The world we live in is one of varying
interests and agendas. It is no surprise, then, that something as basic as a
phrase means different things for different theorists, and even policy-makers.
A particular phrase that is subject to such variation is "Balance of Power", and in his essay, Haas highlights eight unique connotations that it carries with a different "verbal" and "applied" meanings.
The part I found most intriguing and relevant in the reading was about the significance of intentions, how they alter meaning, and become pivotal in understanding power politics. To put it simply, according to Haas, balance of power could either be achieved through war or peace efforts. So many alterations of meaning not only cloud one’s understanding of the phrase, but also give the citizens of a state something to be wary about.
As Haas highlights in his essay, with a particular intention, this term could be used as a propaganda tool. A government could then justify intervention to counter an opposing force under the guise of restoring the "balance of power". An example of this is the US military intervention in Iraq in 2003 due to intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction found in the region. On the surface, or at least as the US would like to have it, this appeared to be an act to meet Iraq's threat, but many political analysts argue that it was just an attempt to assert their dominance and attain strategic advantages.
A particular phrase that is subject to such variation is "Balance of Power", and in his essay, Haas highlights eight unique connotations that it carries with a different "verbal" and "applied" meanings.
The part I found most intriguing and relevant in the reading was about the significance of intentions, how they alter meaning, and become pivotal in understanding power politics. To put it simply, according to Haas, balance of power could either be achieved through war or peace efforts. So many alterations of meaning not only cloud one’s understanding of the phrase, but also give the citizens of a state something to be wary about.
As Haas highlights in his essay, with a particular intention, this term could be used as a propaganda tool. A government could then justify intervention to counter an opposing force under the guise of restoring the "balance of power". An example of this is the US military intervention in Iraq in 2003 due to intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction found in the region. On the surface, or at least as the US would like to have it, this appeared to be an act to meet Iraq's threat, but many political analysts argue that it was just an attempt to assert their dominance and attain strategic advantages.
Interesting application of the term BOP to the attack on Iraq. Although the US argued in favor of intervention based on claims of WMDs, you're right that it could be seen as the US aiming to advance its strategic interests in the region.
ReplyDelete