Impact turns + answers – bfhmrs russia War Good
Download 0.83 Mb.
|
Harbor Teacher Prep-subingsubing-Ho-Neg-Lamdl T1-Round3, Impact Turns Aff Neg - Michigan7 2019 BFHMRS
Multipolarity GoodMultipolarity Good: Power WarsMultipolarity solves conflict and ensures securityIvanov 14 (Valeri Velkov Ivanov, PhD, associate professor within G.S. Rakovski National Defence Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria, “Contemporary Security Dimensions in the Transition Toward Multipolarity”, Strategic Impact, Bucharest, iss.51)//vl There is no doubt that a bipolar world settled during the Cold war was stable and unchange- able for decades. Nowadays, many experts in- sist that it is time to say goodbye to the unipolar world which came after end of the Cold war and to build a new model for thinking global system and international relations. Maybe, these are good news, if we take in consideration the fact that the post Cold war period has been marked by terrible military conflicts and a huge number of social, political and religious tensions and bloodsheds all over the world. The global security model has been extremely unstable and cost several millions killed, injured and missing people, as well as de- structions of industry, agriculture, infrastructure and thousands destroyed houses. There are many reasons and factors that provoked these processes and hostilities, but one of them comes to the fore as the most important and crucial, if we consider the architecture of global security system at the beginning of 21st century. Unipolar world was an inevitable transitional stage, a result of the implosion of one of the great powers during the bipolarity era. From this point of view, it is easy to realize that it is extremely difficult, if not even practically impossible, for a sole state to be able to control post-Cold war world and its global security system. Needless to say this is a hard and ungracious work to manage global security policy and to constantly play the leading role in crisis management and conflict prevention global efforts. Thus, at the end of the first decade of this cen- tury, the unipolar world has become inconvenient. In addition, many new global actors asserted and announced their ambitions to play more important roles within global security and stability making processes. Today, we are witnessing the beginning of a transitional and gradually accelerating process toward a multipolar world. That means that there will not be a single centre of power functioning as the main generator of global security, that there will be several poles of power controlling global and regional security and stability. And, finally, international relations will not be managed any- more by a single state that constantly occupies the position of a global leader. Undeniably, the uni- polar world of Pax Americana went to the history and now we are in a period of transition toward a world driven by several centers of power. The simple presumption is that a multipolar world is easier to be controlled and more stable from the perspective of global and regional security. Some authors insist that there is an only pos- sible way to enhance global security model and to improve regional stability, namely by building geopolitical regional axes between states within the framework of the so-called "Great Spaces" - Eurasia, North America, West and Middle Europe, East Asia, Middle East etc.. It is a great challenge to describe some characteristics and specific traits of the new world order model which ought to be built with common efforts in the spirit of negotia- tion, mutual respect and considering all different interests. We are joining these efforts of address- ing the challenge of studying the new characteris- tics of the international security environment and to present our point of view on some aspects and specific features of the transition toward a multi- polar world, as well as to assess the advantages and disadvantages with regard their influence on the national security system. 2. Globalization effects and the dimensions of security From the first, we suggest to accept axiomati- cally the statement that the model which presum- ably offers more opportunities for negotiations, mutual compromises and propose common deci- sions and actions is a better one, irrespectively of fact that this model might include several poles of the power, completely different in terms of ethni- cal, religious, economic and political system ori- gin and nature. Nevertheless, in our opinion, all these are differences of opinion resulted from em- bracing distinct perceptions and divergent views. There is not any acute and deadly difference such as mortal enemies or persistent resistance. The new model of global security system is still in course of formation, but, along this pro- cess, there can be observed and identified a con- siderable number of characteristics and trends of the international security environment. Perhaps, the most important and well-known global trend at the beginning of 21st century is globalization. Many pessimists and opponents of globalization had the unpleasant surprise to get to the simple truth that contemporary world globalizes not only in the areas of economy, technology, energy resources, financial systems, ecology, culture etc. Nowadays, global, regional and national security and stability are strongly connected and are all in a state of mutual interdependencies. Presently, every aspect or branch of our life is considered critical for the common state of stability and na- tional prosperity. At this point, all aspects and scopes of human being could be defined as dif- ferent dimensions of the national or global se- curity systems. In addition, each of them is ap- preciated as extremely important for national and international security and stability. As a result, areas or dimensions like social, energy and cyber security, ethnic, religious, economic and finan- cial stability, ecology and natural resources are becoming more important than military security, missile defense and war against terrorism. Globalization's impact on all security dimen- sions and, of course, on every level of security systems is a result of many factors and changes in the security environment. Consequently, now it is easier to realize that each dimension could be used as a unit of measurement to calculate a level of common stability, and to figure out how much is the real or desired security level, com- paring every dimension with the preliminarily settled or adopted standards. In this manner, we can assess which dimension presents more prob- lems, challenges or real threats, and to decide how to balance the system as a whole or to un- dertake additional measures to compensate gaps or discrepancies. In sum, considering security from the perspective of its multiple dimensions, it becomes easier to make analyses and under- take consequent measures in order to achieve the desired level of security, as losses or unconfor- mities can be immediately observed, allowing restoring of the balance, through the use of ap- propriate means. At the same time, this could be consid- ered a normal situation when referring to the completely new connections and dependen- cies within the complex security environment in the multipolar world. Additionally, we have to reconsider that the process of security glo- balization also means the globalization of the all challenges, risks and threats, requiring ad- equate reactions and new approaches to pre- vent them. Such a new and adequate manner of addressing all the challenges raised by the contemporary international security environ- ment is the comprehensive approach which is already widely spread as a basic concept and universal tool in operational planning process and doctrines of NATO and of its Member States. That does not equal to the fact that we have to stop using other basic approaches and methods such as holistic, architecture, system- ic approaches etc.. Another clearly distinguished consequence of these tendencies of the security environment is the sharply increasing dependencies between global, regional and national level of security. Connections and mutual influence were also a reality in the past and this is probably a normal situation due to the impact of many factors, forces and circumstances. But the directions and dependencies in the past and those we can notice in present are completely different. During the Cold war, in the stage of bipolar world, influence and flows of power were directed from top to the bottom, from the global level to the subordinate regional and national one. In this way, the chain of command and control was very clear and all responsibilities and obligations about global, regional and national security and stability were shared among the two main centers of power. A similar situation can be identified during the short period of unipolarity. 3. Security systems and the multipolar world The emerging multipolar world is hypothetically empty of centers of power and is that very absence that offers a variety of directions and dependencies through the different levels of security systems. It is logical to consider that this situation demands a new model and more complicated security system architectures. The most important characteristic of the new model is that the global security system now is in a stage of increasing dependency on the lowest level, the level of national security and stability. The directions of impulses stimulating stability or instability processes and factors are now mostly bottom-up, meaning that national and regional stability are becoming key factors for achieving better global security. From this point of view, the main factors and pillars vital for the maintenance of the global stability are rooted in certain countries' internal stability. This is a completely different situation, requiring the development of a new strategic thinking and appropriate approaches so as to ensure the evolution of the new security concepts, distinctively from the former ones. It is high time to stop thinking in the man- ner specific to unipolarity or bipolarity, as these models suppose that global stability is, primarily, a result of efforts carried out by one or two cen- ters of power at the global level. In this line of thought, these centers are the ones having most of the obligations and commitments regarding the maintenance of regional stability, by build- ing military or political alliances, economic and trade agreements. Within these models, the lead- ing center/centers of power has/have not only a considerable influence, but also engagements in the regional and national security of all partners and allies. The regional and national security sys- tems are their subordinate system echelons and architecture levels. But fortunately today this model becomes unsuitable because the security architecture of the multipolar world is completely different. This architecture has as a basic requirement of perfect national security systems, with capabili- ties to prevent a wide specter of threats and chal- lenges and the capability to solve all problems and contradictions inside the communities. Having in mind the fact that every country or region has a specific distinctiveness from the perspective of historical, cultural and religious characteristics, the new model of national security system should be versatile. Practically, this vast number of traits supposes a great diversity of national security models, all of them requiring special capabilities to deter or prevent the entire range of security risks and threats and, implicitly, considerable fi- nancial resources. A major disadvantage is represented by the fact that this model opens the possibility for a new global chaos or world confusion. But the most important and valuable advantage is that, in this manner, the necessary degree of stability is granted at the lowest, basic level, namely, at national level, increasing gradually at regional or allied level, and, thus, the world is expected to become more secure and stable. In fact, it is easy to understand how effective and steady is this new model of the multipolar world because hypothetically all tensions and conflicts should be solved at the first level - in the scope of the national security systems - and that fact automatically supposes the lowest level of intensity. This new approach will have priority in securing the national stability and, as a result, will enhance global security and stability, open- ing the possibility for all potential conflicts to be blocked at the first stage, using a small amount of resources and causing limited damages. With this approach, regional stability is the second level of the security system that has to be brought under control. That means any tensions and contradic- tions within the close neighborhood should be thrown and replaced with common efforts be- tween all countries. This is the second level of conflict prevention system and, if there are eco- nomic integration organizations, trade agree- ments or political alliances, it will be practically impossible for frozen conflicts to break out into civil wars or military conflicts. Certainly, this new approach offers some automatic restraining impulses and, as a result, it makes the security systems more stable and less vulnerable at all their levels. Another aspect of the contemporary security dimensions is that obviously not only their num- ber is constantly increasing but also the role and importance of each of them are changing contin- uously. The weight of some of them, such as the military dimension, has the tendency to erode, while the weight of other security dimensions such as the social, political, information and fi- nancial ones becomes increasingly high, turn- ing into real warranties for national stability and prosperity. The future probably will show that the most stable security system is not that which has more tanks, airplanes or ballistic missiles, but the one which gives more opportunities to their in- habitants for a better quality of life and gradually increasing prosperity. Also, the security system should allow undertaking better actions and syn- chronized efforts between different agencies and structures in reference to the national security in case of emergencies, and to also having a flex- ible and reliable mechanism to compensate im- mediately any gaps or shortages of capabilities. Of course, the last statement is very important, because, for example, in a stage of decrease in terms of defense resources and military budgets, military capabilities gaps must be overcame by developing new technologies, weapon systems and advanced battle platforms. Download 0.83 Mb. Share with your friends:
|