The Balance of Power as Worldview: Still viable?

[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... ).

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....