exports, clashes with the West, demographic problems, and a constant foreign policy overreach. On foreign policy, however, Russia is not expected to take a step back. Today's Russia is back in many “old” theatres where the Soviet Union was actively engaged. More than a quarter of a century after the fall of the USSR, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has made restoring his country's great power status a primary goal of his 20 years in power. What are the elements of continuity and change between Russia’s foreign policy and the Soviet Union’s? What are the political, historical, military and economic dimensions of Russia’s return to old Soviet theatres of influence? And how does this interact with Moscow's long-standing narrative of a return to a multipolar world?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Power Politics, COVID-19, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
Russia

47. Axis of Convenience? Israel and China in a multipolar world

Author:
Vuk Vuksanovic
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
Despite being one of the most important allies of the United States in the Middle East, Israel has been building a new partnership with China since 2013. The repositioning is motivated by changes in the country’s strategic environment, its crisis in the relationship with the United States during the Obama years, and its economic and infrastructural needs. However, Israel is still deeply anchored in its alliance with the United States, which will impose limitations on how far its partnership with China can grow. For now, nevertheless, this relationship attests to the new geopolitical reality of the 21st century in which even the most ardent US allies, such as Israel, must hedge their bets and diversify their partnerships by engaging China.
Topic:
Partnerships, Alliance, Strategic Competition, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, Israel, Asia, and United States of America

48. Endless Endgame: Whither Russia-West Confrontation?

Author:
Elkhan Nuriyev
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
There are so many global threats impacting the future of the Earth but Western democracies fear only one person – Vladimir Putin. That’s because on almost all geopolitical fronts of the emerging multipolar world, Russian President is deftly striking a blow against the collective challenge mounted by the West. It is thus no surprise that the West’s endless dread of Russia’s military power has made Putin the world’s most powerful man. What’s happening in West-Russia relations right now is not a new Cold War. It is not even a renewed East-West divide. It is rather an incredibly high-stakes geopolitical grand game fueled by decades of long-time mutual distrust and competing great power interests.
Topic:
International Relations, Geopolitics, Strategic Competition, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
Russia and Eurasia

49. Multipolarity is key: Assessing Azerbaijan's foreign policy

Author:
Djan Sauerborn, Bastian Matteo Scianna, and Marius Mazziotti
Publication Date:
12-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Economic and Social Development (CESD)
Abstract:
This paper seeks to outline how Azerbaijan should manage the numerous foreign policy challenges it faces due to its strategic location, wealth in resources, neighbors and surrounding conflicts. As a small state, Baku should seek to balance interests and pursue a path of multipolarity, without however forfeiting a strong stance towards governments that threaten its status quo. Russia, Turkey, Iran, Israel and the West all have their interests and Azerbaijan has to become a pawn in the hands of the powerful. The resolution of the “frozen conflict” over Nagorno-Karabakh would mark a great step in the right direction, providing Baku with more leverage. The economic power of Azerbaijan gives the South Caucasian Republic a unique asset and allows Baku to play a balancing role regarding conflict prevention and conflict solution in this region which is often described as a geopolitical chessboard.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
Russia, Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and South Caucasus

50. A Proposition “Bhutan is a Democracy”: Beyond the Constricted, Popular Wisdom of “Democracy”

Author:
Katsu Masaki
Publication Date:
10-2013
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Bhutan Studies
Institution:
Centre for Bhutan & GNH Studies (CBS)
Abstract:
This article seeks to dissect, with reference to Bhutan’s polity, how the Eurocentric, popular wisdom of democracy, privileging liberal democracy, inadvertently enforces closure to other plausible, non-liberalistic interpretations. In Bhutan, the monarchy and Buddhism carry moral authorities constraining the arbitrary use of governmental power, and nurturing associative bonds in society. This “natural democracy” contravenes the orthodoxy of liberal democracy, according to which the state, as a neutral arbiter, must not accord a special status to any leader or religion. For this reason, political analysts tend to doubt whether Bhutan is a democracy. The circumscribed, liberal-democratic notion emanates from the history in which European universalism has been fabricated as a universal standard to be disseminated throughout the globe. It has thus served to rank different societies in a linear trajectory that positions Europe at the pinnacle of “progress”. The case of Bhutan potentially helps to rectify the constricted wisdom of democracy, to facilitate more open, thorough deliberations, and to start conceptualizing a multipolar world.
Topic:
Government, Democracy, Multipolarity, and Eurocentrism
Political Geography:
South Asia and Bhutan