The author begins the article by providing us with an
extensive literature review to define the term ‘balance of power’. It is
evident from the article that the said term, often used in the study of
international relations, does not have one meaning or explanation. The concept
of the ‘balance of power’ dates back to the time of Renaissance. Where some
view it as an ‘incomprehensible nothing’ others deem its definition as ‘fallacious’. Giving very little of his own input into defining
and explaining the term, Haas uses the works of earlier writers to list down
the multiple verbal meanings of the ‘balance’. It may refer to:
1)
Distribution of power
2)
Equilibrium
3)
Hegemony
4)
Stability and peace
5)
Instability and war
6)
Power politics
7)
Universal law of history
8)
System and guide
He then goes on to classify the meaning and intentions of
the definitions into four categories:
a)
Descriptive
b)
Conscious or unconscious propagandistic
c)
Analytical
d)
Guide to foreign policy
This quick overview of Haas work is enough to suggest that
defining the term ‘balance of power’ has been quite problematic in the study of
IR. It is however, important to note that no one definition is more correct
than the other. In fact, most, if not all have overlapping meanings and applications
too.
What caught my attention was the coexistence of the opposite
meanings of the ‘balance of power’. For example; where it is viewed as a cause
of ‘instability and war’ across the world, it also hopes to bring about more ‘stability
and peace’ to the global society.
To explain this, we can look back to the point where this
debate over the explanation of the term actually started. John Mearsheimer in
his work, ‘Back to Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’ (1990) questions
what would happen if the United States and the Soviet Union were to invade
Europe. Answering his own question, he suggests that the existing bipolar Cold War
order might end resulting in a new, multipolar world. This could disrupt the
existing balance of power and result in more wars, possibly involving nuclear
weapons. Alternately, this shift in the world order might bring more peace to
the world because of the distribution of power among three or more nations.
I think you're spot on when you note that there is no singular definition of BOP and that many times it has "overlaping meanings and applications." Good point.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right that the ultimate contradiction in its application is that from some perspectives, what one theorist views as a good BOP another views as bad. Hence the contested nature of the term and how we understand it.