According to Kenneth Waltz, “‘balance of power’ occurs when, given “two coalitions” formed in the international system, secondary states, if free to choose, will side with the weaker, so as to avoid being threatened by the stronger side” (Waltz, 2010). In simpler words, I would describe ‘Balance of Power’ as a scenario where no one state is strong enough to dominate others due to military capabilities being equally distributed in an international system, therefore, enhancing the national securities of all states. In this paper, I am going to talk about how balance of power is not the only way to ensure international peace.
I am going to start defending my position by talking about medieval Europe/ Europe before the break of World War I. Also referred to as the “golden age of balance of power”, during this time, the Spanish, French, Austrians, British etc. all had relatively equal capabilities, and comparable military power. States such as England allied up with other states, such as Portugal, to react to perceived threats if they seemed to have had increasing powers in order to maintain this ‘balance of power’ which seemed to work at first. However, consequent to these equal powers between states, Europe seemed to have been dominated by war during history and this is due to the capability of a state being more likely to win a war if they allied up with someone.
Whilst it was argued that this system encouraged peace, the obligations of alliances resulted in war in areas outside ‘purely’ national interests. This brings me to E.H. Carr’s words on power and morality, “They first say what is in our national interest and then attempt to fit in some kind of ethical justification” (Carr, 2016). The French contribution to Sardinia- Piedmont’s cause in the 1959 war on Austria being a good example of this.
Going back to a few fundamental theories of realism in international relations, Thomas Hobbes, an English political philosopher once stated that “no one is safe”, no state will ever completely be able to trust another due to the basic foundations of realism, that is, states will always seek to increase power in order to meet the common goal of ‘survival’. Furthermore, Hobbes describes ‘fear shapes human life’, referring back again to how there will forever be a constant sense of fear of another state looking to increase their power in order to survive.
Additionally, Thucydides, Athenian general and Author, adds that “it is a general rule and necessary law of nature to rule whatever one can.”, “by conquering you shall increase not only the size of the empire but also the security of it.”. Although, Thucydides said these words during a different era, these words argue the philosophy of a defensive realist, such as Kenneth Waltz, who would suggest a ‘state should only seek enough power in order to maintain security’ as the larger the empire, the more the security. Therefore, this quote remains core in the understanding of our contemporary system. This understanding of human nature described by Hobbes, together with Thucydides’ philosophy of how states would be more ‘secure’ by increasing the size of their empire/ increasing militaristic capabilities etc., therefore encouraging them to capture more territory, shapes one of Hans Morgenthau’s, founder of realism as a science, principles of realism.
Conclusively, the concept of anarchy argues that no matter if a state has a big army or a small army, the only differences lie in capabilities, and not function as the common goal is the same. However, if no state can completely trust each other, living in a constant state of fear as each will be seeking to forever increase ‘security’ and policy makers only think and act in terms of interest, defined as ‘power’ (another principle of realism described by Han Morgenthau) then it is safe to conclude that although, a balance of power between states may be bring temporary peace, it is never long lasting.
Looking at the international system today, we live in a hegemony with the United States of America being the dominant state. Offensive realists, such as John Mearsheimer, a neo-realist, would suggest a hegemony is ‘the best way to guarantee survival’. One may argue the reason why the world is so comparatively stable today, compared to medieval Europe may be as the states may not wish to start a war due to the influence of the USA in our international system today, having dominant power, and therefore capabilities to intervene at any time.
However, as history as taught us, state power changes throughout time and realism teaches us states will always put their interests above others. It is therefore offensive realists fear that the rise in the power (capabilities) of China is soon to lead to a war with the United States. It is only a matter of time until sceptics believe China will not hesitate in engaging in a vicious battle with the dominant state of the world, that is, if the USA does not try to start a war to prevent this from happening first.
On the other hand, we also live in a society where we have learned from our mistakes and know that even though the world is a harsh and dangerous place, but the consequences of using military power often outweigh the benefits. It suggests that increased global cooperation and laws makes it harder to define ‘national’ interest.
Therefore, the likelihood of a full-fledged war between these two states in minimal as international cooperation is in the interest of every state (liberalism).
However, I strongly feel while international rules and organizations may bring certain economic benefits to states, it cannot foster complete cooperation, trust, and prosperity. This stance of mine is well founded due to empirical evidence where the USA is currently unlikely to strike an attack against its Asian allies over trade and policy, however, continues to apply economic pressures such as trade blocs, high duties etc. and incentives to achieve its personal policy aims.
To conclude, there is no level more powerful than a state in a system, each having its own capabilities and limitations which it uses to achieve its aim of survival. Looking at history again, as mentioned, there was a time where Europe had struck a sort of equilibrium of power through which it had prospered short term. However, in the long term this balance of power did not help bring peace as we witnessed several states attempting to disrupt the so called, ‘peaceful balance’, which resulted in the history it has today. The past, fuelled with contemporary issues of the USA attempting several methods in order to curb the growth of China as a rising power only leads me to my point that balance of power is definitely not the only way to ensure international peace. Instead, I would suggest past shows us it may also act as a cause of war.