Balance of Power the Classical

Balance of Power The classical concept of balance of power states that the international system, although anarchic and without clear rules, exists best under an interaction between its elements based on a balance of power. One of the most important international relations theory, that of Kenneth Waltz, states that smaller, weaker states will balance the power of stronger states ensuring that these do not become too powerful and dominate the world (Waltz, 1979).

The bipolar structure during which Waltz created this theory is no longer existent and the bipolarity of the Cold War ceased to exist after the fall of the U.S.S.R. And the entire communist bloc. The unipolar world the international relations entered in after 1991, in which the United States were the most important player, is slowly fading away as important world economic players are beginning to take shape.

The new important players in world politics are varied in form as well as power: while we have the largest country in the world in terms of population and the third world economy -- China, one should not forget about India as well. The unipolarism that the United States created after the fall of communism was based not only on the formidable U.S. military and economic power, derived into political power, but also on a lower development of countries like China, India, Brazil or the Russian Federation.

Also, another important player that neither Waltz took into account in the 70s, neither other theoreticians of international relations is the European Union. Therefore, although in many aspects the United States is still the largest power on the international scene, in other aspects it has become more interdependent and, therefore, less independent in formulating its international politics. The classical concept of balance of power is still applicable in some ways.

In order to maintain a peaceful situation between the large powers of the West and East, the international actors have to play the card of compromise in most occasions. This way, they maintain the fragile equilibrium of the international security and imbalance is eliminated, as much as possible. Talking about currency wars, arms races or territorial conflicts, the international actors realize that the only way in which their political and economic stability is to be preserved is to maintain some sort of balance of power with the other players.

Power, as an abstract term, refers to many aspects. When discussing the powers of a states, like the United States of America, one should look at several key strengths and compare them with other similar states. The American unilateralism, in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq, is not necessarily the absolute argument for saying that the U.S. is the most powerful actor in the international environment.

Although still having the largest economy and by far the largest military spending, the United States is getting more and more drowned in the abyss of economic and political interdependence. As the economic crisis progresses, with severe effects on the internal American market, as well as its military activities abroad, its influence is slowly, but surely fading away. Slow, as a term in international relations history, is different than in other sciences, because although fading, the U.S.

power of influence, decision making and military force is still high and significant. The Iraq invasion of 2003 showed to the entire world that the United States, together with its allies, is still the most important player on the international arena. Unfortunately for the United States, this proof of unilateralism, unipolarism and hegemony was one of the triggers of its international political downfall. The U.S. ceased to be the bearer of democracy and broke the international rules it actually created with the formation of the United Nations.

It lost many of its allies along the road and, in the last 7 years, the powers around it, like the Russian Federation, China, India or the EU have begun to grow in power and significance. The financial and economic crisis represents one of the most important moments of recent history of international relations because it produced massive changes in the overall relations of the international arena.

While at the beginning of 2003, the United States broke the balance of power and acted against UN regulations and invaded Iraq on what was proved later on as false reasons, the end of 2010 sees a different U.S. looking for cooperation rather than dissent, for a cooperative leadership rather than total hegemony. It appears that the international actors did not necessarily limited the powers of the U.S., but this came more from within the country, dealing with internal economic and also political turmoil.

This change is still slow and until a new balance of power is clearly established, the United State still remains the most important actor on the international arena. If discussing reasons for which the U.S. could not be stopped in its unilateral invasion of Iraq one of the most important ones was that there was no clear, powerful and willing to go to the end voice in the international arena. As stakes are sensibly higher with Iran or North Korea, the U.S.

cannot act again in an unilateral way due to the higher risk of colliding with China or the Russian Federation. Also, one should not forget that one of the reasons for which American unilateralism is fading away is the change of regime that does not consider proper to act in the same manner that the previous regimes acted. In a balance of power theory one of the reasons for the.