Some writers try to define it in terms of equilibrium where as others in terms of “disequilibrium”. Some define it as a principle of action while others define it as a policy or system. Balance of power, in international relations, the posture and policy of a nation or group of nations protecting itself against another nation or group of nations by matching its power against the power of the other side. This was a history of the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII of France, and introduced the phrase balance of power to historical analysis. Universalism, which was the dominant direction of European international relations prior to the Peace of Westphalia, gave way to the doctrine of the balance of power. Technically, balance of power is important because it is a system in which peace can be kept among a large number of states when there is no hegemon among them. The sides can constantly work to keep any one of them from getting too strong and coming to be able to threaten the others.
Change of Balance of Power in Europe & Asia:
It looks like the United States is carrying out a social experiment in the Eastern Mediterranean basin and the Middle East. After the end of the Cold War, the U.S. declared itself the sole master of the world. In the name of the new world order, the George H.W. Bush administration found itself unrivaled in many regions of the world, including the Middle East. International law became null and void, while international institutions turned into mere means of the U.S. hegemony. Today, the United Nations has lost its international credibility to such an extent that it could not play a role in the current Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict. Unchecked by international law and unbalanced by international institutions, the unrivaled hegemony of the U.S. soon incurred heavy costs for the international system. The military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan concluded with the emergence of persistent political instability in the region, a devastating refugee crisis and global terrorist organizations.
Frustrated by these consequences, the U.S. administration failed to make reasonable policies in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Late in responding to the Syrian crisis, former U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign policies in the Middle East paved the way not only for Iran’s military domination in Iraq and Syria but also for Russia’s military involvement in the Eastern Mediterranean. As opposed to the ineffectiveness of the U.S. and European countries, Turkey takes responsibility for the resolution of the Syrian crisis. During the political crisis in Libya as well, Turkey stepped forth to protect Libya’s legitimate government from warlord Gen. Khalifa Haftar’s forces. In all these regions of crisis, Turkey comes face to face with Russia. Despite all odds, Turkey has never abstained from negotiating with Russia through diplomatic channels. In the face of the illegitimate demands of Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey defends its international rights with its own power. Meanwhile, the U.S. administration has abstained from getting involved in the crisis.
The influence of European countries continues to decrease in the international arena. It is no longer possible to speak about a united Europe. As the political crisis in Ukraine proved, without military might, economic power remains ineffective to shift the balance of power in the international system. Although France aspires to become the leader of the European Union, French President Emmanuel Macron does not have the capacity to exert such a geopolitical leadership during this chaotic phase of the international system. Therefore, Greece struggles in vain to drag the European powers into the crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean.
If the U.S. truly carries out a “social experiment,” then they aim to observe who will fill the political vacuum in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Russia and Turkey appear to be the principal candidates for such regional leadership. While Russia has too much on its plate, Turkey has the capacity to take political risks involving regional crises with its age-old state legacy, strong army and economy, and effective political leadership.
Transition of Balance of Power from Unipolar to Multipolar World Order:
The international system may be described as a complex system of social, scientific, political, military and technological systems. This dynamic structure is very difficult to evaluate and it is even more difficult to predict its future. The distribution of power potential in the international system defines the number of major powers and thus the international system’s polarity. The system would be multi-polar if the great powers are more than two; if they are two it would be bipolar and systems with only one great power are called unipolar. It can be expected in the future multipolar world that the global economy does not settle with a couple of significant nations but rather with multiple nations of varying capabilities. In the limited arena of affairs pertaining to their country, each state with its particular notable qualities will have decisive say. Beyond the US, Japan, China, the EU, and India are capable of economic influence due to their advancements in technology, increasing economy, and large population base. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, African Union countries and Brazil will have an impact, owing to their large energy reserves. Russia should have preferences for both. Because of their geostrategic location such as Pakistan, Central Asia, Ukraine and Turkey, a few nations will have some regional influence because these nations are situated on the energy routes from which energy resources would be on route to other parts of the world.
United States and the Changing World Order:
There is a broad bipartisan consensus within US political leadership that the country must remain a global leader / world leading power. This assumption in its re-eminence also comes with the fundamental underpinnings that the United States will lead the world to freedom and liberty. Its third term is resolve to contain China. It’s troubling to what extent the US continues to pursue China’s containment. The’ democracy alliance’ or the’ pivot to Asia’ are examples of US designs. China too, because of its part, diverted from the usual cautious approach and its proclaimed strategy of’ peaceful progression’ to an unambiguous stance on the South China Sea. Right now, however, the condition does not appear to come to a head-on collision anytime far. Yet the contest could bring a serious and dangerous situation to the fore. The US is not going to communicate directly with its forces on the field. There is a lot of resistance for another war at home. This doesn’t mean the US is ineffective. What we have is a hegemon with a diminishing power and a reluctance to give up his position of leadership. At the other hand, there is no other country capable of replacing it while they frequently seek to question its authority. Chinese occasional deviation from caution, and reluctance on the part of the US to yield, build a dangerous situation.
Decline of the Unipolar System:
The U.S. has been the only hegemony since the end of the Cold War, but since the economic crisis of 2008 its world hegemony has been undermined. The gap in power between China and the US is diminishing. In 2011, China’s GDP contributed for around half of the US GDP. If China’s GDP continues to rise at 8.5 per cent and US GDP increases at less than 3.8 per cent, the current gap between the two forces will level out in the decade to come. Meanwhile, the economic gap between these two nations and the other major powers will continue to expand over the next ten years. In the next five years, only the US and China will spend more than $100 billion annually on defense, growing the difference in power between them and the others. Accordingly, the international structure would not be unipolar.
International Players That Can Change the International World Order In 21st Century :
Bipolar global structure collapsed by the end of the Cold War. The United States has become the sole superpower and as expressed in the new industrial order of defense, the international structure has become unipolar. The major powers of the global community are China, Russia, Japan and the E.U. Whether the international system can turn into a bipolar or multipolar system depends on developments in many countries and regions in technological, political, economic, and military terms. China, Russia, Japan, the EU and India have the power to change their international structure. In the last twenty-five years, China’s capacities have steadily increased in magnitudes that significantly restructure the international order. Economic prosperity for China goes hand in hand with the advancement of science and technology. It is developing expensive weapons systems that are increasingly capable compared to developed countries ‘ most advanced weapons systems. Another important determinant of the future of the international community is the relative dominance of the U.S. in science, technical, economic and military capacities compared to other major powers.
Conclusion:
The position of emerging states, which influence the range and change of the international system, is very difficult to comprehend. The general outlines of what is happening with this phenomenon are becoming more evident, as transition happens under intense internal dynamic conditions and not from external factors. There is a group of candidates that can be considered growing powers, and there are rapid bursts in this phase of transition, but it is longer than expected. Under conditions of changing institutionalization a central component of these changes occurs. Yet there is also a gap in the assumptions regarding the principles of collaboration and conflict. National interests and principles are certainly the most significant in the changing world order, and these can also lead to deeply complex and frustrated bargaining situations that need to be resolved by enhanced collaboration at the state level. Joined societies dissolve, along with the old beliefs. According to different ideas of world system, that countries are not less divided, and they can constantly struggle and communicate with each other at the same time. Therefore, the future multi-polar system would be no different from the other multi-polar moments that history has seen, resulting in more chaos and unpredictability than in the current unipolar world. Nevertheless, multi-polarity does not only carry the risks involved in researching balance of power among great powers for the first time in history.
0 Comments