Balance the World

[Ageofbob]

It's always kinda bugged me how the world always seems to center around one nation in particular. It's always one nation that leads the rest, and that the world looks on with interest. It's always one nation that dominates conversation, and that inspires fear and awe in there enemies and allies. Always one that can expand there power and influence beyond there (impressive) borders. Always one that dominates politics and world opinion in regions beyond there immediate neighbours and region.

Some that come immediantly to mind are the USA, the British Empire, the Roman Empire and the Mongolian Empire, as well as the recently resurgent People's Republic of China.

So tell me, AH-commers, what can you do (I have little knowledge of history, although I have a great interest in it) to level the playing field? What can you do, so that no nation sways public opinion more then the rest, so that no nation can bluster and whine, and get what they want? What can you do so that any wars they wage will be on equal terms, and with no clear winner?

What can YOU do, so that no nation rules history atop there empire of lesser men and iron swords, great democracy and brutal tyranny, great wealth and massive manpower?

Answer me this, great scholars of years that did not occur and empires that did not stand, great storytellers of people that did not exist and there stories that never happened. Answer me this.

 

[Chargone]

well, step one is to not use humans as your sentient species of choice.
step two is probably to not have things set on earth.


yeeeeah. i don't think it's really possible. if nothing else the simple fact that not all people are identical will tilt the balance at Some point, and once someone starts winning, the more balanced things were before hand, the more likely they are to win again, and the more they will probably win, and thus the more they become exactly that focus you're trying to avoid. unfortunate but, i believe, true.

interesting question though (and your last paragraph amuses me greatly)

 

[SavoyTruffle]

A more balkanized world can do, perhaps; without a single nation dominating both American continents, or a Europe with Britain kept separate?

 

[perfectgeneral]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_resolution_research

Peacekeeping Research Findings

Peacekeeper mediation is done at the local level. Mediation at the intergovernmental level is a much older practice that has recently come under study with statistical analyses of large samples of historical mediations (Bercovitch & Houston, 2000). Among the findings in this research are:

• Mediation is more likely to be successful when the parties are of equal power, when they have been friendly in the past, when there have been relatively few fatalities in the period before mediation, when the mediator is of high rank, and when mediation comes after a test of strength between the parties.
• The latter finding is compatible with ripeness theory (Zartman, 2000), which was developed from comparative case studies of violent ethno-political conflicts. This theory holds that two conditions are necessary for disputants to enter into and move forward in negotiation, bilateral or mediated: (a) both sides perceive that they are in a hurting stalemate, and (b) both sides develop optimism about the outcome of mediation—a “perceived way out.”

[edit] Putting Conflict Research to Use

Several types of problem solving (interactive conflict resolution) workshops have been developed in the last few decades for repairing faulty international and inter-group relations. These are usually held over a period of several days, and attended by mid-level opinion leaders and decision makers from both sides of a conflict, under the leadership of scholar-practitioners. The aims of these workshops are to teach the parties about conflict in general and their conflict in particular, to forge understanding between the parties and, if possible, to develop joint projects that will contribute to reconciliation. Evaluation studies have shown that these workshops improve attitudes toward the other side, increase complexity of thinking about the conflict, and facilitate further communication with people on the other side (Fisher, 1997). There is also evidence that some alumni of these workshops have later contributed to high level negotiations between the conflicting parties.
Research on conflict resolution is still in its infancy and there is much more work to be done. But the findings reported above suggest that this field of study has made a good beginning.

Balkans can de-balkanise. There is no stable formula. Negotiation remains dynamic. Whether the top-table has places set for one, two or many makes little difference. The keyword here is balance. Balance of threat, balance of hurt, balance of power. Any transition needs to be gradual enough to renegotiate terms, if conflict is to be avoided even partly. No sudden cuts or arms races.

 

[Elfwine]

Most of European history after the fall of the western Roman Empire has been very roughly balanced, at least in the sense of not having an overpowering hegemon.

I don't think its possible, in a situation of conflict (and not one addressed as talked about in post #3), for everything to be on equal terms, but you can have a situation like that of Louis XIV - where his attempts to be hegemon were blocked by roughly equally powerful (all totaled) enemies.

 

[Grey Wolf]

We remember the times when there was a single powerful voice, but not so much the times when there WAS balance.

Afterall, during the Clod War, the USA and the USSR had equal attention in most Third World countries, and you also had the fun of the Non-Aligned bloc

Russia is a good player in the balancing game

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Most of European history after the fall of the western Roman Empire has been very roughly balanced, at least in the sense of not having an overpowering hegemon.

I don't think its possible, in a situation of conflict (and not one addressed as talked about in post #3), for everything to be on equal terms, but you can have a situation like that of Louis XIV - where his attempts to be hegemon were blocked by roughly equally powerful (all totaled) enemies.

Pretty much. In fact, you could say that the overwhelming tenor of European diplomacy from 1648 to 1815 (and even later) was keeping a balance of power.

 

[Stateless]

Working with an estimate of 20565 total nuclear warheads (including inactive ones) and 192 UN members, give each UN member 107 global reach nuclear weapons each. There'll be a balance of power, and now any country attempting to increase its power faces definite vaporisation.

 

[Ageofbob]

So what I'm hearing is that humans are fundamentally aggresive in nature, and that any balance that occured was short lived, as one nation would tip the scales in there favour through war or diplomacy. And that the only way to a equal world would be another world entirely, or else giving everyone weapons of mass destruction to deter potential power-grabs?

And as Grey Wolf and others said, balance was acheived, although it is not remembered as such, and was quickly forgotten.

 

[jycee]

So what I'm hearing is that humans are fundamentally aggresive in nature, and that any balance that occured was short lived, as one nation would tip the scales in there favour through war or diplomacy. And that the only way to a equal world would be another world entirely, or else giving everyone weapons of mass destruction to deter potential power-grabs?

And as Grey Wolf and others said, balance was acheived, although it is not remembered as such, and was quickly forgotten.

Not necessarily, following one leader (even emerging on-top) is not necessarily the product of violence. But humans are opportunistic, whether this leads to violence of not is another matter.

If you have a balance of power between, say 5 nations each one of those 5 is still going to act on what is best for them. If keeping the balance is best for all 5 then the balance is maintained. This was the case in Europe for almost 500 years. At times, however, one nation can believe that maintaining balance is no longer in its best interest (Germany before WWI) and the balance tilts. Returning to balance is very difficult so racing to the top is generally the best option for everyone.

Also take in mind that those 5 are still above the rest. So there is still a pyramid of power. There cannot be absolute balance because different geographic regions have different resources. A nation is not guaranteed to have everything needs within its limited geography. Thus trade happens and those with more have an advantage.

 

[MNP]

So what I'm hearing is that humans are fundamentally aggresive in nature, and that any balance that occured was short lived, as one nation would tip the scales in there favour through war or diplomacy. And that the only way to a equal world would be another world entirely, or else giving everyone weapons of mass destruction to deter potential power-grabs?

And as Grey Wolf and others said, balance was acheived, although it is not remembered as such, and was quickly forgotten.

We're actually talking about a very short period though. It's pointless to say the world is balanced before a human state has the capability to affect the entire world.

 

[Chargone]

the way the question was asked made it look like you needed balance in a lot of different areas, tech, diplomacy, military force, resources, all sorts of things.

that's why i said it wasn't possible.

enough balance that no one can make further territorial gains, or that anyone who starts getting more powerful gets smacked in the face, is entirely doable, of course. at least for a while. then someone finds an economic edge, or a diplomatic lever, or a technological development, that makes them a focus again. maybe not militarily, but in some manner.

and if the cold war is 'balance' i think we're better off without it. the Soviet Union sucked and the USA seemed bound and determined to make everywhere Else suck :-S

 

[Tyr]

So what I'm hearing is that humans are fundamentally aggresive in nature, and that any balance that occured was short lived, as one nation would tip the scales in there favour through war or diplomacy. And that the only way to a equal world would be another world entirely, or else giving everyone weapons of mass destruction to deter potential power-grabs?

And as Grey Wolf and others said, balance was acheived, although it is not remembered as such, and was quickly forgotten.

Life is fundamentally aggressive in nature.
Compared to other animals humans are actually among the more peaceful.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Life is fundamentally aggressive in nature.
Compared to other animals humans are actually among the more peaceful.

On the other hand, we're far more efficient at killing.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

Even if "balance" in the narrow sense might be a rare and instable thing, the concentration on one country (as Ageofbob stated) is even rarer.

For instance, we may directly conclude from the question that the "Age of Bob" doesn't reach back far enough to have any memory of the Cold War ... you're young, guy; right?

As for the more distant past, this may rather be an effect of historiography than history: Concentrating on one person or object tidies up complex relations and enables us to find some structure in a complicated world. So the concentration on one country need not have taken place in reality, but it takes place in our minds when we focus on what we find most interesting.

 

[Snake Featherston]

One way to do this is to ensure that there are several Great Powers of more or less equal military power, but none of them is more than Primus Inter Pares while geopolitically power politics as such see too many competing interests for one to start maneuvering all the others. It's the most likely way to "balance" the world in that fashion.