Scholar's Article: How does the international system move toward a balance of power?

Ecuador's Latin American News Agency published a November 19 article entitled "Towards an International System of 'Balance of Power'? Article, by Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein, excerpted in its entirety:

Dr. Henry Kissinger, national security adviser to the Republican administrations of Nixon and Ford, pointed out in May 2015 in an article for the bimonthly journal Diplomacy that in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century, the United States should first formulate a strategy in a timely manner, and secondly, it should change its tactics to achieve the desired results.

To this end, Kissinger proposed that U.S. foreign policy should be re-evaluated and re-examined the theory of the "balance of power", because any agreement cannot remain static forever, but must be constantly analyzed and adjusted in an eternal movement.

The theory of the balance of power is once again in focus

This writer's view differs from Kissinger's in that he articulates the balance of power in terms of the need for the United States to continue to maintain its global leadership position, so he has given the role of defender of the American system. However, this led to a violation of the basic rules for guaranteeing a balance of power proposed by the American international relations theorist Morton Kaplan.

One of Kaplan's basic rules is that no fundamental actor in the international balance of power can override other actors, or it is likely to upset the balance and eventually lead to the collapse of the system. Although Kissinger believes that in the current international context, only a balance of power can ensure world peace, it violates these basic rules.

The author believes that the risk of the balance of power is that it covers agreements between the world's power elites, but it harms the interests of the countries of the South and their peoples. Thus, in the case of Latin America and the Caribbean, only integration can provide us with space and a sense of presence in the world of the future. While at odds with popular belief, I insist that in a world in which the great powers will seek balance, not war, and use conflict as a regulator of that balance in order to preserve their own interests, which do not belong to Latin America and the Caribbean.

Some seven years after Kissinger's comments, the debate is once again in the spotlight as some of the opinions of some political and military leaders seem to point again to building a balance of power. In June, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin warned in an interview with the media that "a new world order is taking shape" today.

At a videoconference for the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 13, Gen. John Hayten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the United States should seek to avoid war with Russia or China, or its devastating consequences would affect not only the countries involved, but even the world. Hayten said in a statement that going to war with either of the two countries "would have devastating consequences for the planet."

As a result, the United States is engaged in a "strategic stability dialogue" with Russia. Hayten also believes that it is also extremely important to have such a dialogue with the Chinese side. "Although our situation is very different, we do share a common goal: never go to war with each other," he said. Thus, he accepted the basic rules of The Balance of Power system proposed by Kaplan in 1966.

It is important to maintain peace among the great Powers

On November 3, General Mark Milley, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted at the Aspen Security Forum that the world is entering an era of increasing strategic instability, with the three major centers of power being the United States, Russia, and China, which has given new characteristics to the international system. "We are entering a tripolar world in which the United States, Russia and China are all great powers," Milley said. In my view, we are entering a world that may be more strategically turbulent than in the last 40, 50, 60 or 70 years. ”

Milley apparently ignored Europe, which was no longer considered a relevant international actor, but merely an appendage of the United States.

Josép Borreli, Vice-President of the European Commission and High Representative for Eu Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, explains why. In his draft Strategy Guide, published in early November, he noted: "The EU is facing what I call 'strategic contraction'. This is reflected in three ways: First, the scope of our economy is increasingly limited. Thirty years ago, the EU accounted for a quarter of the world's wealth, and 20 years later it will account for just over 10%. Second, the EU's strategic environment is increasingly controversial. Finally, the EU's political sphere is shrinking and our liberal values are increasingly being challenged. ”

General Millikin concluded by concluding that maintaining peace between "great powers" is essential, and therefore Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, along with all their allies, must be "careful" about how they get along in the future. It is worth mentioning that he once again relegated Europe to "other allies".

U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price said at a Nov. 5 news conference in Washington that the U.S.-Russia strategic stability dialogue was "constructive and beneficial."

On November 9, Chinese Ambassador to the United States Qin Gang delivered a Chinese message in Washington, announcing that Beijing remains willing to work with Washington to resolve important international and regional issues, but only if such cooperation is based on mutual respect and mutual benefit. This strategic reconciliation culminated on Nov. 16, when the leaders of the United States and China met for the first time since Biden took office. Both sides hope to seek common ground while reserving differences in order to promote a "healthy and stable" relationship between the two countries. Despite the differences that remain, the atmosphere of harmony remains the dominant tone, in line with Kaplan's rule for building a balance of power: "Increase power, but through negotiation, not war." ”

Source: Reference News Network