Unipolar and Multipolar Security Environments Coursework

Americans unipolar moment is enroute to be in the process of furnishing following the ever pressing global diversity and different traits in the effort to improve or lower the US Security. The environment has fully been depending on the power distribution plus the international influence to states. Unipolarity refers to the power distribution where one country posses most power in politics, culture and economy¹.

Multi-polar, on the other hand involves distribution of power between two or more countries leaving all at the same level in military, economy and culture. Studies hold it that, multi-polar systems are more stable than the unipolar. The United States can have a future in a multi-polar environment. This can be through giving its citizens the opportunity to focus on their worries, fears and also avoid misjudging the intentions of the other neighboring states².

Body

Due to the difficulties involved in mutual assurance destruction matters, use of dangerous weapons, the multi-polar systems become stable than the unipolar security environment. The US has been the super power for decades, and this is a trade which is becoming less helpful to the nation and the world. For the nations to grow, and benefit from the global economy a system bringing together different powerful nations need to be in place.

One of the main results of a multi-polar security environment includes the common international decisions made for strategic purposes hence keeping a power balance among the nations. The US being in the lead should organize for the success of a multi-polar security environment to provide stability and security among the nations. Strategic flexibility and organization involves a host of policies designed to allow the US to maintain its power and to shape the emerging security environment³.

In multi-polar security system, the challenges can be many although they are manageable. Considering the complexity of the states all over the world, the multi-polar environment has been increasingly hard to practice across foreign policies unless it gets back up form the powerful nations. Nations need to back up each other be it developed or developing since these countries depend in each other especially in trade.

Factors involving diplomacy and economic issues are responsible for putting the nations together and form an enormous challenge to unipolar security, leaving multi-polar as the better option. The interstate system if international rules and institutions relate economy, politics and security experience pressure for may look down at safety of states and persons. Attaining and maintain such powers may be costly involving a lot of commitment hence the selected nations may find it challenging to remain at the top⁴.

The US posses a powerful influence and has further influenced many nations all over the world with their policies, culture and economy. The US depends much on the foreign countries in trade hence a mutual benefit in economic development. This interdependency means that US cannot be called a superpower and it is not self sufficient for it depends globally on the adverse community to maintain a quality life for its citizens. The US foreign and security policy should therefore, backup system for its continuity and democracy⁵.

Conclusion

The consequences for international securities of an asymmetric multi-polarity are far from clear. Its global nature and the nation are interdependent for successful continuity lies above dispute. The combination of America’s active return to multilateralism and the desire for global recognition of the other nations creates an opportunity for them to have a common discussion and effective multipolarity that enhances successful global governance in security, economy and related matters⁶.

Bibliography

Patrick, Morgan M. “International security: Problems and solutions”. Washington D.C: CQ press, 2006, pp. 35-38.

Sewall, Sarah. “A strategy of conversion: American power and the international system”, Harvard: Harvard University, 2008.

Thomson, William R. “On Global War: Historical-Structured approaches to world Politics”. Columbia: Sc University of south Caroline press, 2008, pp. 209-210.

Footnotes

1. Sewall, Sarah. “A strategy of conversion: American power and the international system”, Harvard: Harvard University, 2008.
2. Patrick, Morgan M. “International security: Problems and solutions”. Washington D.C: CQ press, 2006, pp. 35-38.
3. Thomson, William R. “On Global War: Historical-Structured approaches to world Politics”. Columbia: Sc University of south Caroline press, 2008, pp. 209-210.
4. Patrick, Morgan M. “International security: Problems and solutions”. Washington D.C: CQ press, 2006, pp. 35-38.
5. Sewall, Sarah. “A strategy of conversion: American power and the international system”, Harvard: Harvard University, 2008.
6. Thomson, William R. “On Global War: Historical-Structured approaches to world Politics”. Columbia: Sc University of south Caroline press, 2008, pp. 209-210.