Karen_A._Mingst,_Ivan_M._Arregu_n-Toft]_Essentia

(Amelia) #1
Contending Perspectives on the International System 115

economic, and technological developments. Those uneven rates eventually lead to a
re distribution of power and thus change the international system. For example, the
rapidly industrializing East Asian states— South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (now
part of China)— have responded to technological change the fastest. By responding
rapidly and with single- mindedness, these states have improved their relative positions.
Thus, the actions of a few can change the characteristics of the international system.^9
Exogenous shifts in technology may also lead to a shift in the international po liti cal
system. Technological advances— such as the instruments for oceanic navigation, the
airplane for  transatlantic crossings, satellites and rockets for the exploration of space,
and cyber and Internet technology— have not only expanded the bound aries of acces-
sible geographic space but also have brought about changes in the bound aries of the
international po liti cal system. The same is true of global warming and the receding
Arctic ice cap: previously unexplored territory and unnavigable waterways have cre-
ated new strategic interests in the area, and states bordering the Arctic are not alone in
seeking to establish territorial and economic interests there. These exogenous shifts
changed the relative power of state actors, all reflecting dif er ent po liti cal interests and
dif er ent cultural traditions.
Perhaps no technological change has had a stronger impact on the international
system than the development of nuclear weapons and their use in warfare. Their
destructiveness, their inability to discriminate between combatants and civilians, and
their evident harm to future generations have led policy makers to reconsider the
po liti cal utility of the power to destroy. During the Cold War, this led the superpow-
ers to spar through non- nuclear proxies using conventional military technology, rather
than fight directly, as Chapter 2 discussed. Since nuclear weapons have not been used
in war since 1945, they are no longer seen as credible in some circles. Nevertheless, their
use remains greatly feared. Eforts or threats by non- nuclear states to develop such
weapons have provoked sharp re sis tance, such as when North Korea claimed to have
tested a hydrogen bomb in January 2016. The nuclear states do not want a change
in the status quo; in their view, nuclear proliferation, particularly in the hands of
“rogue” states such as North Korea and Iran, leads to international system instability.
That is why the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for Iran denuclearization—a com-
promise plan between Iran, P5 + 1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security
Council plus Germany), and the EU in which Iran agreed to halt production of nuclear
weapons in exchange for the lifting of costly economic sanctions—was pursued with
such unity and vigor.
Thus, in the view of realists, international systems can change, yet the inherent bias
among realist interpretations is for continuity. The reason is all states have an interest in
preventing the one structural change that might abrogate the possibility of war in the
system: unipolarity. The closer the system gets to a single actor exercising all the power
in its own interests, the greater the incentives of actors in the system to countervail that

ESSIR7_CH04_106_131_11P.indd 115 6/14/16 10:04 AM

Free download pdf