260
Week Poli 4:
What is the balance of power?
What types of balancing behaviour are there?
How does the balance of power help us understand war and peace? (analyze WW1, WW2)
Recall from last week:
Outer layer of onion: under anarchy, there is always a COMMITMENT problem
Situation states want to avoid:
o CD: being conquered
o DD: costly war (opportunity costs)
Situation states want to be in:
o CC: cooperation
o DC: conquering other state
To prevent other side from defecting
States wont attack if cost of war exceeds benefits
o Dont want to lower benefits of conquest
Have you raise the cost of war
o Deterrence
A high cost to prevent someone from doing something that theyd otherwise do
How do you do this?
o Increase capability and show that you will use it
o Signal resolve
BALANCE OF POWER
When a group of states (of more or less equal strength) are obliged to deal with one another; only 2 possible outcomes:
o Either one state becomes so strong that it dominates all others and creates an empire (unlikely today)
o Or no state is ever quite powerful enough to achieve that goal
Pretensions of the most aggressive member of the international community are kept in check by a
combination of others
States seek to be a hegemon to ensure survival
o States behave aggressively for security
o If unchecked, outcome is empire
Who prevents this? (Remember anarchy = commitment problem self-help system)
o Other states (self-help)
How do you prevent his without costly war?
o Join forces with others states: ALLIANCES
The Purpose of the Balance of Power
Balance of power prevents rise of hegemon (global and regional)
Balance of power preserves/defends status quo (prevent major changes)
o May/may not prevent war
Doesnt necessarily prevent war, but the RISE OF HEGEMON
States create alliances to raise the costs of war for a potential aggressor (deterrence)
o Logic: fighting 3 states is harder than fighting 1
o Alliance raises the cost of conflict
In a balancing coalition, states pool resources for the common defense
In a balancing collation, states must credibly commit to defend each other
What the Balance of Power Responds To
Shifts to the distribution of power
o Rising power
o Declining power
Poli 260
Week 4:
Mismatch between distribution of power and distribution of benefits (of the system)
o The strongest states set up the international system to THEIR benefit (eg UN Security Council)
o Cut weaker states/rising powers out of the distribution of benefits
o Rising powers challenge to gain benefits (my turn)
Called revisionism (trying to reverse in the present)
o Country has more power but had been marginalized in the past
Like how Britain and France are still on the Security Council even though they are weaker/less powerful
Two Types of States
Status quo:
o Most powerful states in the present/immediate past and have interest in maintaining system as it is
o Get benefits >= relative power (get more benefits than their actual power comparatively)
o More likely to balance (engage in alliance behaviour)
Revisionist:
o Want to revise the current system want to change status quo
o Most powerful state either in present or future (eg China)
o Gets benefits < power (gets less benefits than actual power)
o Most likely to be balanced AGAINST
Status quo powers join with each other to balance against revisionist
Does the Balance of Power Prevent War?
NO
BoPs purpose to prevent rise of hegemon
o This can happen through fighting war, and subduing rising power (eg Iraq in 1991)
Iraq invaded Kuwait and posed threat to Saudi Arabia
Concern that Saddam would be a hegemon in the region
Formed alliance that waged war on Saddam and defeated Iraq but involved war
BoP can limit the scale of a war
o Eg Korea: when China allied with North Korea, US reduced war in Korea
Sometimes alliances are costly
Alliances are based on capabilities (relative power), NOT ideology
o Eg USA supported dictators against USSR
Alliances are flexible
o USSR supported Germany, then joined Allies
Types of Alliance Behaviour: Who to Join
Balancing: joining the status quo
o Eg 1939 joining Britain and France
o Strategy for stronger states/revisionists dont want other states balancing against them
o Goal is tot stop aggression/expansion altogether and deter war (keep them in a box)
o Done for SURVIVAL
Bandwagoning: joining the revisionist
o Eg 1939 joining Nazi Germany
o Strategy for weaker states
Cannot influence outcome of a war between Britain and Germany, can only worry about whos going to
win, so join the state you think will win
o Goal is to join forces with aggressor
o Done for profit (from post-war settlement) and/or survival post-war
Varieties of Balancing
Internal balancing
Poli 260
Week 4:
o Increasing ones own military capabilities
External balancing: directly pooling resources with others (your enemy is my enemy)
o Eg US led coalition against Iraq 1991
Variant of external balancing
o Offshore balancing: supporting allies near potential aggressor
Use money and supplies rather than sending troops
Eg US sending military aid to Saudi Arabia to balance Iran
Varieties of Bandwagoning
Why states bandwagon:
o Fear: you think a rising power will win a war, so you dont want to anger/infuriate it
o Profit: you think a rising power will win a war, and you want to profit from it (especially smaller states)
Types of bandwagoners: (no need to remember)
o Lambs: join rising power to maintain power (dont want to be exploited)
o Jackals: join rising power to increase power
Problems of the Balance of Power
Under the security dilemma, we saw that states have incentives to defect, potentially leading to war
o Commitment problem (fear that other defects later)
o Benefits of conquest (DC)
But the commitment problem also means states have incentives to not cooperate in an alliance
o Can lead to a lack of balancing
Why dont they cooperate?
2 problems of BoP:
o Collective action
o Coordination
Both these problems lead to behaviour called BUCK PASSING
o Getting another state to shoulder the burden or deterring or defeating a threatening state (refusal to fully contribute
to an alliance)
Clarification of readings:
John makes 2 points:
o Balancing and buckpassing are two types of balancing/alliance behaviour (156-159)
o No such thing as Bandwagoning (139-140)
o But he is wrong
There are 2 types of alliance behaviour (KNOW THIS)
o Balancing: occurs when joining status quo states to prevent rising power/maintain existing distribution
o Bandwagoning: occurs when joining rising power to profit from change in distribution of power
Buckpassing is NOT a type of balancing
o It is a refusal/failure to balance
Collective Action
What it is: everyone benefits from a good, but someone has to contribute to it and there is NO neutral authority enforcing
compliance (commitment problem)
Ideally, all should contribute
But there are incentives to contribute nothing get a free ride and benefit from others contributing
There is no authority forcing compliance (commitment problem)
o Eg Germans right now feel like they are carrying everyone and everyone is buckpassing/free riding
o NOT collective action: police everyone benefits from law but mostly everyone pays taxes (there is a central
authority collecting taxes)
Poli 260
Week 4:
Collective Action Problem
People dont pay costs and reap benefits (free riders)
o Eg member of alliance who doesnt contribute to the common resource pool, benefits from collective security
o Eg NATO (US does more than everyone else)
How is this free riding?
o Collective action (many states declared war on Iraq)
o There is a collective good (everyone benefits from Iraq losing the war, price of oil drops/Saddam put in a box)
o US disproportionately paying for it (3/4 troops deployed)
o Other states are the free-riders on US dime or have passed the buck to the US
Free Riding Can Cause Worse Problems
In 1991, coalition still won the Iraq war US picked up the buck
Allies fear free-riding, a collective action problem can become a coordination problem
Coordination problem: members of an alliance all benefit if everyone sticks together
o But if everyone fears buckpassing, everyone will buck pass
o If everyone buck passes, then alliance fails
o If there is no alliance, everyone loses
Coordination Problem in Alliances
Expecting others to free-ride, no one joins an alliance (buckpassing)
Expecting others to free-ride, a main power cuts a deal with the aggressor alliance breaks down
Aggressor can attack because costs of war are not high enough to deter them (as opposed to if alliance had stuck together,
costs would be too high)
Coordination Problems War
Break down in 2 ways:
o Great power can end an alliance if no one pays for it
o Great power can cut a deal with the aggressor because cutting a deal is cheaper than deterring the aggressor
If alliance breaks down, aggressor can attack because cost of war is less
Thus it leads to war
3 Cs: Problems in International Politics
Commitment problem: everyone benefits from peace, but in absence of 3 rd party enforcer (anarchy), no side can trust the
other to refrain from war
o Worried about whats going to happen in the future, so you have incentive to fight them now in the present (before
enemy gets stronger) preventive war
o Dont trust enemy would keep terms of truce, so I fight now to protect myself
Collective action problem: everyone benefits, but some people pay, others dont
Coordination problem: everyone would benefit, but no one wants to move first so no one moves and no one benefits
Difference between Collective Action and Coordination Problem
2 players (A & B) both benefit from action Z that they both have to pay for
o Collective action problem: B doesnt pay the costs because she thinks A will pay
Free riding in alliance: weaker states know stronger states will pay so they wont (self-fulfilling prophecy)
Expect somebody to pick up the buck
o Coordination problem: B doesnt pay costs because she thinks A wont pay
Development problems: a steel firm doesnt build a factory because it thinks car-makers wont build trucks
Expect nobody to pick up the buck
nd
2 difference
o Collective action:
Who doesnt contribute? The WEAK dont contribute because they can get something for free.
Poli 260
Week 4:
The stronger states will contribute more/all
o Coordination problem:
Who doesnt contribute? The dont STRONG contribute because they think they will be left paying for
everyone else
RECAP: balance of power is a strategy to maintain status quo distribution of power
Deter rising powers by raising cost of revisionism
Two types of balancing behaviour
o Balancing (ally with existing great power to deter revisionist power)
o Bandwagoning (join revisionist/challenger to profit from changing level of powers)
Two problems for alliances buckpassing
o Collective action
o Coordination
The Balance of Power in History
The balance of power developed as a way to regulate the European state system after the fall of the Roman empire (1648)
How it worked in Europe prior to 1900:
o Flexible, interlocking alliances
o Disregard of public opinion
o Divisions between France, UK, Russia
The problem: rise of Germany and Russia
Logic of Balance of Power, according to Blackadder
Two blocs deterring each other:
o UK/France/Russia on one side
o Germany/Austria-Hungary on other
High cost of war
o War lasted 4 years, over 20 million casualties
o Did raise cost of war but didnt stop war from happening
Low chance of success
o General stalemate: Ostrich died for nothing
How did WW1 happen anyway?
o i.e. was the balance of power
What does the balance of power respond to?
o Shifts in the distribution of power
Rising power (Germany)
Declining power (France/Britain RELATIVE to Germany)
o Mismatch between distribution of power and distribution of benefits
Strongest states set up the international system to THEIR benefit (eg colonies)
Rising powers are cut of the benefits
Rising powers challenged
Structural factors leading up to 1914
Rising powers change European balance
Britain and France dominant powers in Europe
German unification (1871)
o Germany was stronger than France/UK, but had fewer colonies
Rise of Russia
o Russia seeking territory in Far East
Power becomes unbalanced:
o Actual power (Germany) does not = benefits (do not match)
Poli 260
Week 4:
Alliances pre-1914
Germany allied with Austria-Hungary (and Italy)
o Triple Alliance
France allied with Russia
o Goal was to box Germany in: Germany couldnt fight on two fronts simultaneously
UK was wooed by both sides
o UK would tip the balance
UK joined France-Russia, forming Triple Entente
o UK wanted to box Germany in too (defensive move by UK to increase security, which increased insecurity of
Germany)
o Germany felt threatened (security dilemma)
Why did Germany declare war on Russia AND France?
Fighting on 2 fronts at the same time, and are big, powerful states
Motives:
o Germany wanted to change the distribution of benefits (did not match with its actual power)
o Germany felt insecure (UK joining France and Russia) felt its security was threatened
Knew Austria-Hungary was declining
Felt encircled by Triple Entente
These lead to same conclusion (recall John M): to deal with insecurity, states aspire to be the hegemon (to ensure security
and survival)
o Germany sought to be hegemon to maintain its security
Did Germany think it could win?
Could they win the war and be the hegemon? If notits suicide
Germany thought they could win because they underestimated costs of war.
o Didnt think it would be as bad/as expensive
o Cult of offensive idea of quick war (belief in the power of offensive technology can win the war if you attack
first; war will be short) this is what the German leadership believed in
Would Germany have declared war if it knew the real costs?
o Should have stopped when they realized itd be a costly war? German decision to not stop fighting indicates that
theres some likelihood that even if they HAD known of the costs, they would have fought anyway.
o However the bigger problem was the COMMITMENT PROBLEM
Germany was worried what would happen to Germany AFTER the war if they hadnt fought would rather
fight and try to win than accept a weak bargaining
Necessity: some evidence that Germany would have fought anyway if they had known of the costs of war
in the very beginning
Was the idea of two opposing blocs bollocks?
What were the two opposing blocs meant to do?
o Purpose of balance of power: maintain status quo; alliances prevent rising powers from changing status quo (may
involve fighting of war, does not avoid war)
o Two vast opposing armies serving as deterrents
o Raise costs of war
Why didnt it work?
o Did alliances break down?
NO UK/France/Russia fought Germany/AH alliances worked fine!
Alliances did what it was meant to (balance power)
o Why did Germans attack anyway?
Underestimation of costs
Think it would be a costly war, challenged France/Russia at the same time
Poli 260
Week 4:
But costs werent Germanys only concern (as if it was, would have withdrew from the war when it realized
the costs were exceeding original expectations)
Germany felt it HAD to fight as it felt it would lost power in the FUTURE (underlying motivation to
challenge the status quo)
Lessons of WW1
In some instances, rising powers cannot be deterred (balancing may provoke them what Triple Entente did)
o I.e. even if Germany knew that war would be costly, it may still have declared war
BUT, misperception about costs of war (not that high) can make war more likely
If balancing doesnt work
In WW1, the alliance against Germany:
o Either did not prevent war (was bollocks, in Blackadders terms)
o Or provoked Germany by making it insecure! (When UK joined Triple Entente with France and Russia)
Does this mean that balancing NEVER works??
o NO: balancing worked in WW1 because it defeated the challenger
Yet they missed the lesson: to keep the quo, you may have to fight
When everyone buckpasses
WW1 settlement (Versailles) rough on Germany
o Disarmament
o Reparations
o Pissed off Germany
Germany suffers heavy economic depression and humiliation
This lead to the rise of FACISM
o Promised return to national greatness (Germans would no longer have to feel beaten down by other nations)
o Required militarism/authoritarian leadership to bring this
o Germany increased power relative to France and UK from 1933 to 1938 (7 time increase)
Because of military mobilization, Germany was likely to be stronger than France and UK in 1938 first
shifting of balance of power
I.e. Germany > France, UK in near future
o USSR had 3 times Germanys population, 40 times its landmass (latent power of Russia was greater than Germany)
I.e. USSR > Germany in the future (maybe not in the 40s but in the 50s)
Strategic Goals
UK/France
o Want to prevent the rise of Germany
o Want to prevent war (WW1 very costly)
Huge public disapproval of the potential of another war
o Neither side wanted to commit resources to effectively balance Germany
Germany
o Take back the land it had been ceded in Versailles (after WW1)
o Wanted to expand power relative to UK/France
o Want to prevent rise of USSR
USSR
o Want to prevent war with Germany until strong enough to fight
What are the options (generally speaking)?
Four options (remember Germany is rising power):
1) Balance (against Germany with UK/France/USSR)
2) Bandwagon (with Germany)
3) Buckpass (to UK/France/USSR)
4) Fight (Germany/UK/USSR/France)
Poli 260
Week 4:
Strategic Options
UK/France
o Balance against Germany: preventative war in late 1930s before Germany gets strong
o Buckpass to someone else
Germany
o Fight if no balancing coalition forms (on the opposition)
o Dont fight everyone at once
Ally with USSR while fighting UK/France
USSR
o Bandwagon with Germany until stronger (worry about Germany when they do actually get stronger)
No balancing coalition that happened in WW1 because USSR went with Germans instead of balancing against them why
WW2 occurred
What happened?
UK/France buckpassed until after Germanys invasion of Poland (coordination problem)
o Wont form a credible commitment to fight Germany until the situation worsens
o Germany had occupied Austria, Czech
Germany signed treaty with USSR
o Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (divide parts of Eastern Europe)
Germany attacked USSR in 1941
o Was worried that eventually USSR would turn around and stab Germany, and therefore attacked first
o Extended war on two-fronts due to fear of USSR over time
This brought USSR, UK, France on one side (what ideally should have happened in the beginning)
o Too late to prevent war as it had already started
o However, this alliance brought enough forces in place to win the war against Nazi Germany
o Balancing collation could not prevent war, but could end war
A WORLD WITHOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS (GUEST SPEAKER)
Nuclear Terrorism Real and Urgent Threat
18 known attempted thefts, security lapses
o Pakistan, 2001: scientists meet with bin Laden
o Russia: ongoing issues with corrupt/incompetent officials
o US, 2007: deeply disturbing major nuclear gaffe
NPT 1995 Extension
1. Systematic and progressive efforts toward elimination
2. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by 1996
3. Early conclusion of negotiations for fissile material ban
All of this was stalled largely due to 9/11 struck fear into political system and security systems were then built up in the
world result: nuclear ban slid
o Also due to election of George W. Bush did not want to go through with treaty
2/3 of all national governments voted to agree on discussing a global ban on nuclear weapons
Obstacles
Power politics
Profit-driven military-industrial complex
Virtual mainline media blackout
Ban Ki-Moons 5-Point Proposal
Poli 260
Week 4:
1. A new conventionmutually reinforcing instruments
2. Summit on nuclear disarmament
3. CTBT: rooted in legal obligations
4. Accountability and transparency
5. Progress: limiting missiles, space weapons and conventional arms
Model Nuclear Weapons Convention
1. Never under any circumstances to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons
2. Not develop, test, produce, otherwise acquire, deploy, stockpile, retain, or transfer nuclear materials
3. Time periods for phased elimination
4. International Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
5. Verified by International Monitoring System
A world that has already produced complicated systems to enhance the economic, trade and social benefits of globalization
is certainly capable of producing a law to stop the destruction of globalization.
New Generation, New Attitudes
Develop critical thinking
Appreciation of diversity
Concern for justice
Tolerance of uncertainty
Capacity for creativity
World awareness