Customer Reviews

Unipolarity and the Middle East

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

1. The Author. Dr Birthe Hansen is Associate Professor at the Institute of Political Science, the University of Copenhagen.

2. The book is the result of a three years research project by the author. It is the first ever attempt to define a model of states' behaviour pattern in a uniploar world. The aim of the book is to offer a way of understanding and explaining the process of changes in the Middle East during the period from 1989 to 1998 (Post Cold War) and see if they adhered to the model derived for uniploar world scenario. The uniploar model is base on Neorealist theory (Waltz 1979), which provides a general, structural frame work for dealing with international politics.
3. Having analysed the Neorealist theory author goes on to define the model of unipolarity. The main hypotheses about uniploar system and the effect of unipolarity on the conditions by which states help themselves and interact is summarised as following:-
a. Unipolarity is a robust, but not necessarily durable variation of polarity. Great power wars will not occur because there is a lack of equal adversaries.
b. The other states have a single option in terms of great power in the case of unipolarity. This weakens their bargaining power vis-a-vis the unipole (sole super power) and it gives them an incentive to flock around the unipole if necessary. They will tend to flock (unipolarisation) when faced with strategic security needs, or if the unipole's agenda demands polarization. A nuclearised or nuclear threshold status may reduce a state's incentive to flock.
c. The other states need to work hard and carry a comparatively bigger burden with respect to enhancing their security. Regional activity, including cooperation as well as conflict, will be high.
d. The unipole has to undertake managerial tasks, but it will try to share these burdens with others, primarily regional `partners'. The unipole is challenged by the risk of exhaustion due to its managerial tasks as well as by others' free-riding and growth; on the other hand, it puts its position at risk in the event of a leaving the events at their own attitude. The unipole is in a unique position to define the agenda of world affairs.
e. From 1989 to date, international politics should be analysed in terms of unipolarity, with the US as the unipole. The US position as the unipole and its policy makes up the US World Order.
4. Having defined a model for uniploar world the author proceeds to review all significant events in the Middle East from 1989 to 1998 in a chronological manner. Analysis consists of description of the event, comparison of relevant parties' behaviour pattern with uniploar model and finally making deductions. Main events that were considered were:-
a. The Unification of Yemen. After the end of cold war both Yemens received lesser economic and military support and felt weaker than before. Hence the uniploar phenomenon forced unification as choice of other super power to sponsor mutual conflict had vanished.
b. Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait. Iraq miscalculated US response and as a result suffered a humiliating defeat against US led coalition. It further strengthened unipole dominance and manifested US world order.
c. The Formation of International Coalition. The formation of an international coalition against Iraq amplifies US assuming the managerial role and sharing some burden with her strategic partners.
d. End of the Lebanese's Civil War. In the war against Iraq, Syria flocked with the unipole. USA allowed Syria to settle Lebanese Civil War. Thus it was an international US approved solution in which Syria acted as a broker.
e. Operation Desert Storm. US acted as a manager to secure her vital interest i.e. continuous supply of oil from Middle East. Flocking of different states with coalition on the desire of unipole was quite significant.
f. The Western Saharan Cease-fire. Western Saharan cease fire again came about as US and USSR lost their conflicting interest in Western Sahara with the end of cold war. US became the sole option for resolution of the issue and hence matter was handed over to the UN.
g. The Gaza-Jericho Accords. Single option forced Palestinian to flock around US for settlement of the dispute. US acted as a manager to reduce a potential source of conflict.
h. The Arab Israeli Peace Process. The parties could no longer rely on alternative super power backing (single option) and they, therefore, chose instead to join the US peace initiative (flocking). They have to struggle for their own future as end of bipolar scenario had deprived them of the huge bipolar super power interest and support (hard work).
4. Having correlated the changes in Middle East goes on to say that systematic changes in the Middle East from 1989 to 1998 can be attributed to the uniploar nature of the world. Finally the author brings out future security challenges in the Middle East saying that general pattern of conflict and cooperation in the Middle East will most likely be characterised by two tendencies: a general flocking around the US in case of security problems alongside with opposing efforts to avoid US dominance and the emergence of symmetrical security arrangements linked to the sub systematic development.
5. Conclusion. The book is an excellent attempt to co-relate events in the Middle East after departure of cold war with the expected changes according to the uniploar model. It provides a solid foundation for carrying out further research in the field of political science to predict future eventualities in different regions.