Balance of Power in International
Relations
block changed the balance of power (BOP) in the world- from a bipolar world or
some would argue, a multi-polar (power coming from the United States, Europe,
Japan and USSR) balance, the world came to acknowledge the dominance of the
United States as the sole political and economic hegemonic power. However, the
European Community, China and Japan provided the much-needed balance on US
hegemony. This in turn had changed the nature of international relations
throughout the world. While some would argue that a unipolar power distribution
would create a more balanced world, it had nevertheless created repercussions
on the inter-relationships of countries.
The Nature of Balance of Power
Balance
of power (BOP) had been coined due to the prevalence of war or violence in the
early 19th century. It as traditionally been viewed as the
stabilizing factor particularly when World War I, World War II and the Cold War
began. It is the primary reason for the non-occurrence of wars. It serves to
stabilize states from starting a war. The formation of nuclear bombs further
precipitated the threat of world annihilation thus, strengthening the role of
BOP in international relations. Each country particularly the US and Russia
were aware of each other’s power thus, preventing a war. However, the post-Cold
War era marked the evolution of BOP. From the traditional military and nuclear
power it has extended its domain into the economic and political sphere.
outcomes you want and, if necessary, to change the behavior of others to make
this happen. The ability to obtain the outcomes one wants is often associated
with the possession of certain resources, and so we commonly use shorthand and
define power as possession of relatively large amounts of such elements as
population, territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force,
and political stability. Power in this sense means holding the high cards in
the international poker game. If you show high cards, others are likely to fold
their hands.
"strength for war’ (Waltz, 1999). War was the ultimate game in which the
cards of international politics were played and estimates of relative power
were proven. Over the centuries, as technologies evolved, the sources of power
have changed. Power in the global information age is becoming less tangible and
less coercive, particularly among the advanced countries, but most of the world
does not consist of postindustrial societies, and that limits the
transformation of power (Chace, and Rizopoulos, 1999).
The
balance-of-power theory of international relations hypothesizes that
international stability is a result of a balance of power among nations or
groups thereof. When this balance obtains, no nation can afford the risk of
war, knowing that it will be forced to fight on at least approximately even
terms. When any one nation or alliance grows too strong and aggressive, other
states will out of fear ally against it, maintaining the balance of power.
Should a state or alliance grow too strong and aggressive to be contained by
the threat of conflict, actual war may erupt out of this imbalance of power. In
all likelihood, the resulting war will alter the international order, creating
a new balance of power.
that the international system is less likely to achieve peace when there is a
balance of power (Organski, 1968, p. 27).
The balance of power depends on violence or
the threat of violence by one or more states in the system to counteract
another state's rise in power. This assumes on both sides the presence of
weapons. For one state to become any sort of threat by expansion assumes that
the state has the ability of aggression. To counteract this expansion, the
other state(s) must also be armed. Removing this variable, then, has the
consequence of making a balance of power meaningless, because there would be no
military power to balance (Bull, 226). Morgenthau & Thompson, reach
the opposite conclusion stating that “
the balance of power and politics aiming at its preservation are not only
inevitable but are an essential stabilizing factor in a society of sovereign
nations” (1985, p. 167). Other
determinants of decision-making about conflict will also be discussed.
to a survey will be presented along with its data, methodology, limitations and
conclusions.
politics since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established that each state
should have exclusive supreme sovereignty over the citizens within its borders
(Scholte, 19-21). Balance of power in itself can have many meanings, but in
practice, it refers to an inherent stabilizing mechanism of the states system
wherein no one country is allowed to gain a power advantage relative to the
other states. When one state would seem to be gaining an unequal amount of
power in terms of land, military, or other resources, the other states would
naturally, if not consciously, react by halting the expansion, in effect
"balancing" the power. Naturally, this in most cases involved
violence.
From this take off point, economic
and political hegemony served as the primary determinant of BOP. The US being
the recognized economic superpower thus assumed the hegemonic status in
international relations. It is seen in their control of the international
governing bodies such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank. These institutions in turn, controls the policies by each state
particularly the developing and the underdeveloped countries. While the threat
of war had been revoked, economic and political sanctions were the weapons of
these institutions in order to coerce nations to cooperate.
The presence of communism
and insurgences however still threatens to disintegrate the current balance of
power. However, according to Nye (2002), the term "balance of power"
is sometimes used in contradictory ways. The most interesting use of the term
is as a predictor about how countries will behave; that is, will they pursue
policies that will prevent any other country from developing power that could
threaten their independence? By the evidence of history, many believe, the
current preponderance of the United States will call forth a countervailing
coalition that will eventually limit American power. In the words of the
self-styled realist political scientist Kenneth Waltz, "both friends and
foes will react as countries always have to threatened or real predominance of
one among them: they will work to right the balance. The present condition of
international politics is unnatural" (Waltz, 2000).
Balance of Power in International Relations
govern the relationships among states. One is the reality (or, more strictly,
the perception) of relative power - economic and military, isolated or in
alliance. The other is the convention of the sovereign equality of states. The
structure of the United Nations echoes these principles, with the Security
Council in conception a concert of great powers, and the General Assembly a
concert of all. The Council embodies a realist view of peacekeeping, albeit the
realities of half a century ago, with a provision (Article 12) in the Charter
ensuring that the Assembly can only deal with matters that the Council has not
preempted.
either in terms of the economic and military capabilities of states or as the
ability to command or influence the actions of others - whether directly or by
setting the rules of the game (Rothgeb 1993). However, the distinction between
the two - between power-as-resources and power-as-control - is somewhat
blurred: a state with large resource-based capabilities is in a position to
persuade, if necessary by threat or coercion: it must be listened to.
Today, the new world order
rests on one hegemon- the United States. Not since Rome has one nation loomed
so large above the others. In the words of The Economist, "the United
States bestrides the globe like a colossus
dominates business, commerce and communications; its economy is the world's
most successful, its military might second to none” (The Eonomist, 1999).
in 1999 that the United States had gone beyond its superpower status of the
twentieth century. "U.S. supremacy today extends to the economy, currency,
military areas, lifestyle, language and the products of mass culture that
inundate the world, forming thought and fascinating even the enemies of the
United States” (Marlowe, 1999; Vedrine and Moisi, 2001). Or as two American
triumphalists put it, "Today's international system is built not around a
balance of power but around American hegemony” (Kagan and Kristol, 2000).
Effects of Balance of Power
The United States having
the military, economic and political power dictates the new world order. While
it has pursued cooperative relationships with the rest of the world, it has
nonetheless pursued policies and decisions that jeopardizes international
relations and the had threatened national sovereignty. BOP as I have shown
provides stability in terms of the onset of wars. Moreover, it provides an
international order in the midst of an anarchic international relations.
However, there are
repercussions on the balance of power in today’s international relations. For
one, it threatens the sovereignty of the nation-state. This is particularly
true for developing and the Third World Countries where international
institutions (IMF, World Bank and UN) dictates the policies to be implemented.
These institutions as I have shown are heavily influenced by the United States.
The primary means of undermining the state power is through
internationalization and globalization. The terms of this however, is dictated
by those who have a well-developed economic system. The balance of power thus,
centers on the ability to influence political and economic relationship in the
international arena.
The new world order is
becoming incorporated, and business is rising. For the moment, the nation-state
as we knew it is in decline. This is a serious problem, since the nation-state will
continue to be the prime interlocutor in an increasingly complex world, and the
only one that speaks with authority to both supranational and subnational
authorities. The challenge for the nation-state is two-fold: First, it must
ensure that as the world becomes increasingly interdependent economically as a
result of the internationalization of trade the social spillovers are not
neglected. This is not so difficult, as long as advanced industrialized nations
exercise leadership. Second, it must find new ways of ensuring democratic
access to the national decisions that are part of the supranational
decision-making process. This is much more complicated. But unless
nation-states make their citizens feel that they are participating in the
supranational decisions that increasingly affect their lives, the legitimacy of
both the supranational organizations and the nation-state will be increasingly
open to question.
Since the balance of power
paradigm is socially constructed, it follows that the current relationship
between states can be altered by social change, and this may be happening. It
is a paradox that, while our contact with each other created a psychological
feeling of individuality, that same contact may eventually increase our
feelings of identity through the course of societal evolution. While technology
at first increased our feelings of alienation, technology may in the end bring
us closer together.
The bounds of the earth
have been reached - there are currently no other societies to cause us to feel
further alienated. A recognition that we are all part of a global society, and
with that recognition the demise of the balance of power system, may not happen
overnight, but there are many signs that we are headed in that direction. In
time, the change hoped for may be eventually be brought about by change itself.
emphasis on an integration of culture and interdependence of nations. The
global culture that this new world order seeks to build centers on the notion
of what is desirable across national boundaries. This has resulted to wars (as
in the case of Afghanistan, Iraq, East Timor, etc.) in countries that does not
accept the doctrines deemed acceptable by the international community or the
Western concept. This is made
possible by the control on media and information of developed countries.
economic power threatens the economic hegemony of countries such as the EC, US
and Japan. China presents a crucial part in the balance of the world not only
economically and politically but also in its building of arms. The role of BOP
in case China achieves its full potential shall be altered. Nevertheless, it’s
ability to stabilize international relations shall still be achieved.
power assures that it shall not be deemed obsolete in international relations.
It shall continue to take its place as the stabilizing factor in cases when
wars- economic, political or military shall occur. It serves as the risk-averse
factor in most countries knowing that it shall not benefit them in the long
run.
References
Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical
Society: The Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1977.
Concert of Nations: An American Perspective. World Policy Journal (Fall
1999): 9.
Kagan, R. and Kristol, W. (2000) The Present
Danger. The National Interest (Spring).
Marlowe, L. (4 November
1999) French Minister Urges Greater UN Role to Counter US Hyperpower. The Irish
Times, 4 November 1999.
G. (1999) Population Weights in the International Order
Development Review, Vol. 25.
Morgenthau, H..J. & Thompson, K.
(1985). Politics Among Nations. 6th
ed. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knoph.
(2002) Limits of American power. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 117.
Organski, A.F.K. (1968).
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Influence and Force in the Contemporary International System. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
Scholte, JA. (1997) International History 1900-1945.
John Baylis and Steve Smith. New York: Oxford University Press.
of Globalization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 2.
National Interest (Spring): 55-56.
Science and Politics: 700.
No comments:
Post a Comment