The term ‘Balance of Power’ is attributed to Otto Van Bismarck who while uniting Germany paid special attention to not disturbing the balance of power in erstwhile Europe. The term has since become part of commonly used vocabulary in media and academics alike. Balance of Power (BoP) says that states act to preserve a balance or equilibrium of power in the system. Kenneth Waltz talks about BoP in his book “Theory of International Politics”. BoP itself appears as a part of structural realism in Kenneth Waltz’s book.
Waltz argues that the Anarchical world order
breeds mistrust in the international structure where increase in the
power/resources of one state is seen with caution. According to Kenneth Waltz,
the self regarding states act to maximize their power by all possible means.
Some states do succeed in aggregating greater power to the envy of other
nation-states in the system. As soon as a state acquires power more than other
states, a wave of discomfort runs through the system alarming all member states
in the international system.
Historical evidence to support the BoP theory
takes us to the European continent before the two world wars. BoP theory
suggests that it was due to the presence of multi-polar system that the balance
could not be kept and resulted in to the world wars. A the time of the two world wars, the number of Great Powers ranged from 5
to 7 depending how one counts great powers. The example from the warring states period of China also serves the purpose of explaining the balance of power. There were
9 kingdoms in China during the mentioned period and they struggled for power
among them.
The world wars resulted into the emergence of
two superpowers namely USA and erstwhile USSR. The competition for power and
influence between the two poles is known as the cold war which ended with the
disintegration of USSR and the triumph of the USA. Following which, many argue, US
experienced the moment of hegemony. Whether the world today is still unipolar
is a topic up for debate. However, if the theory of BoP holds true to its
tenets then US must face opposition from other state(s).
Often, there are questions and debates that
attempt to zero down on the system which is the most stable of the three; the
unipolar, bi-polar or the multi-polar arrangement. Any final word on the debate
is beyond this description but the following points in Chart 1.0 about
Multi-polar and Bi-polar arrangements may shed some light on the debate.
|
BIPOLAR |
1.
Who is a threat is
uncertain. |
Who is a threat is
certain. |
2. Dangers diffuse, responsibilities remain unclear and interests
obscure. |
Dangers clear, responsibilities clear and the interests are
easier to discern. |
3. Other players can respond to advances by alliances. |
Superpowers must respond, because no one else will. |
4. Miscalculation by some or all powers is a source of danger. |
Overreaction by either or both powers is dangerous. |
Chart 1.0
Comments