The Role of International Systems - The Balance of Power During the Cold War - Essay Example

The role of International Systems - The Balance of Power during the Cold War The balance of power is an international systems theory that has been widely researched and is one of the foremost theories in international systems. Balancing of power has been proposed to be one of the driving factors in the patterns of war and peace that have occurred worldwide throughout history1. The established international system considers the world to consist of independent nation states, each of which has the power to enforce rules and policies within its own borders. Some nations have more power than others do, and this has resulted in armed conflicts throughout history including ones that have involved a large number of states such as World War I and World War II. In itself, the balance of power theory suggests that any rapid change in the international status or power of an independent state or collection of states will result in counterbalancing actions by other states. This occurs most readily when the alliances between different states are easily broken and formed based on what is beneficial to the particular state at the time. This essay argues that the balance of power was a key factor in the Cold War and was the driving factor of many of the events that occurred, including the Cuban Missile Crisis. Furthermore, this ultimately resulted in the development of the unipolar international system that is present today. The Balance of Power The theory of balance of power differs substantially between authors and publications and this section will attempt to determine some of the overall themes. Some authors consider that the model is a description of the international systems that are in place currently, others consider that it is a theory of coalitions, while still others consider it a guideline to peace2. In one sense, any international system is a balance of power relationship at some level. However, the term is usually used to refer to specific systems where the actors respond to each other primarily through negotiation rather than through war and where they each attempt to protect their state’s short term and long-term interests3. Each country has their own internal resources and interests which they aim to maintain, as well as their position on the international stage, their relationship to other international powers and international trading relationships. States must balance their internal needs with needs of the international environment. Regardless of exact definition, the balance of power remains one of the most central theories of international systems and relations4. One broad definition that can be used for the balance of power is that as the power, or perceived power of one state increases, balancing behavior by other states works to ensure that no state becomes entirely dominant5. One of the first principles of almost any theory on the balance of power is that leaders preferentially increase the resources of their own states, as long as this does not put the survival of their country at risk. Likewise, it is assumed that leaders of states weigh up the immediate and future costs and potential costs of any action before deciding to take it6.Two important notions in the balance of power are resource and system stability. A state needs access to resources in order to function, and the more resources that it has access to the more successful it will be. However, a state must balance its need for resources against the international environment, and as a consequence, must sometimes compromise its resources in order to obtain peace internationally. This is especially true in the formation of coalitions7. In coalitions, states often have to give up some of their own resources for other benefits, such as increased security or economic benefits. For example, a country with a large amount of natural resources may form a coalition with a country that is more limited in natural resources, but has a significant amount of military power. Indeed, it is argued that the balance of power is what drove the formation of international society initially8 as states realized that they could not function on their own. The concept of balancing follows the perception that power is dangerous and a threat that must be eliminated. Thus, states and people do not align themselves with who they think will win or with the side whose values they share. Instead, they align themselves against the strongest power. This concept is in contrast to the popular approach of ‘band-wagoning’. Here, people or states side with the side that has recently won or is most likely to win. This decision is made because losing is less likely, and they do not take on much risk by doing so. However, doing this strengthens someone who already has significant power. This can be dangerous in situations where no one can be trusted, as you are giving power to someone who may turn on you at a later date. Thus, balancing is a more conservative method that seeks to minimize the amount of power that any one person or state has9. This can be seen in modern times by the fact that many states oppose the US primarily because it is the largest and most powerful state, and attempts to exert control over the rest of the world. Balancing of power is a complex consideration, because the definition of power itself is vague, and there are many ways in which states could potentially raise their power, such as through economics, military capacity, alliances and other factors. Two well recognized themes are the balance of economic and military capability. The historical record shows that states often try to compete with other states by raising their military and economic capacity. However, economic constraints mean that increasing one of these factors comes at a cost to the other. For example, if a country works to increase its military capability, its economic capability will decrease, as it costs to increase military10. Thus, two countries that are engaged in a balance for power must choose how much they are prepared to give up to combat the other country. The balance of power theory is heavily debated, as the current unipolar environment is very different from the multipolar environment that was present when the theory first emerged. The lack of balancing against the dominance of the US is a theoretical puzzle that many scholars are attempting to unravel11. However, one of the most prominent case studies which shows the balance of power occurring between two states is the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Cold War The Cold War occurred between the United States of American and the Soviet Union following the Second World War and it ran until the 1980s, with some estimates placing the end of the Cold War as 1991. Unlike most wars, the Cold War was marked by fear of violence, by threats and insinuations rather than actual direct warfare12. For families of the era, fallout shelters and fear of nuclear attack were commonplace, and suspicion of communist activity was everywhere13. It was a time of substantial military tension between the US and the Soviet Union as well as the allies of each side. Primarily, the US was supported by much of the Western world, while the Soviet Union was supported by satellite states and other communist countries. There was no direct military action at any point in the Cold War. This was because both sides had nuclear weapons, and to fire these would inevitably result in retaliation. The end result of this would have been the complete destruction of both sides as well as most of the world due to the nuclear fallout. It was a war fought indirectly, through the use of proxies and propaganda. There were many different coalitions formed throughout the time as well as strategic deployment of forces, designed to decrease the desire of the opposing side to attack those points. During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union fought an economic and military war similar to that predicted from the balance of power theory. It can be argued that the Cold War was not caused by any state, but instead was the natural result of the bipolar international system that was present and the balancing of power. At that point in time, the Soviet Union and the US were the dominant powers in the international environment, and each was seeking to expand in different ways. The Soviets were moving to expand into Eastern and Central Europe, while the expansion of the US was in terms of military power and economics14. The US actively sought to restrict the political expansion of the Soviet Union into Europe, East Asia and the Middle East15, largely due to fears over the spread of communism and the loss of control that the US would experience. One of the largest differences between the two sides during the Cold War was economic, with each side having substantially different economic practices than the other. The US was a capitalistic state while the Soviet Union was communist. The US felt threatened by the Soviet Union, and considered that their own economic weaknesses would make them vulnerable to threats from the Soviet Union16. The outbreak of the Cold War resulted in both sides attempting to separate their economic practices from one another, and to use this separation as a means of political confrontation17.Both sides hoped that the economic separation would help to speed the downfall of the other. Indeed, much of the debate between the American and Soviet ways of life was not based on methods of government or weapons, but instead economics and the virtues of American life versus Soviet. One of the key debates between Vice President Nixon and the Soviet Premier during the Cold War focused on the merits of the American and Soviet appliances18. Clearly, this was not a normal war by any means, yet it was this battleground that brought the world the closest to nuclear war than it has ever been. The Cold War was a significant example of a balance of power. Both sides were afraid of what the other represented, and strongly desired to see the power of the other decrease. The US adamantly fought the idea of communism, and sought out any potential or suspected communists within its own ranks. The Soviet Union wished to expand, and was not comfortable with the restrictions that the US attempted to place on it. As each country grew in military or economic power, the other tried to match it. Both sides had allies, and these alliances were formed as predicted by the balance of power theory. Each side gained allies with the aim of preventing the other from gaining power and exerting control. The US perceived the Soviet Union as attempting to capture or control that states in which it hoped to expand to. United States foreign policy was directly against this idea, and the government fought to ensure that communism did not spread. There were many occasions where the Cold War threatened to become a more violent war, which could have ultimately led to a third World War, or to a nuclear war. In 1956, the Soviets attempted to control Hungary, and did so for a period of time. The US was placed in the situation where responding to Hungary’s call for help would have directly led to a war from which there would be no return. Consequently, the decision was made to do nothing. Eventually, the Soviets withdrew from Hungary without US intervention. One of the key aspects of the Cold War was the amassing of nuclear weapons. This matches the predictions of the balance of power theory as explained in the theoretical section of this paper. Both countries became engaged in a nuclear arms race, where each tried to outdo the other in terms of military power. The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the most intense confrontations of the Cold War and lasted thirteen days, during which the world was brought to the brink of nuclear war. In 1962, after the failed invasion into Cuba by the US, the Soviet Union and the government of Cuba began to build nuclear missiles that had the ability to strike the US. This prompted a similar response by the US, and an attempt at forcing the Soviets to dismantle their weapons19. Throughout the Cold War, both sides attempted to meet the strength of the other both in terms of military and economic approaches. This was a classical balancing of power process, where each side was afraid of the power and perceived power that the other possessed. While balancing of power is usually a stabilizing approach, in this case it led to a military confrontation which had limited possible outcomes. Ultimately, the balancing of power in the Cold War resulted in both countries dismantling their weapons. However, the situation never returned to how it was prior to the war. Before the Cold War, the international system was considered to be bipolar, with two dominating world powers, the Soviet Union and the United States. Following the Cold War, and into the present day, the international environment has been dominated by a single world power, the US. Current Systems Currently, international systems exhibit a unipolar order with the US existing as the dominant if not only superpower. This has existed since the end of the Cold War, and many authors believe that this is the first time such a system has existed. The balance of power theory predicts that there would have be a reaction by other states to try and match the power that the US demonstrates, however, no such moves are apparent. This has led many authors and scholars to question whether the balance of power theory is a valid international theory20.However; this is not the only time in history where the international environment has been dominated by a single superpower. Research suggests that the presence of a unipolar structure is not unusual historically and it may not represent an ‘unnatural’ state, although the balance of power theory predicts that it is indeed unnatural21. Relevance of Balance of Power The fact that the balance of power does not appear to be occurring in modern systems suggests one of two things. The first is that it never occurred, and that the theory itself was wrong. This paper has examined the case study of the Cold War in detail, and concludes that there is significant evidence that a balance of power relationship was occurring during this time. The second possibility is that the end of the Cold War removed the stabilizing balance of power, which had been occurring and resulted in a unipolar system where the US has substantial power compared to any other state. This is a dangerous system, as it suggests that there is nothing ‘controlling’ the powerful state and preventing it from overexerting control over the rest of the world22. The current state of world politics and power is such that the US has such significant control and power that there is no state that has the power to stand up to it. It is possible that in the future, as other countries grow in strength, that there will once again be a balancing in power relationship. For example, currently the worldwide economic crisis has decreased the strength of the American economy while increasing the strength of other economies such as China. Predictions suggest that China may overtake America as a superpower in the next couple of decades23. Conclusion The Cold War was a time of significant tension between the United States and the Soviet Union that came close to nuclear war. International systems and the balance of power played a significant role in the way that events occurred during this time, and the moves by both sides of the war. The Cold War is an example of balance of power, and how it can affect the relations between two countries. Ultimately, it resulted in a change in the international system and structures of the time, moving the world from two superpowers to a single one. Many theorists debate whether balance of power is a legitimate theory, as it does not predict the unipolar state of the world today. However, the case study of the Cold War shows clearly that it was balance of power that drove the current situation, and this may well come into play again in the future. Bibliography Axelrod, A. The Real History of the Cold War: A New Look at the Past. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., 2009. Print. Burchill, S., Devetak, R., and Donnelly, J. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print. Hariri, J.G., and Wivel, A. "When do states balance power? Refining, not refuting, structural realist balance of power theory", 2010. Print. Kaplan, M. A. System and Process in International Politics. Colchester: ECPR Press, 2005. Print. Kaufman, S.J., Little, R., and Wohlforth, W.C., eds. The Balance of Power in World History. New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2007. Print. Keidel, A. "China's Economic Rise - Fact and Fiction": Carnegie - Endowment for International Peace, 2008. Print. May, E.T. America and the pill: a history of promise, peril, and liberation. Basic Books, 2010. Print. May, E.T. Homeward bound: American families in the Cold War era. Perseus Books Group, 2008. Print. Niou, E.M.S., and Ordeshook, P. C. "A Theory of the Balance of Power in International Systems." Journal of Conflict Resolution 30 (1986): 685. Print. Spero, J. E., and Hard, J.A. The Politics of International Economic Relations. Seventh ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Spykman, N. J. America's Strategy in World Politics. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2007. Print. Watson, A. The Evolution of International Society. New York: Routledge, 1992. Print. Wohlforth, W.C., Little, R., Kaufman, S.J., Kang, D., Jones, C.A., Tin-Bor Hui, V., Eckstein, A., Deudney, D., and Brenner, W.L. "Testing balance-of-power theory in world history." European Journal of International Relations 13.2 (2007): 155-185. Print. Read More