Reference News Network, January 29 report: The U.S. magazine "Foreign Policy" website published an article titled "The Balance of Power Theory Again Proves Correct" on January 23. The author is Stephen Walt, a professor at Harvard University in the United States. The following is a compilation:
Are we finally seeing countries that used to be friendly with the United States begin to oppose it? This shift is a major change in international affairs. If this indeed happened, it is entirely due to the short-sighted strategy of the Trump administration and the predatory impulses of a president who has become increasingly erratic.
Over the past century, the rise of the United States as a global hegemon was an exception to the traditional balance of power theory, because Washington's overwhelming position did not prompt many countries to unite to contain it. Although the United States did face an opposing alliance led by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, many countries in the world still saw the United States as a valuable ally, even if they sometimes disagreed with some of its policies. But as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, that world has become a thing of the past. He said, "In a world of great power competition, middle powers face a choice: compete with each other for favor, or unite to create a third influential path."
I believe that the main reason why countries form alliances is to deal with threats, not just to enhance their strength. Although small or isolated countries sometimes accommodate threatening powers in a "dependent" way, the more typical response is to maintain a balance of relations with threatening powers, preferably by forming partnerships with other countries.
The threat balance theory explains why the United States' Cold War alliance system was larger and stronger than the Warsaw Pact. The threat balance theory can also help us understand the seemingly anomalous phenomenon of the "unipolar moment" after the Cold War. When the United States was the sole superpower, only a few countries openly took balancing actions. American Cold War allies still chose to stand with it, for reasons including maintaining institutional inertia and avoiding uncertainty. They believed that America's protection was a rather good deal, and Washington's worst impulses were always directed at other countries. European leaders often questioned America's judgment, worried that mistakes like the 2003 invasion of Iraq could have negative effects on them, but their actions were limited to "soft balancing," without trying to re-align or become independent. In contrast, countries such as Russia actively balanced against the United States because they were more concerned about the potential threats from the United States.
Since the beginning of his second presidential term, Donald Trump has done almost everything to challenge the threat balance theory.
He publicly and repeatedly claimed expansionist intentions toward Canada, Greenland, and Panama, but his ambitions go beyond that. He and his closest advisors seem to believe that international law and sovereignty principles are meaningless, and that strong powers can take whatever they want. He repeatedly waved the threat of tariffs, forcing other countries to make economic and political concessions. He used force against many countries, and often for very questionable reasons. He allowed a group of government "hired guns" (such as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to act recklessly, which made other countries no longer see the United States as a stable and well-regulated country. Whether domestically or internationally, the U.S. government has behaved like a dangerous bully and an uncontrolled raider.
In a way, this behavior is strange. Smart predators try to hide their true intentions for as long as possible, as Trump did during his first term. But instead of being punished, he won the election again and could do as he pleased.
American close allies acted slowly in responding to Trump's belligerent behavior. For them, reducing ties with the United States and uniting to confront it was costly. Therefore, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol chose to use flattery, symbolic submission, and concessions to try to maintain most of the benefits of their close relationship with Washington.
This might be worth trying, but clearly the gamble didn't work. Trump's words and actions exposed the drawbacks of this approach: people cannot tolerate a predator who believes all previous agreements can be renegotiated at any time, and any concession is seen as tolerating "greed."
Therefore, as the threat balance theory predicted, America's former allies are gradually moving away to reduce their dependence on an unreliable, potentially hostile United States, while they are also engaging in new relationships with each other and with some of America's rivals. When the Canadian prime minister flew to Beijing and outlined the "new pillars of strategic partnership" at the Davos World Economic Forum, it was clear that the tectonic plates of the world were shifting. After decades of weakness, European leaders seem to be planning new paths, because they have no other choice. (Translated by Pan Xiaoyan)
Original: toutiao.com/article/7600783108564091426/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author himself.