In this article by
German-American political scientist Ernst B. Haas, we encounter an analysis of
the balance of power in every real and applied meaning of the term. It is more
of a clarification than a critique; a much needed explanation of the different
contexts and philology behind the use of the balance of power. Haas also delves
into the uses of BOP in history as well as the different types of intentions tied
to the use of this term.
Haas presents BOP as a term used throughout history as a
unifying principle to politics. He alludes to academic writings extensively in
reference to the use of BOP. In
contrast to this unifying theory, Cobden refers to the balance of power as a nefarious yet artificial
conception to justify maintaining large armies. The concept of BOP appeared
somewhere around the inception of the modern state in Italy and there has been
a constant stream of arguments about BOP’s effects on policy. Haas then tackles
the philology of the balance of power by referring to Bucher’s categorization
of balance as either; a) balance as equal power. b) Balance in a three state
system in which one state is the scale tipper. c) Balance as hegemony.
This article is an impressive attempt to piece together the
different theories concerned with the balance of power. Haas mentions
Morgenthau and his idea of BOP as the sharing of equal power, the distribution
of power in the international system, policy affecting power distribution as well
as the description of the state of affairs in the international system. This
also highlights how general and haphazard the use of BOP has been in IR
scholarship. Quincy Wright then divides BOP into dynamic BOP and static BOP;
static BOP is the general balance that allows for continued coexistence of
states while the dynamic BOP is all the activities and changes that take place
to maintain the static BOP. He then moves on to his own views of the balance of
power in terms of their verbal meaning. He classifies BOP in eight different
ways. BOP may be a distribution of power or a general equilibrium in the
international system. This does not take account of the tensions between
states.
Then comes BOP as hegemony and BOP as peace and stability
and conversely, war and instability. It can also be used as general power
politics which makes Realpolitik and
BOP interchangeable. Also, the balance of power can be used as a guide and
system to policy making which is extremely prevalent in today’s IR theory. BOP
is also used as a natural Darwinian law in which states are acting on a
survival instinct.
Haas classifies the meanings and moves onto the intentions
of the proponents of BOP. Intent can be descriptive, propagandistic, and
analytical for theory development or it can even be used as a guide to foreign
policy. Descriptive use is general and confuses IR theory. It is in line with
most of the versions of distribution of power. Its use for propaganda is in
line with BOP being used as peace or war or as an ideological justification to
be evil. As a tool of analysis, it coincides with BOP referring to equilibrium
as a balancing act as well as with the search for hegemony. The guiding
principle of BOP in this regard is that the ally of today is the enemy of
tomorrow as different states seek to topple or counter the prevailing hegemon. Haas
recommends its use as a guiding principle or as a general prescription for IR
theory.
Haas has gone to great lengths to unravel the past and to
properly analyze the term ‘balance of power’. However, he fails to capture the
reader’s attention precisely because he wavers so much from his own ideas and
alludes to some long-forgotten author with completely differing views. Other than
that, so many of his classifications are interchangeable which leads one to
think why he even bothered to make the distinctions in the first place. Even though
he mentions that these categories are interchangeable, he does not have to
obfuscate the points he was making in the first place. His thoughts could have been
summed up in a much more focused manner. In fact, the only reason why this blog
post seems so unfocused is because I was trying to sum up Haas’ scattered
thoughts. However, the recognition of the different meanings of BOP is a great
achievement.
Interesting title of your blog you have there!
ReplyDeleteExcellent post and I enjoyed the unfocused summary/post.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Hass has attempted to unpack the meaning of the 'balance of power' without really clarifying what he really think 'balance of power' is. If you'll note, a lot of the earlier pieces that we will read (anything from the 1950s and before) really aren't that well-written or focused. But in subsequent pieces, you'll see more cogent writing that is both analytically clear and persuasive. That being said, at least we got to understand a bit more about the bippity bop of balance of power politics through Hass.