Ernst B. Haas in this week’s article titled “The Balance of
Power: Prescription, Concept or Propaganda” talks about a very significant and
focal concept in the discipline of International Relations, balance of power.
Waltz and his fellow theorists since the past few sessions have been bombarding
us with anarchy and realism and war, it’s a refreshing change as Haas
introduces the concept of balance of power to us.
Haas starts of by mentioning that there is no one definition
of the term balance of power, different authors define it differently. Thus
through this article, he aims to clarify the verbal differences along with the
applied meanings of the term. He mentions 8 different and distinct meanings
that go along with the term and he aims to provide readers with the underlying
approaches to define the term. At the most literal sense, balance of power
describers a particular distribution of power. As a concept, it really invokes
my thinking as it leads me to think regarding the balance of power and the international
system. Balance of power is about how power is distributed and the number of
super powers in the world. If the top two states in the international system
are balanced, the likelihood of war decreases. We can assume that if the
international system is not undergoing war or any turmoil, there maintains a
certain balance of power in the international system. Wars are likely to occur
when there is a shift in the balance of power. Taking an example from the
current scenario of our international arena, through the concept of balance of
power, USA is more likely to attack China right now due to the slow and steady
rise of China and the ostensible shifting in the balance of power. Why USA is
holding back, is a question many would ask. The answer lies with the various
other concepts of International Relations, which is quite a cocktail of various
ideas and concepts.
"If the top two states in the international system are balanced, the likelihood of war decreases."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this point and it goes hand in hand with last weeks reading about how the pre-1945 era was marred with various wars and conflicts because of the way the international arena was structured- there was a multipolar world. However, when the Cold War started, there were two camps and the presence of nuclear weapons aided in there being some semblance of peace in the world and there was a balance of power
Two points.
ReplyDeleteFirst, arguing that bipolarity provides for stability is a contentious claim, but since there is only one real example in modern history of bipolarity (i.e. the Cold War), we can't really empirically prove or disprove that it provides stability or instability. What we can say is that no major wars broke out between the great powers during this period, though there still were smaller scale conflicts (e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.).
Next, on the point of why the U.S. has not fought China. This is indeed a good point to raise and offensive realists argue that China should be countered. But do you think that will really happen? Frankly, I don't think the U.S. would risk war with China as it would lead to a global economic collapse.
Good post!