Balance of Power in International Relations

Balance of Power in International Relations

 

            The end of the Cold War and the fall of the Communist 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.

Simply put, power is the ability to effect the 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.

Traditionally, the test of a great power was “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.

A different view is shown by Organski who asserts 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.  With this background information, predictions to a survey will be presented along with its data, methodology, limitations and conclusions.

Balance of power had been a prevalent notion during much of world 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

According to Mcnicoll (1999) two principles chiefly 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.

In international relations theory, power is defined 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 (Nye, 2002). It dominates business, commerce and communications; its economy is the world’s most successful, its military might second to none” (The Economist, 1999).  French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine argued 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.

            Second, the post-Cold War balance of power places its 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.

            Third, the emergence of China as an 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.

            Finally, the evolution of balance of 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.

Chace, J. and Rizopoulos, N. (1999) Towards a New 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.

 

Mcnicoll, G. (1999) Population Weights in the International Order. Population and Development Review, Vol. 25.

 

Morgenthau, H..J. & Thompson, K. (1985).  Politics Among Nations. 6th ed. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knoph. 

 

Nye, J. (2002) Limits of American power. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 117.

 

Organski, A.F.K. (1968).  World Politics. (2nd ed.) New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

 

Rothgeb, JM., Jr. (1993). Defining Power: Influence and Force in the Contemporary International System. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Scholte, JA. (1997) International History 1900-1945. The Globalization of World Politics. Eds. John Baylis and Steve Smith. New York: Oxford University Press.

The Economist. (23 October 1999) America’s World.

 

Vedrine, H. and Moisi, D. (2001) France in an Age of Globalization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 2.

 

Waltz, K. (2000) Globalization and American Power. The National Interest (Spring): 55-56.

 

Waltz, K. (Dec 1999) Globalization and Governance. Political Science and Politics: 700.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                              

 

 

 

 

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com