"COVID-19", The United States and China: The Strategic Quagmire Dialectic in International Relations
February 4, 2021
).
| 2- The repercussions of the knowledge age(crossing political, cultural and security boundaries). |
| 3- The emergence of the phenomenon of terrorism in all its manifestations. |
| 4- Problems of the environmental issue, demography and migration issues. |
| 5- The pace of scientific and technological developments at all levels. |
| 6- The intertwining of global economy and the multiplicity of the influence of many forces within it (). |
| 7- Shifts in criteria for measuring military capability (). |
| Thus, it can be said that the world of international relations is subject today to a polarless system, as a result of the inevitable pattern of changes that have increased the complexities associated with issues of terrorism, the environment, technology, media, viruses (real and electronic) and cultural problematics ..etc. This pattern supports the non-polar system, according to several directions, including: |
1- Many flows take place outside the control of states and thus limit the influence of the major powers. 2- Some developments that serve Regional Countries and increase the margin of their effectiveness and independence (). 3- The existence of enormous wealth subject to the grip of individuals and new active forces. |
| In light of the foregoing, we can say that we are currently in an era far from the classical classifications associated with the term polarity, not to mention the difficulty of fully understanding these huge radical shifts in international relations (whether in terms of the structure of the global economy or the reality of global politics). Where, it has become clear that the global system dynamics continues to move and complicate. Therefore, it must be taken into account, even if the non-polarity system is inevitable but deserves caution, as it may generate more randomness and vacuum at the global political level. Thus, here it is necessary to examine the dilemma of how to find that kind of equilibrium around the formation of the non-polar world. This, inevitably, calls into question the extent of the possibility of a global consensus around these new balances? |
| Here, when we talk about balances in international relations, we invoke the fact that the pattern of regularity will not arise on its own. Even if the (non-polar) global system is left to operate according to its own approach, that will inevitably make it more complex and head towards more chaos. This is the least that can be concluded from confusion about how to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic crisis, and the so-called medical mask wars. |
|
| [1] The term sole superpower is no longer appropriate in light of the current reality of multiple centers of power. For example, China has proven that the United States cannot unilaterally address North Korea's nuclear file, and it is the one who has the effective influence on this issue. Also, the ability of the United States to pressure Iran is largely subject to its non-conflict with the direct strategic interests of China and Russia. [2] This is evidenced by the circumstances of the negotiations in the World Trade Organization, and the difficulty in reaching agreements in the Doha Round since 2001. [3] For example, the events of September 11th demonstrated how a small investment by individuals can tip global scales on the military, security, political, and even economic levels. Likewise, Hezbollah's victory in the July 2006 war (which was launched by the Israeli occupation state) proves that the most advanced and expensive modern weapons cannot win wars, as trained group of armed with light weapons can prove that they are able to confront the largest and best-armed armies. [4] For example, countries such as India and Pakistan (and recently Iran) were able to impose their entry into the nuclear club, as a fait accompli on the global community. |
OTHER RECORDS
Homoploutia : Between Political Philosophy and Economic Thought
February 4, 2021
Dr. Salam Al Rabadi