The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths, and Models
The balance of power is the oldest and most invoked idea in the study of international relations. The rivalries of ancient city-states and modern great powers alike would be difficult to understand without it. The end of the Cold War, however, ushered in an era of U.S. dominance in which traditional great-power balancing has been noticeably absent -- and so scholars are again debating the idea's merits. This book, by a distinguished British scholar, provides a welcome intellectual history of the many uses and meanings of the term "balance of power." What Little finds most striking is the variation in how the logic of balancing has been understood. To some, power balancing was the inevitable and conflict-ridden byproduct of anarchy and insecurity; to others, it was the unifying principle of a stable and cooperative international society. Little spends most of the book examining the balance-of-power ideas of four leading postwar realist scholars: Hans Morgenthau, Hedley Bull, Kenneth Waltz, and John Mearsheimer. He tries to assemble a composite theory, but this is less interesting than his overall message: the balance of power is not an immutable law of nature so much as a way of thinking about the world.
Related
Americans generally belittle the role of ethnic nationalism in politics. But in fact, it corresponds to some enduring propensities of the human spirit, it is galvanized by modernization, and in one form or another, it will drive global politics for generations to come. Once ethnic nationalism has captured the imagination of groups in a multiethnic society, ethnic disaggregation or partition is often the least bad answer.
Optimists argue that Hamas' participation in mainstream Palestinian politics will spur the group to moderate its radical goals and terrorist tactics. But history shows that political participation co-opts militants only under very specific conditions -- and almost none of those exist in the Palestinian Authority today.
The first U.S. occupation of Haiti lasted almost 20 years and, by creating a modern military, buttressed the forces that have historically polarized the nation. Now American soldiers are back. Will we repeat those mistakes? Or can Haiti-a nation born of a slave revolt, isolated by the discrimination of anxious European and American powers, and inflicted with a parasitic upper class-finally overcome its past? Real democracy will require economic transformation. America must pick a side in the class warfare that has immobilized Haiti for 200 years.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.