This article essay will argue that the balance of power maintains international order rather than peace.
Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff (1971) states in theory that the balance helps preserve the peace and insures stability and mutual security in the international relations system, but in practice the balance of power policy mostly leads to war and chaos. Order brings about stability, social order and predictability. The next step will be peace and prosperity. Without order there can be no peace. The Balance of Power organises the International anarchic arena into an orderly fashion, but things will not be peaceful permanently. Throughout history, the balance of power has created worlds that were bipolar, multipolar or unipolar and each world has its different levels of order, peace and stability.
During the Cold War, the world was split into two opposing camps — the USA and the USSR. The world became bipolar. This was the new international order of the world; countries were either aligned with the USA or the USSR or continuously influenced by them or their allies. Though it was clear the world became a battleground between two different ideological superpowers, trying to gain a bigger sphere of influence, it was predictable, but not peaceful. According to Mandelbaum (1981) since both countries had nuclear weapons, the way game was played changed as no direct wars could be fought between the superpowers as nuclear weapons would lead to nuclear holocaust. Bull (1977) concludes that thus a ‘nuclear peace’ was formed to maintain stability. According to Wolfers (1962) Weak powers seek safety by joining the bandwagon of an ascending power. This led to the birth of regional balance of powers during this period, for example Israel & Arab countries led by Egypt and Pakistan & India.
Despite trying to establish a higher authority (example the UN) in order to bring about order, peace and justice throughout the world, it didn’t work as the world was still in anarchic structure with USA and USSR more concerned with their security and national interests than promoting peace and justice. As both countries would use force to obtain and maintain their spheres of influence, for example Soviet invention in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to maintain stability in Eastern Europe and American invention in Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in 1964, Dominican Republic in 1965, Chile in 1973, and Grenada in 1983 to maintain stability in Latin America, all these usually against the local people’s wishes and violated international law. Future conflicts were fought through proxy wars, for example the Vietnam War and Lebanon War.
The bipolar system maintained the most order and stability in the world despite it was not being peaceful. Waltz (1964) maintains that since the two superpowers are so great that any major conflict could not develop beyond without their control. Both use their constant pressure or threat of war to avoid disruptive changes that might otherwise have resulted in wider warfare. This is especially true on the Middle East wars, both superpowers managed to prevent a wider war. For example during the Suez Crisis, USSR threatened to intervene using force against the Tripartite (Israel, UK and Franc), while the USA threatened economic sanctions on the Tripartite and during the Yom Kippur War, both USA and USSR both urged a ceasefire, with USSR going a step further threatening intervention on the Arab side. The bipolar system resulted the world being controlled by the superpowers, thus they created order, stability and peace in their own image while waging proxy wars and propaganda wars which maintained a balance of power between them. Thus the Cold War is a long peace.
Before 1914, the world was Multipolar as the great, mostly European powers had worldwide empires or had a strong influence over an area. The balance of power rested upon 5 or more great powers. The Concert of Europe established the maintenance the balance of power in Europe. During this period there were periods of war and peace. According to Wright (1978) the European balance of power operates whenever a dominant power/coalition tries to gain control of the international society, in other words ‘overturns the balance’. This leads to alliances being drawn and war follows which restores the balance of power as one coalition is defeated, thus persevering the multipolar system. Then the cycle repeats itself. During these wars states usually change sides out of feelings of jealously or a sense of emergency to a big threat to its national security according to Butterfield (1966). According to Deutsch (1968), in order for the preservation of the balance of power, victorious powers must not completely eliminate any actors, in other words wipe them off the map, but to allow that defeated state to re-enter the system. This maintains peace within the balance of power as it prevents hegemony by one of the victorious states.
The Whole world was divided by major great powers, but was there peace throughout the world? Burns (1971) states that the world is the most stable in a world of five roughly equal blocs each including a family of exchangeable client states. It could be argued that Europe was mostly less peaceful than elsewhere in the world as Europe was mostly the main battleground during wars. Morgenthan (2006) stated the multipolar system was maintained or preserved through the price of frequent and costly wars. Sometimes a balancer will come into existence to hold the balance. This balancer is both a friend and foe of all major powers and has no permanent friends or foes, and it’s usually determines who can win or lose. Britain obtained this role during the multipolar system when its foreign policy was ‘splendid isolation’. However order was established throughout great powers’ colonies to maintain stability.
After the Cold War, the world became unipolar. USA is the sole remaining superpower or hyperpower, with huge influence throughout the world. According to Little (2000) USA has become an offshore balancer. Since the USA has the military, diplomatic, political and economic assets, it has the power to intervene wherever and whenever it wants around the globe to protect its interests from rogue states that attempt to destabilize the balance of power for example US-led intervention during the Gulf War. USA believes its security depends upon maintaining a global balance of power. This leads the world policeman to get involved everywhere to maintain stability usually for its own purposes, which can backfire as the evidence of Iraq during the Iraq war as it actually destabilized the region.
However the world is slowly transforming into a multipolar world since there are several countries (for example the BRICS countries) wanting to fill in the Soviet Union’s shoes. Although this transition order is the probably the less peaceful, yet has the most order in history. This is clear as nowadays the American economy is in a crisis along with the European Union, but the BRICS are slowly replacing them. Moreover since the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism, had unintended consequences. This resulted to advanced weaponry from the Soviet Empire sold on the Black market or other developing states cheaply, now states or groups that didn’t have good weaponry, now have some form advanced weaponry in their hands. The evidence is clear since 9–11; the world has become less secure as terrorist groups have mostly obtained these arms through the black markets. Also this evident in ethic wars involving Yugoslavia and some Post-Soviet states which destabilize those regions. Not much peace and order throughout the world. Since the end of the cold war, according to Bull (1977), there has been rapid development on regional powers and regional balance of power. This evident as super national organizations emerge such as ASEAN, EU and AU and within each region a balance of power being played out. For example Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia is gaining influence in Middle East, whereas Syria, Iraq and Qatar are fading and in East Asia, Japan’s role is beginning to decrease, which leads to the rise of China.
Despite a wave of idealism created after WWI stating that equal and human rights, self-determination and democracy should be promoted, however the world’s attitude remained in realism prospective. After liberation of colonies and end of empires, new conflicts arise and a brain drain occurs, hampering order, peace and prosperity in the new established states. The balance of power is mostly a realism theory of how the world is structured and maintained. There will always be war during the balance of power; Morgenthau (2006) stated that most wars fought were in the name of balance of power whenever it was the main aim or one of the aims. Order and Peace can never go hand in hand permanently. If peace was to be achieved permanently, the world will have to be idealistic. In other words, to have ever standing peace, there should not be a balance of power. Woodrow Wilson once said after WWI ‘the great game now forever discredited, of the balance of power was abolished. There must be not a balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace.’ Jones & Rosen (1997) argues that realists, especially Realpolitik supporters state in their doctrine: ‘If peace is your goal, prepare for war’. This illustrates that as long as there is a balance of power and realism thinking through the world, there can never be peace. War and Peace, one cannot exist without the other.
The balance of power maintains international order rather than peace. Order brings about stability, social order and predictability. The main reasons are that the world is anarchic, with no higher authority and states behave mostly in a realist manner, not in an idealist manner. Therefore Balance of Power always puts order before peace and justice. In the future there will always have a balance of power.
References
J Baylis & S Smith 2011 , The Globalization of World Politics
H Bull 1977, The Anarchical Society
M Mandelbaum 1981, The Nuclear revolution: International Politics before and after Hiroshima
M Wight, Power Politics (1979).
K W Deutsch, The Analysis of International Relations (2nd ed, 1978)
R Little, ‘A Balance of Power?’ in G Fry & J O’Hagen, Contending Images of World Politics (2000)
A Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration (1962)
J E Dougherty & R L Pfaltzgraff, (1971), Contending Theories of International Relations
Arthur Lee Burns ch 1 pg 35,36 from J E Dougherty & R L Pfaltzgraff, (1971), Contending Theories of International Relations
H Butterfield, ‘The Balance of Power’ in H Butterfield & M Wight (eds), Diplomatic Investigations (1966)
H J Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (2006)
Kenneth N. Waltz, “the Stability of a Bipolar world,” Daedelus, vol. 93, summer 1964, pp. 881–909
W S Jones & S J Rosen, The Logic of International Relations (8th ed, 1997)
