Skip to main content

REALISM: THE BALANCE OF POWER


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.  

 


                    MULTIPOLAR

                           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


Labels

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
where is the author's name and the sources? what is this unprofessionalism
3 April 2023 at 06:54
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Non-Violence as a strategy

It cannot be said with certainty whether the idea to put the other cheek up after receiving a slap on one is still celebrated or not. However, it can be safely assumed that if there were a choice between returning the slap to the perpetrator and giving him another chance to repeat the attack, few would choose the latter. Arguably, it was the New Testament that first proposed this idea, which was then followed and propagated to the public at large to varying degrees by leaders around the world. The idea of non-violence has taken many different shapes and forms as it has translated into the real world. It is interesting to investigate how an idea that leaders and thinkers like Gandhi and Tolstoy held so close to their hearts came to be under the purview of strategy.  To many, pacifism is a tool of the weak as it dissociates from the idea of using strength in its conventional form. It is argued; those lacking the traditional means to confront the established authority seek refuge in...
2 comments
Read more

A revisit to the US Invasion of Iraq in 2003

“Did the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 do any good for the Middle East or the world?” This is the question that still haunts the USA and breeds serious doubts on the credibility of the US as a responsible superpower. The series of events that have followed the US invasion have been far from those expected. The unstable nature of the region in the recent decades can well be seen as after-effects of what US did in Iraq. The reasons given by the US for invading a sovereign nation far from its borders have been far from convincing. Nonetheless, the significant effects the invasion has had on Iraq in particular and the region at large have not diminished in the last decade.   The world has changed a lot since USA first got involved in Iraq with an aim to rescue Kuwait. What has remained same is one of the primary causes of the problems the region struggles with at present that can be backtracked to what US did in 2003. Following the defeat of Iraq and the restoration of Kuwaiti gove...
Post a Comment
Read more