Power%20in%20International%20Politics

1
Power in International Politics

• State Power/Power Politics
• Balance of Power
• International Systems

2
Key Concepts

• Anarchy and self-help.
• The security dilemma.
• Security dilemma within a society of states.
• Power Politics whereas power is unequally
  distributed, each state must provide its own
  security, and whereas one states security is
  anothers threat, states continually vie for
  power to be secure.
• PP includes diplomacy, alliance, BoP, War, Peace,
  even IL and IO. Primacy is Power.

3
Types of State Power

• The form of PP changes, but the nature of state
  relations remains the same.
• Great Powers have five features. (Roman,
  Napoleonic, British empires, USA/USSR post 1945).
• Middle Powers GPs value its resources, strategic
  position and military value added. (Regional MPs
  France, Indonesia).
• Small Powers do not affect BoP (Netherlands),
  are most insecure, can be flashpoints (Israel).

4
Nature of GP Power Politics

• Status Quo vs. Revolutionary GPs.
• Tools national power, alliances, diplomacy.
  (Classical vs. Cold War Structural Realism K.
  Waltz)
• GPs may seek concert for world domination.
• GP may seek universal empire.
• Former GPs may be submerged in power structure of
  supplanter Holland-England, A-H Empire-Germany,
  UK-US, ?USA-China?

5
End of Part I
6
Balance of Power various meanings

• Historical/descriptive assessment of power.
• BoP not as conscious state policy but as a
  function of systems equilibrium.
• Grotian (Liberal) Balance enlightened
  self-interest makes near equilibrium a founding
  principle of the society of states (eg Concert
  of Europe), used to limit conflict, grant
  compensation, and avert hegemony, eventually
  overcome war.
• Machiavellian Balance BoP is inevitable. States
  only have permanent interests maintaining the
  scales in their favour. BoP is inherently
  unstable.
• Immanuel Kant reject the power trap, both as
  practice and as prescription.

7
Realist Rules for BoP

• Always increase capabilities, but choose
  diplomacy over war. (Morton Kaplan)
• War rather than a loss in capabilities.
• Oppose preponderance by one GP.
• Avoid uncertainty of eliminating other GPs
  (Versailles, Gulf 1991) or allowing a new order
  not based on Power Politics.

8
Preponderance rather than Balance

• Preponderance of Power school of thought.
  (balances are unstable, benevolent hegemony is
  better Cold War, war is likely when hegemon
  declines or challenger closes the gap).
• Hegemonic stability theory hegemon underwrites
  rules of trade and diplomacy which creates
  stability
• Declining hegemons/stability causes war or
  systems change

9
International Systems

• The type of configuration of power in a time and
  geographical framework.
• Holstis five IS aspects boundary, units,
  interaction, norms, structure.
• Structure number of GPs, nature of their power,
  alliances.
• Neo-realism (K. Waltz) makes intl structure the
  key explanation of all international politics.

10
Types of Structure

• Unipolar (tether pole). National or bloc power
  Roman Empire.
• Multipolar (merry-go-round). National power and
  alliances. (1648-1814 Europe), South Asia today.
• Bipolar (see-saw). National power and alliance
  blocs. Triple Alliance Ge, It, A-H, 1882) and
  Triple Entente Eng-Fr-Rus. 1907, and Cold War.
• Each has its own type of dominant security
  problem challenger/assimilation shifting
  alliances escalation/zero-sum conflict

11
Conflict Potential and Risk calculation

• Deutsch and Singer definition of stability (no
  dominant, all GPs remain, no large-scale war)
• Multipolar potentially many conflicts, but also
  countervailing alliances and BoP holder.
• Bipolar potential zero-sum and high risk of
  escalation, but more political control.(offset by
  ideology and MAD)
• Structure of IS is also contextual rules of war
  and diplomacy change.

12
Todays International System

• Boundaries global strong points
• Units democracies vs. the rest
• Interaction eco, pol, mil, cult.
• Structure unipolar and multipolar mixed.

13
Complicating Factors

• Non-state actors and intrastate wars.
• Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and Weapons of
  Mass Destruction (WMD).
• Trade blocs vs. WTO
• USA is not a traditional empire. It is a mixture
  of primus inter pares, benevolent hegemon,
  globocop, and traditional GP.
• Triumph of Liberalism and instant communication
  challenges legitimacy of national interest and
  possibility of limited war.

14
Conclusion

• Does the end of territorial aggrandizement mean
  the end of GP Power Politics?
• Does the presence of Nuclear Weapons mean the end
  of GP Power Politics?
• Does Globalization?
• Can regional or global organization (NATO/UN)
  prevent/overcome GP politics?
• Each GP has its own power and normative context.
• Todays Power Politics The Role of one Hyper
  Power.

15
Future System Watch

• Will a multipolar MAD be as stable as the Cold
  War MAD?
• Will missile defence replace deterrence?
• Will WMD replace Nuclear Weapons?
• Will rigid trade blocs emerge from globalization?
• Will the state system weaken from quasi states
  and global economics?
• Will civilization/religion clashes replace
  inter-state war?