The Balance of Power as Worldview: Still viable?

"Man, 'limited by his nature' is 'infinite in his desires'. The world is thus full of opposing forces. Of course, human wisdom has often succeeded in preventing these rivalries from degenerating into murderous conflicts. But the competition of efforts is the condition of life... In the last analysis and as always, it is only in equilibrium that the world will find peace."


Charles De Gaulle



Is this view, expressed by old Charles here but widely accepted still, in accordance with your concept of human nature itself and the way diplomacy should still be conducted in the 21st century. In a rapidly shrinking world, both regarding space and time, is the Balance of Power and it's assumption of different entities acting more or less in their own interest in a "world space" that gives adequate time for all to adapt and react to each others initiatives still a viable way of carrying the human race to it's destiny?


I'd love to hear your views of this.

:)

It's obvious Brownchocolate will be booted................now to the topic.

I personally think diplomacy should be treated as how you act in your own neighborhood. I treat my neighbors with respect and if they ask for help with something I help them, because of this they in turn would help me if I asked. Neighbors look out for each other, neighbors stop to chat with each other and most of all help to protect each other in times of dire need. If instead everyone would stop viewing the world as separate nations and as a neighborhood, diplomacy might take a different turn. But of course as in any neighborhood, you will always have one jerk who ticks off the rest of the neighborhood and usually has the police at their house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildor

"Man, 'limited by his nature' is 'infinite in his desires'. The world is thus full of opposing forces. Of course, human wisdom has often succeeded in preventing these rivalries from degenerating into murderous conflicts. But the competition of efforts is the condition of life... In the last analysis and as always, it is only in equilibrium that the world will find peace."


Charles De Gaulle



Is this view, expressed by old Charles here but widely accepted still, in accordance with your concept of human nature itself and the way diplomacy should still be conducted in the 21st century. In a rapidly shrinking world, both regarding space and time, is the Balance of Power and it's assumption of different entities acting more or less in their own interest in a "world space" that gives adequate time for all to adapt and react to each others initiatives still a viable way of carrying the human race to it's destiny?


I'd love to hear your views of this.

:)

---

I don't understand this 100%.... Can you explain what Charles was saying because I don't want to guess. After you explain I can formulate some ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japanpimp

I don't understand this 100%.... Can you explain what Charles was saying because I don't want to guess. After you explain I can formulate some ideas.

---

My interpretation is that in order to achieve greatness as a society that the world has to set aside their differences and work towards a future envisioned with the creation of the UN. One where nations work together with less disagreements. That each nation needs to stop thinking of their nation alone and have a more worldly view on basically everything they do.

I was afraid I hadn't made myself clear enough... I apologise. :)


Let me put it this way:


There are really two schools of thought regarding international relations, at least in our occidental world. Both stem from different philosophies, or "worldview" of the nature of humankind. Wilsonianism, embodied in world organizations like the League of Nations and the U.N., advocates collective security as the overarching mode of securing sovereignty and settling disputes. It's underlying assumption is that harmony is the natural state of human relations, only disrupted and perverted by the vicissitudes of National Policies and the machinations of ruling elites. In other words, humans everywhere share pretty much the same values, all want peace and security, and all understand the world pretty much the same way, needing only discussion, negotiation and compromise to achieve peaceful coexistence. One can easily see a predominance of the individual over the state in this worldview.

Balance Of Power, or perhaps a better term would be the German Realpolitik or the French Raison D'Etat advocates the pursuit by states of the national interest in order to make life better, both individually and collectively, for their populations. It's underlying assumption is that humans are not the same everywhere and that conflict comes much more naturally than harmony in human affairs. Indeed, harmony can only be achieved from a careful balancing of different, often contradictory, national interests and aspirations. It sees humankind not as essentially peace-loving, but more demonstrably selfish and "infinite in it's desires", and as a dynamic, driven force requiring careful adjusting and canalization both on the national level and in international relations. One can easily see a predominance of, or at the very least an equal importance given to, the state over the individual.
I personally have always preferred this point of view.


But it seems clear to me that Realpolitik or Balance Of Power politics operated best (as much as it did...) in a different world than the one we are moving into. The careful calculations of risks and rewards inherent in a National Interest and Balance Of Power policy presupposes an environment which gives those in power enough space and time to pursue said policy and evaluate it's consequences, before matters get out of hands and circumstances dictate actions (a prime example of this phenomenon is the start of the first World War, which offered a lesson statesmen have been at pains never to forget).

I am not saying anything new when I say this world of ours has shrunk, and is still shrinking both in time and space. I have begun to feel that Balance of Power politics, no matter how much I appreciate it's worldview as more accurate of human nature, may simply prove unviable in a world too small and moving too rapidly for it to function properly. It thus seems, looking at it this way, that Wilsonionism and collective security might be the only path to take for our future (and yes, I am harking back to the underlying theme of the World Court thread of this section of the forum here, in which I fear I may have been unduly harsh... :D ).

It doesn't much matter that I do not agree with Wilsonianism's basic postulate of the essential peaceful nature of humankind if it and collective security are the only viable alternative, though it's easy enough to see that viable will not make it perfect, or even very good! And as I was pondering these matters, it occurred to me that this community might have insights into this that I haven't thought of.

Hence, my searching for a suitable quote and starting this thread.... :)

When it comes to nations, we had better learn to get along with our neighbours because they aren't going to move away, so if you start a fight with them that causes distrust and dislike, that will come back to bite you on the @ss sooner or later. In a shrinking world we are all becoming next door neighbours.

Quote:

---

It's underlying assumption is that harmony is the natural state of human relations, only disrupted and perverted by the vicissitudes of National Policies and the machinations of ruling elites. In other words, humans everywhere share pretty much the same values, all want peace and security, and all understand the world pretty much the same way, needing only discussion, negotiation and compromise to achieve peaceful coexistence. One can easily see a predominance of the individual over the state in this worldview.

---

I disagree with this. In my opinion I have not seen a strong desire for peace and security. The desires I see vary greatly, some people love violence, some people just want to be better then everybody else, pride and greed to me seem to be the predominate desires of humanity.


And history has shown that to be true, only until very recently has the notion that peace is good, really entered into the human conscious. Before that war was the normal state and the desires of all men were to find glory in in its warm and bloody embrace.

In my opinion, Most people don't want peace and security, they want Dominance.

Quote:

---

Balance Of Power, or perhaps a better term would be the German Realpolitik or the French Raison D'Etat advocates the pursuit by states of the national interest in order to make life better, both individually and collectively, for their populations. It's underlying assumption is that humans are not the same everywhere and that conflict comes much more naturally than harmony in human affairs. Indeed, harmony can only be achieved from a careful balancing of different, often contradictory, national interests and aspirations. It sees humankind not as essentially peace-loving, but more demonstrably selfish and "infinite in it's desires", and as a dynamic, driven force requiring careful adjusting and canalization both on the national level and in international relations. One can easily see a predominance of, or at the very least an equal importance given to, the state over the individual.

---

I disagree with this, in my opinion a balance that achieves peace is unattainable. Human desires aren't infinite in my opinion, just great and unyeilding. Compromise cannot bring contentment and balance is a fiction. Few will be satisfied with anything short of total dominance and as such I believe this is flawed.

In addition, the state is merely individuals that reign over other individuals, its not some mechanical and fair entity. Even if Peaceful Balance was possible, the State would never bring it.

Quote:

---

But it seems clear to me that Realpolitik or Balance Of Power politics operated best (as much as it did...) in a different world than the one we are moving into. The careful calculations of risks and rewards inherent in a National Interest and Balance Of Power policy presupposes an environment which gives those in power enough space and time to pursue said policy and evaluate it's consequences, before matters get out of hands and circumstances dictate actions (a prime example of this phenomenon is the start of the first World War, which offered a lesson statesmen have been at pains never to forget).

I am not saying anything new when I say this world of ours has shrunk, and is still shrinking both in time and space. I have begun to feel that Balance of Power politics, no matter how much I appreciate it's worldview as more accurate of human nature, may simply prove unviable in a world too small and moving too rapidly for it to function properly. It thus seems, looking at it this way, that Wilsonionism and collective security might be the only path to take for our future (and yes, I am harking back to the underlying theme of the World Court thread of this section of the forum here, in which I fear I may have been unduly harsh... ).

It doesn't much matter that I do not agree with Wilsonianism's basic postulate of the essential peaceful nature of humankind if it and collective security are the only viable alternative, though it's easy enough to see that viable will not make it perfect, or even very good! And as I was pondering these matters, it occurred to me that this community might have insights into this that I haven't thought of.

Hence, my searching for a suitable quote and starting this thread....

---

IMO Wilsonionism is not a better path as its inherent flaw in the understanding of human nature will simply leave the world a powder keg. Irreconcilable ideologies attempting to find compromise will fail and then they shall turn to war. The time Wilsonionism buys will simply lead to increasing polarization and a more devastating war.

Also the world is shrinking and with a smaller world comes increased stress. Coping measures with stress are varied, but inadequate. When those coping measures fail, people and animals become violent and will just be looking for an excuse to lash out. I I believe that even should war not come, the increasing rate of violent crime will in the end make such a success moot.

I don't believe there is any way forward but back, the world must be made bigger again. This is my opinion.

Wildor, this topic is hard to discuss without getting into specific examples of a political nature which is a no-no.
Sorry mate but that's why it hasn't been more popular I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildor

"Man, 'limited by his nature' is 'infinite in his desires'. The world is thus full of opposing forces. Of course, human wisdom has often succeeded in preventing these rivalries from degenerating into murderous conflicts. But the competition of efforts is the condition of life... In the last analysis and as always, it is only in equilibrium that the world will find peace."


Charles De Gaulle

---

I'm not sure I believe that man is "limited by his nature" or "infinite in his desires". The former quote is obviously the realist philosophy, and as I've argued with Conrad before, for this to make sense one has to accept that the masses are some kind of apocalyptic disaster zone, guilty of crimes large and small, from being selfish and cruel all the way up to not knowing what fork is used for the fish course. The latter quote is obviously De Gaulle's characterization of a Liberal Internationalist position. That's very much the diplomatic approach I prefer (I'm a utopian) but again, I'm just not sure I buy into the assertion here. I don't think that people are "infinite in their desires", I think that an ability to imagine is impacted and reduced by many factors, such as education, literacy, internet access, health, diet, etc. I think people like to imagine a perfect world, but what people actually want is much more grounded in the practicality of their everyday experience. "World peace sounds nice, but when are you going to finish building that new elementary school?"

In other words, I am more optimistic about the masses than De Gaulle was, and I am less confident in people's ability to imagine than De Gaulle was. He identifies a tension that I don't accept necessarily exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildor

I was afraid I hadn't made myself clear enough... I apologise. :)


Let me put it this way:


There are really two schools of thought regarding international relations, at least in our occidental world. Both stem from different philosophies, or "worldview" of the nature of humankind. Wilsonianism, embodied in world organizations like the League of Nations and the U.N., advocates collective security as the overarching mode of securing sovereignty and settling disputes. It's underlying assumption is that harmony is the natural state of human relations, only disrupted and perverted by the vicissitudes of National Policies and the machinations of ruling elites. In other words, humans everywhere share pretty much the same values, all want peace and security, and all understand the world pretty much the same way, needing only discussion, negotiation and compromise to achieve peaceful coexistence. One can easily see a predominance of the individual over the state in this worldview.

Balance Of Power, or perhaps a better term would be the German Realpolitik or the French Raison D'Etat advocates the pursuit by states of the national interest in order to make life better, both individually and collectively, for their populations. It's underlying assumption is that humans are not the same everywhere and that conflict comes much more naturally than harmony in human affairs. Indeed, harmony can only be achieved from a careful balancing of different, often contradictory, national interests and aspirations. It sees humankind not as essentially peace-loving, but more demonstrably selfish and "infinite in it's desires", and as a dynamic, driven force requiring careful adjusting and canalization both on the national level and in international relations. One can easily see a predominance of, or at the very least an equal importance given to, the state over the individual.
I personally have always preferred this point of view.


But it seems clear to me that Realpolitik or Balance Of Power politics operated best (as much as it did...) in a different world than the one we are moving into. The careful calculations of risks and rewards inherent in a National Interest and Balance Of Power policy presupposes an environment which gives those in power enough space and time to pursue said policy and evaluate it's consequences, before matters get out of hands and circumstances dictate actions (a prime example of this phenomenon is the start of the first World War, which offered a lesson statesmen have been at pains never to forget).

I am not saying anything new when I say this world of ours has shrunk, and is still shrinking both in time and space. I have begun to feel that Balance of Power politics, no matter how much I appreciate it's worldview as more accurate of human nature, may simply prove unviable in a world too small and moving too rapidly for it to function properly. It thus seems, looking at it this way, that Wilsonionism and collective security might be the only path to take for our future (and yes, I am harking back to the underlying theme of the World Court thread of this section of the forum here, in which I fear I may have been unduly harsh... :D ).

It doesn't much matter that I do not agree with Wilsonianism's basic postulate of the essential peaceful nature of humankind if it and collective security are the only viable alternative, though it's easy enough to see that viable will not make it perfect, or even very good! And as I was pondering these matters, it occurred to me that this community might have insights into this that I haven't thought of.

Hence, my searching for a suitable quote and starting this thread.... :)

---

Ok, this is going to require some thinking. Some of these things are new to me. Let me digest it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boleslav

I'm not sure I believe that man is "limited by his nature" or "infinite in his desires". The former quote is obviously the realist philosophy, and as I've argued with Conrad before, for this to make sense one has to accept that the masses are some kind of apocalyptic disaster zone, guilty of crimes large and small, from being selfish and cruel all the way up to not knowing what fork is used for the fish course. The latter quote is obviously De Gaulle's characterization of a Liberal Internationalist position. That's very much the diplomatic approach I prefer (I'm a utopian) but again, I'm just not sure I buy into the assertion here. I don't think that people are "infinite in their desires", I think that an ability to imagine is impacted and reduced by many factors, such as education, literacy, internet access, health, diet, etc. I think people like to imagine a perfect world, but what people actually want is much more grounded in the practicality of their everyday experience. "World peace sounds nice, but when are you going to finish building that new elementary school?"

In other words, I am more optimistic about the masses than De Gaulle was, and I am less confident in people's ability to imagine than De Gaulle was. He identifies a tension that I don't accept necessarily exists.

---

Good Lord! Now I very much regret putting this quote at the start of my thread. I don't think De Gaulle himself meant for this to be taken quite so litterally, and was just describing a fondamental tension in humanity's make-up here...

At any rate, this was meant as an introduction to a theme. On which I would very much like your opinion Bole... :) :)

First of all, I would like to slowly strangle Wildor for introducing me to this topic (joking). It is the first time I have herd of Wilsonianism and Balance Of Power/Realpolitik and it took me a while to read up on it. It is very complex topic much like Hegemony. So thank you Wildor for introducing this complex topic to me which required me to do a couple hours of reading just to learn more about it. But very interesting stuff.

Second of all, I too believe that humans are inheriently selfish and that our natural state is not peaceful or harmonious. I too believe that conflict is the natural state of humankind and that humankind needs to be "channeled" or "guided" on national and internation levels. Heck, we need to be guided on many levels.

To illustrate, think of Balance Of Power/Realpolitik as a discussion moderator. They need to "guide" and "channel" the discussion. Debate groups, discussion groups, internet forums, business meetings, etc... often have moderators to help guide the group. Have you ever been in a college class or business meeting without a moderator? The discussion often times takes wild turns and arguments often insue. Unmoderated discussion/debate groups illustrate the natural state of humankind. Not harmonious at all.

Now, to answer your question. Basically you asking if Balance of Power will continue to be a viable ideology as the world progresses. Will "moderating" humankind on a national and international level become more difficult as we (countries) become increasingly interconnected politically, culturally and economically? No. Each country/nation will always have it's own "space" and others will always have sufficient time to react and adapt. Why? Because the time required to react and adapt will always more or less match the time required to push initiatives. Meaning, both the initiator and the reactor can move at the same speed. It's not like one nation/country is 200 years behind the others in technology and communication which provide ability to push initiatives quickly. So it's not like one fighter is extremely fast and the other is extremely slow. They can both move at the same speed. As long as nations can react just as fast as other nations initiate, and the "moderators" of nations can also react just as fast as the nations play "tug of war", then Balance of Power will be viable.

Lastly, after writing this my brain feels funny...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildor

It's underlying assumption is that humans are not the same everywhere and that conflict comes much more naturally than harmony in human affairs. Indeed, harmony can only be achieved from a careful balancing of different, often contradictory, national interests and aspirations. It sees humankind not as essentially peace-loving, but more demonstrably selfish and "infinite in it's desires", and as a dynamic, driven force requiring careful adjusting and canalization both on the national level and in international relations.

---

i too agree with this philosophy of human nature, to the extent that the reason we are individuals is our differences, that differences should be respected not eliminated. that the required respect is more about balance and the individuals ability to be flexible in favor of the whole without loosing ones identity.

Quote:

---

But it seems clear to me that Realpolitik or Balance Of Power politics operated best (as much as it did...) in a different world than the one we are moving into. The careful calculations of risks and rewards inherent in a National Interest and Balance Of Power policy presupposes an environment which gives those in power enough space and time to pursue said policy and evaluate it's consequences, before matters get out of hands and circumstances dictate actions (a prime example of this phenomenon is the start of the first World War, which offered a lesson statesmen have been at pains never to forget).

---

here i agree with what japanpimp has to say about the fluidity of conversation in reassurance to you that your championed method is still valid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japanpimp

Now, to answer your question. Basically you asking if Balance of Power will continue to be a viable ideology as the world progresses. Will "moderating" humankind on a national and international level become more difficult as we (countries) become increasingly interconnected politically, culturally and economically? No. Each country/nation will always have it's own "space" and others will always have sufficient time to react and adapt. Why? Because the time required to react and adapt will always more or less match the time required to push initiatives. Meaning, both the initiator and the reactor can move at the same speed. It's not like one nation/country is 200 years behind the others in technology and communication which provide ability to push initiatives quickly. So it's not like one fighter is extremely fast and the other is extremely slow. They can both move at the same speed. As long as nations can react just as fast as other nations initiate, and the "moderators" of nations can also react just as fast as the nations play "tug of war", then Balance of Power will be viable.

Lastly, after writing this my brain feels funny...

---

at this point i would like to interject my own thoughts on the matter. Aba said earlier (and i'm sorry i didnt grab that quote as well to give proper credit) that the world is becoming a neighborhood. this i would agree with. in what previous time period could i chat with people who live on opposite sides of the content and world from me as easily as i chat with the people who live in the same house as i do? in what previous time would international matters of interest be known so extensively that aid for disasters is ready and waiting for those in need comparatively instantaneously?
the world we live in now is fast paced and gaining speed. information is available to the masses like never before, as ever information is a double edged sword and an additive drug. we always want more but dont always know what to do with the information we have.
this will make the balancing act trickier as well as easier. (yes i know that i just said that, but i'm talking about balance remember, it always gets easier when it gets harder, other wise it wouldnt be balanced would it ;) )
in short (knowing i havent been) dont give up on it Wildor, i have faith that it will continue to be a viable political tool.

"Wilsonianism" is just a special case of "Realpolitik"; the general theory holds true regardless. Warfare merely becomes less evident - techonologic competitions, economic struggles, global public opinion...

And Rodri - think of it as abstract philosophy with a potential application to politics. I avoid debating religion by instead referring to religions as the font of certain philosophic concepts, as an observed cause rather than a living changing entity.

EDIT: By the way - well put, japanpimp. Covered all the main points properly, and the analogy holds true... unless the individual can be mentally dominated wholesale, in which case the argument becomes moot.