Quote Originally Posted by Wildor View Post
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.
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 View Post
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.