In his piece “The Balance of
Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda?”, E. Haas analyses one of the
fundamental concepts of International Relations; The balance of power. The mostly
widely understood and accepted definition of ‘balance of power’ is that states
seek an equilibrium in the international order for the prevention of conflicts
that may arise due to one state gaining enough power to enforce its way upon
others. Confusion arises when Haas points out that there is no one fixed
definition of ‘balance of power’, rather, there are eight. He cumulates eight
different meanings of the phrase from different authors, to show the diversity
of opinions in relation to this in International Relations. Some of the
meanings include ‘hegemony’, ‘stability and peace’ and ‘instability and war’,
which clearly show the contested nature of the term.
Haas, in his further analysis of ‘balance
of power’, applies the concept of balance in the international political arena,
by claiming that there will not be a balance, but a rat race for hegemony. For
there to be a balance, a state has to either give up its power, or aid and
support another state coming to an equal footing with it in the international
system. Supporting Haas and the Realist perspective of International Relations,
this would never happen. An anarchic state in its self-interested race to
become a hegemon, would not desire any competition, let alone accept
it. If states are really self-interested and egoistic, and one cannot judge the
intentions of another anarchic state, how can there ever be a balance? This can
be seen with the example of USA and China today.
Analysts have tried to understand
why the USA has not had any direct conflict with China yet, as China is over-taking
USA and rapidly becoming the economic superpower of the world. to make the situation worse, with the rise of its economic power, there will be an unwelcomed rise of communism
in the international order. Taking this into consideration, in my opinion, the
possibility of China and USA becoming allies is highly unlikely as one is
fighting to get to the top, and one is fighting to remain there. For both
countries, there will be no concept of balance, but only of hegemony.
You're essentially arguing against Waltz who thought that a bipolar system is stable. Furthermore, you're arguing that because of the economic rise of China, it will surpass the U.S. in terms of power in the international system. This will then lead to a revival in communism.
ReplyDeleteAll of these points, while possible, are looking at the rise of China in the wrong way. China may surpass the U.S. in GDP in the next couple of years, but the U.S. has way more military power. Without the power to project their strength, China will remain behind the U.S. in overall power. Furthermore, communism has essentially been abandoned by the elites of China in favor of capitalism and one-party rule. And there are increasing signs that the one-party rule of China's communist party may be coming to end sooner, rather than later.
Hence, American hegemony may not be over yet!