13 CHAPTER The Realist Road to Security Through Alliances, Arms Control, and the Balance of Power
Chapter Outline I. The Impact of Alliances on National and Global Security A. Controversy: Do the Advantages of Alliances Outweigh the Disadvantages? B. Realpolitik Assumptions of Balance-of-Power Theory 1. Rules for Rivals in the Balancing Process 2. Difficulties with Balance of Power Systems C. Managing the Balance through a Concert of Great Powers II. Stabilizing Power Balances Through Arms Control A. Arms Control versus Disarmament B. Bilateral Arms Control and Disarmament C. Multilateral Arms Control and Disarmament D. The Problematic Future of Arms Control and Disarmament III. Balancing Power in the Contemporary Global System A. Models of the Balance of Power in the Twenty-First Century 1. Unipolarity the United States 2. Bipolarity the United States and Russia B. World Domination by the U.S. Superpower, or a Multipolar Future of Balance-ofPower Competition? C. Controversy: Is a Unipolar, Bipolar, or Multipolar System the Most Stable?
Chapter Summary I. The Impact of Alliances on National and Global Security Most states view their security options from a narrow realist perspective that includes arming themselves, forming alliances, or negotiating arms control. Alliances usually form when two or more states face a common security threat, however they can bind a state to a commitment that may later become disadvantageous. Alliances have five fundamental flaws: They enable aggressive states to combine their capabilities. They provoke the formation of counteralliances, which reduces security. They may draw otherwise neutral parties into disputes. States must control the behavior of their own allies. Today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy. Wilson proposed collective security as an alternative to alliances. A. Controversy: Do the Advantages of Alliances Outweigh the Disadvantages? The advantages of alliances include: Aggregating military capabilities Reducing the cost of military preparations Furnishing a medium for exerting leverage to mobilize or restrain a partner, neutralize those who might otherwise interfere with some foreign policy
Comment [TD1]: A global or regional security regime agreed to by the great powers setting rules for keeping peace, guided by the principle that an act of aggression by any state automatically will be met by a combined military response from the rest.
1
World Politics: Trend and Transformation
undertaking, or preempt an adversary by bonding with a strategically important country Helping acquire benefits a state could not obtain acting unilaterally The disadvantages of alliances include: Might bind a state to an open-ended commitment that might later cease to be in the state's interest Usefulness erodes as the threat that brought the allies together declines Might entangle a state in disputes it could otherwise avoid Can provoke the fears of adversaries, thereby perpetuating ongoing rivalries May stimulate envy and resentment by friends who are outside the alliance B. Realpolitik Assumptions of Balance-of-Power Theory Political realists stress the need to uphold a balance of power in a world populated by armed, egoistic states that frequently practice coercive diplomacy in order to maintain peace. Although there is no consensus about what is meant by "balance of power," scholars agree that national security is enhanced when military capabilities are distributed so that no one state is strong enough to dominate everyone else. For realists, laissez-faire competition among states striving to maximize their national power yields an international equilibrium, which ensures everyone's survival by checking hegemonic ambitions. Balance-of-power theory is also founded on the realist premise that weakness invites attack and that countervailing power must be used to deter potential aggressors. To deter an aggressor, counteralliances would form easily and, according to the size principle, be just large enough for deterrence. 1. Rules for Rivals in the Balancing Process Leaders must constantly monitor shifts in relative strength to rectify imbalances of power. For the balancing process to function effectively, the following rules are helpful: Stay vigilant Seek allies whenever you cannot match the armaments of your adversaries. Remain flexible in making alliances. Oppose any state that seeks hegemony. Be moderate in victory. 2. Difficulties with Balance of Power Systems Critics of balance-of-power theory raise the following objections to the notion that it promotes peace: The theory's rules are contradictory, simultaneously urging states to increase their power and oppose anyone seeking preponderance. It assumes that policymakers possess accurate, timely information about other states; however, problems with determining adversaries' strength and trustworthiness makes this difficult The tendency of defense planners to engage in worst-case scenario planning can spark an arms race. It assumes that decision makers are risk averse, when, in actuality, some leaders may gamble on a military victory even if the odds are long.
Comment [TD2]: The theory that peace and stability are most likely to be maintained when military power is distributed to prevent a single hegemon or bloc from dominating the state system.
Comment [TD3]: The propensity for competitors to form coalitions sufficient in size only to ensure victory, even if by a narrow margin, with the result that over time opposed alliances tend to remain roughly equal to one another.
2
The Realist Road to Security Through Alliances, Arms Control, and the Balance of Power
It has not been effective. Historical periods following periods when these rules were followed are notable for the increased amount of warfare. Hegemonic stability theory is one alternative to the balance of power. C. Managing the Balance through a Concert of Great Powers A "concert" is "rule by a central coalition" of great powers. It is one way to bring order to the balance-of-power system. A concert is based on a common sense of duty among the great powers to preserve the peace and on mutual self-restraint. However, the normative consensus underpinning such an arrangement is fragile and easily eroded. II. Stabilizing Power Balances Through Arms Control Realists see arms control as another way to promote peace and to stabilize the balance of power. A. Arms Control versus Disarmament Arms control refers to agreements designed to regulate arms levels either by limiting their growth or by restricting how they may be used, while disarmament refers to the reduction or elimination of weapons. These agreements may be either bilateral or multilateral. B. Bilateral Arms Control and Disarmament Arms control agreements between the U.S. and Soviet Union helped prevent the Cold War from breaking into open warfare. The main agreements were the SALT, START and SORT treaties; SORT was just signed in 2002 and requires both countries to reduce their strategic nuclear warheads by 2/3 over the next 10 years. Still, both states were left with enough firepower to retain the deterrent of threat mutual assured destruction, and the treaty did not require that the decommissioned warheads actually be destroyed. C. Multilateral Arms Control and Disarmament Multilateral arms control agreements go back as early as the eleventh century. More recently, the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty stands out as the most symbolic multilateral agreement, although it has been broken by several states. The refusal of states to adhere to such treaties erodes their effectiveness. One such example is the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which lost much of its impact after the Bush administration refused to accept the enforcement measures. D. The Problematic Future of Arms Control and Disarmament There are many problems with arms control and disarmament treaties: They frequently regulate obsolete armaments or ones that the parties to the agreement have little incentive for developing. Limits on one type of weapon system merely prompt development of other systems. The international community has been slow, weak and ineffective in banning some of the most dangerous and counterproductive weapons, like landmines. Continuous innovation makes it difficult for agreements to keep up. Although there are many benefits to arms control, including reduced costs and decreased tensions, states have no incentive to negotiate reductions when they are either behind or ahead in the number of weapons they have. The Bush
Comment [TD4]: The argument that a dominant state is necessary to enforce international cooperation, maintain international rules and regimes, and keep the peace.
Comment [TD5]: Multilateral or bilateral agreements to contain arms races by setting limits on the number and types of weapons states are permitted. Comment [TD6]: Agreements to reduce or destroy weapons or other means of attack.
Comment [TD7]: The negotiations begun in 1969 between the United States and the USSR to freeze offensive weapons at existing levels and promote balanced, verifiable limits on strategic nuclear weapons. Comment [TD8]: The U.S.-Russian series of negotiations that began in 1993 and, with the 1997 START-III agreement ratified by Russia in April 2000, pledged to cut the nuclear arsenals of both sides by 80 percent of the Cold War peaks, in order to lower the risk of nuclear war by making a successful preemptive strike impossible. Comment [TD9]: A system of mutual deterrence in which both sides possess the ability to survive a first strike and launch a devastating retaliatory attack.
3
World Politics: Trend and Transformation
administration, for example, has shown it has little faith in such treaties by withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty. Limiting arms may confine the rivalries between states, but it does not address the underlying source of the conflict. III. Balancing Power in the Contemporary Global System The use of alliances and arms control to balance power has shifted over time in a series of redistributions. A. Models of the Balance of Power in the Twenty-First Century The distribution of military power, or polarity, can range from highly concentrated to highly dispersed. 1. Unipolarity the United States At the end of World War II, a unipolar distribution of power materialized because power was concentrated in the hands of a single hegemon able to exercise overwhelming influence over all other states. The U.S. had the largest economy and was the sole possessor of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union soon rose, however, to challenge this position. 2. Bipolarity the United States and Russia The ascendance of the Soviet Union signaled a shift to bipolarity. Polarization occurred as states joined counterbalanced alliances. During the Cold War, the military rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was reinforced by the formation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Bipolarity created a general feeling of insecurity, and the two superpowers competed to recruit allies. These alliances began to break down in the 1960s and 1970s, due in part to rapid technological innovations and the allies skepticism that the U.S. and USSR would keep their pledges of extended deterrence. The movement toward democracy and market economies further eroded the ideological divides of the Cold War, and the purpose of NATO is now in question. B. World Domination by the U.S. Superpower, or a Multipolar Future of Balance-ofPower Competition? The era of unipolarity that emerged at the end of the Cold War is marked by U.S. hegemony. Most scholars believe U.S. dominance will not last far into the future because other states will attempt to block the U.S. whenever possible, forcing the U.S. to pursue its interests through coercion rather than consensus. The future balance of power is uncertain, possibly the return of a more complex, multipolar system with competition among the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and the European Union. NATO's expansion since the end of the Cold War reflects this shifting geopolitical landscape through its Partnership for Peace program. NATO reinforced its usefulness in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks, although relations among members have since been strained by President Bush's unilateral war against Iraq. C. Controversy: Is a Unipolar, Bipolar, or Multipolar System the Most Stable? Different schools of thought argue in favor of different balances of power as most stable. Arguments are equally persuasive in favor of unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity.
Comment [TD10]: The degree to which the global system revolves around one or more extremely powerful states, or "poles." as power concentrates in a single (unipolar) center of power or is distributed between two (bipolar) main powers or among three or more (multipolar) great powers.
Comment [TD11]: The division of the balance of power into two coalitions headed by rival military powers, each seeking to contain the other's expansion. Comment [TD12]: The degree to which states cluster in alliances around the most powerful members of the state system.
Comment [TD13]: The protection received by a weak ally when a heavily militarized great power pledges to "extend" its capabilities to it in a defense treaty.
Comment [TD14]: A condition in which an international system has a single dominant power center or pole, able to exercise supreme authority by its superior economic resources and military capability.
Comment [TD15]: A plan proposed in 1993 by the United States that established limited military partnerships between NATO and the former Warsaw Pact countries.
4
The Realist Road to Security Through Alliances, Arms Control, and the Balance of Power
Learning Objectives After reading Chapter 13, students should be able to: Describe the benefits, costs, and dangers of alliances. Explain balance-of-power theory, noting its rules and some of the drawbacks. Evaluate the relative success of arms control and disarmament in preserving peace. Explain the Cold War balance of power through unipolarity and bipolarity. Explain the current balance of power and how it might shift in the future. Note the advantages and disadvantages of unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity.
5