Introduction

The efforts of global powers to establish a global system to create a balance of power in the world
to suit their interest are the root cause of global peace, conflict & refugee crisis.
The above statement is our debate topic & we are supporting the statement. Before we present our
arguments to support it, the following questions should be answered:

Who are global powers?

What is balance of power?
What is their (global powers) interest?
What is global peace, conflict & refugee crisis?

The answers to above terms will provide us clear view on the esteemed statement. The terms are
discussed as follows:
Global Power: There are 10 powerful countries, the 10 great powers that can rock the world. They
have been ranked by their fire power & ability to shape both their regional environments and the
international system as a whole; among all the worlds countries these are the ones with the most
ability to affect global politics by their choices. The global power rankings are revised every year.
Until 2016, the top 10 global powers are as follows:
1. United States of America
2. United Kingdom
3. Germany
4. China
5. Japan
6. Russia
7. India
8. Turkey
9. Iran
10. South Korea
Balance of Power: In international relations, the posture and policy of a nation or group of nations
protecting itself against another nation or group of nations by matching its power against the power
of the other side. States can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their
own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or
by adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances.
The Interest of Global Powers: The scope of balance of power is vast. The countries that belong to
global powers have their own set of interests, objectives & missions which are integrated to the
balance of power. The common interests of these countries are1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Achieving more power than other countries.

Keeping the power through domination & diplomatic relations.
Increasing the wealth.
Keeping upward business & economic progress.
Making military sector stronger than others through armaments.

1 | Page

6. Gain control over the valuable resources of the world, such as- oil, gas, iron, gold, diamond,
coal, uranium.
However, there could be more interest based on their convenience. In addition, confidential interests
& hidden agendas of global powers are also important determinants in balance of power.
Global Peace, Conflict & Refugee crisis:
Global peace: Global peace or peace on Earth is an ideal state of freedom, peace, and happiness
among and within all nations and peoples. This ideal of world non-violence provides a basis for
peoples and nations to willingly cooperate, either voluntarily or by virtue of a system of governance
that prevents warfare.
Global Conflict: Global conflict is simply conflicts across different nations of the globe. Perhaps
more than at any time in our history, our world is engaged in conflict. From the UK and USA
engaged at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, through to insurgencies in Algeria, Burma and Columbia,
civil wars in African nations, and conflict between people in China, Iran and Israel, we see that we
are in a fragile landscape.
Refugee Crisis: A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of
persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. When the number
of refugees increases by huge measure, then it refers to refugee crisis. Worldwide, 19.5 million
refugees have been forced to seek sanctuary abroad. All Governments have a duty to help them. But
most rich countries treat refugees as somebody elses problem. Roughly 86% of all refugees are
from Middle Eastern, African and South Asian countries.
Since all the necessary terms relating to the topic have been discussed, we can proceed to the critical
part of the statement, that is- How the efforts of global powers to create a balance of power
causes global peace, conflict & refugee crisis and why it is the only root cause?
We have divided our study into 3 parts - Global peace, Global Conflict & Refugee Crisis, to get a
resourceful insight regarding the topic.

Discussion

2 | Page

Global Peace:
In this part we will discuss- How the efforts of global powers to create a balance of power
causes global peace & why it is the only root cause?
To support the statement we have included the following examples of efforts to keep world peace by
peacekeeping organization that is actually controlled by global powers.
1. USIP- United States Institute of Peace:
The United States Institute of Peace works to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflict around
the world. USIP does this by engaging directly in conflict zones and by providing analysis,
education, and resources to those working for peace.
The Institute was established by an act of U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President
Ronald Reagan in 1984.
USIP brings together experts and practitioners to:

Identify the best ways to counter violent extremism and promote religious tolerance.

Develop practical tools to improve the rule of law in chaotic, post-conflict settings.

Rigorously test approaches to conflict prevention and peace building to ensure the U.S. is
using the most constructive and cost effective tools to protect U.S. interests without violence.

Use traditional media, social networking and emerging technologies to track, prevent, and
resolve violent conflict

USIPS work advancing peace and U.S. national security interests includes:

In Afghanistan, USIP works to promote peaceful elections through support of community

radio, helping coordinate local candidate and electoral forums, and engaging youth. USIP
maintains an office in Kabul to remain connected to local equities as American troops come
home.

In Colombia, USIP is active in the peace process that is bringing an end to a decades-long
conflict. USIP has provided local organizations with technical and financial assistance
ensured that women and youth are part of the peace process, and serves as a trusted liaison
among all parties.

In Africa, USIP implements Generation Change, a program dedicated to empowering and

building the capacity of emerging youth leaders in their communities. In Nigeria, USIP
organized the first ever Northern Nigeria Governors Forum which addressed important peace
and stability issues, and in South Sudan USIP has created a radio drama intended to help
young people respect differences.

3 | Page

USIPs Academy trains U.S. and international military, civil society leaders, and practitioners
in Washington, in the field and online on effective peacekeeping, community building,
conflict management and humanitarian operations necessary for sustained peace.

2. UN- United Nations peacekeeping:

Peacekeeping by the United Nations is a role held by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations as
"a unique and dynamic instrument developed by the Organization as a way to help countries torn by
conflict to create the conditions for lasting peace
Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in
implementing the peace agreements they may have signed.
We have, built up an impressive record of peacekeeping achievements over more than 60 years of
our existence, including winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
Since 1948, the UN has helped end conflicts and foster reconciliation by conducting successful
peacekeeping operations in dozens of countries, including Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Mozambique, Namibia and Tajikistan.
Since its establishment in 1945, the United Nations has been active in extensive areas including
peace-keeping, arms control, the North-South problem, social and human rights issues. Following
the progress made in East-West dialogue and other recent changes in the international situation, it
has stepped up its activities while its roles and responsibilities are being expanded. In the area of
peace-keeping, in particular, the United Nations has played an important role in Namibia achieving
independence. - the last colony in Africa - and in the general elections held in Nicaragua in February
1990. The peace-keeping operations of the United Nations, traditionally geared to truce supervision
activities, has expanded into more comprehensive activities including observation of elections, as
occasioned by its operations in Namibia. In August 1990, the U.N. Security Council decided on
comprehensive and mandatory sanctions, for the first time in the past 22 years against Iraq's invasion
of Kuwait. At the same time, international cooperation extended through the United Nations and its
organizations has become progressively important in dealing with global issues such as drugs and the
environment.
3. China and Russia:
Ties between China and Russia have continued to gain a very good trend for growth since early this
year.
The two nations' cooperation in relation to multinational organizations like the United Nations and
major international affairs have also been very fruitful. Together with other member countries, they
have promoted the setting up of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the cooperation
in the areas of security and trade so that the organization would play an increasingly important role
in safeguarding regional peace and stability and boosting regional economic development.

4 | Page

China's diplomacy with neighboring countries has also recorded new progress. Premier Zhu Rongji's
India and Bangladesh visit at the beginning of the year and Vice-President Hu Jintao's Malaysia and
Singapore tour in April have further boosted China's ties with these nations.
China has also maintained "family-like" high-level visits with friendly neighbors like Vietnam and
Laos, provided timely aid to war-devastated Afghanistan and actively participated in the country's
post-war reconstruction.
With regard to the India-Pakistan tensions, China, as a friend of both countries and their biggest
neighbor, has spared no effort to persuade them to be at peace again. During the summit meeting of
the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia, Jiang met separately with
both Indian and Pakistani leaders, underlining the importance of maintaining friendly ties between
the two sides.
China has also shown its clear-cut support to the improvement of relations between the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (DPRk) and the Republic of Korea (ROK), the improvement of the
relations between DPRK and the U.S, and actively promoted peace and stability on the peninsula.
4. U.S. Contributions to Peace and Security in Europe since WWII:
Europe is an indispensable partner with which the United States tackles key global security
challenges, and advancing transatlantic peace and security has stood at the heart of U.S. foreign
policy for more than a century. The United States works hand-in-hand with our European allies and
partners -- bilaterally and through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European
Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) -- to advance our
shared goal of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace.
As Europe emerged from the devastation of World War II, the United States implemented the
Marshall Plan (officially called the European Recovery Program) in 1948 to provide $11 billion in
economic support to rebuild European economies. In April 1949, the United States joined 11 allies
to create NATO. NATOs membership has since grown six times and now comprises 28 members.
NATOs Article 5 guarantees the security of all NATO members, declaring that an attack on one of
these allies will be considered as an attack on all. U.S. contributions to NATO significantly enhance
transatlantic stability and security, and since the end of the Cold War, the Alliance has transformed
itself to meet the global security challenges of the 21st century. NATOs Open Door to new
members has brought peace, stability, and security to Europe, contributing to the spread of
democracy and prosperity across the continent.
The United States has also had a strong partnership with the European Union since the first U.S.
observers went to the European Coal and Steel Community in 1953. For decades, the United States
and the EU have partnered together to promote peace and stability, sustain democracy and
development around the world, respond to global challenges, contribute to the expansion of world
trade and closer economic relations, and build bridges across the Atlantic. The EU, which today
includes 28 Member States and more than 500 million people, works to expand economic stability,
prosperity, and security across Europe and beyond. The United States and the EU are strengthening
our economic ties through negotiations to form a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
5 | Page

Deriving from the historic 1975 Helsinki Accords and the Conference on Security and Cooperation
in Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is the worlds largest and most
comprehensive regional security organization -- with 57 participating states spanning from
Vancouver to Vladivostok and 11 partner countries. The OSCE is a political forum in which the
United States works with other participating states to build a Europe and Eurasia whole, free, and at
peace; to promote good governance; to build confidence and security through arms control; to
resolve protracted conflicts in the OSCE region; and to encourage democracy and respect for human
rights. The United States supports the contributions of the OSCE across all three dimensions of its
comprehensive security mandate and values, in particular the work of the 15 OSCE field missions.
Throughout the Cold War, the United States stood firmly by our NATO allies in confronting the
threats posed to their peace and security by the Soviet Union. From the 1947 Truman Doctrine and
1948 Berlin Airlift to today, our policies are designed to promote freedom and democracy in Europe.
When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the United States was quick to support German reunification
within NATO. The United States led the efforts to bring peace and security to the countries of the
former Yugoslavia through the painful years of the Balkans crises, and we have supported the
European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations of newly independent countries.

Global Conflict:
In this part we will discuss- How the efforts of global powers to create a balance of power
causes global conflict & why it is the only root cause?
6 | Page

From the inception of civilization, the balance of power had been working mordantly among all the
nations. In quest of power global, conflict occurred countless times. During the course of history the
conflicts had evolved to suit the growing power of the nations. So, we have taken real examples of
significant global conflicts & phenomenon of the world history to represent the statement.
1. World War I:
The origins of World War I remain controversial and debated questions. The war began in the
Balkans in late July 1914 and ended in November 1918, leaving 17 million dead and 20 million
wounded.
World War I was a watershed moment for America, a time when an isolationist nation involved itself
in world affairs and began the rise to the economic and military power that America is today. After
keeping out of the conflict that had been ravaging Europe for nearly three years, President Woodrow
Wilson took America to war only months after winning an election on the slogan "He Kept us Out of
War." Claiming that American intervention was needed to "make the world safe for democracy,"
Wilson sent over two million men to Europe, of who over 100,000 would never return. World War I
marked the end of the old order in Europe, and the beginning of what has been called the "American
Century."
The United States was not a nation ready for war in 1914. With a small army and a pitiful navy, the
U.S. was no match for either side in the great conflagration in Flanders' Fields. As the war continued,
however, German use of submarines to sink neutral shippingincluding, most famously, the sinking
of the Lusitania in 1915 with the death of almost 1,200 people, 128 of them Americansbrought
American public opinion to the Allied side. Constant British propaganda efforts, culminating in the
Zimmermann Telegram of February 1917, coupled with the German resumption of unrestricted
submarine warfare and drew America into the war. Wilson quickly developed an ideological goal of
freedom and democracy, and committed the people of the United States to fight for these principles.
When America entered the war in April 1917, nearly three years of horrific slaughter had bled white
the nations of Europe. Daily life in miserable trenches drove men insane; constant artillery
bombardment killed without warning; massive infantry assaults through No Man's Land into barbed
wire and machine guns caused the death of millions. New technologies including the machine gun,
tank, airplanes, and barbed wire helped make the war the bloodiest the world had ever seen. As
American soldiers landed in French ports by the thousands, the exhausted Allies screamed for the
American units to be broken up and fed into the French and British lines under the command of
French and British officers. General John Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary
Force, refused, insisting that the Americans fight together in their own section of the trench line
under American commanders. This rift within the Allied high command almost cost the Allies the
war during the German Spring Offensive of 1918, but Pershing's insistence that American soldiers
fight under American commanders sent an important message of American independence to the
world.
American soldiers fought bravely and well in battles at Cantigny, Belleau Wood, St. Mihiel and in
the Argonne Forest from May to November 1918. With nearly one million troops in the line by the
end of the war, the American presence finally convinced the Germans that the war could not be won;
7 | Page

they had managed to win a war of attrition with France and Britain, but the influx of an endless
supply of American troops meant that there was no way Germany could win. By November 1918,
the writing was on the wall and on 11 November 1918, the guns fell silent along the entire line as an
armistice was signed, signaling the end of the war.
While white American soldiers fought in their own units in their own part of the line, black troops
were relegated to support duty, or sent to the French army to fight under French commanders.
Despite the fact that American officers ordered the French not to treat the African-American soldiers
with respectlest they become "uppity" and learn what a non-prejudicial society was likethe
French treated the black soldiers with the respect they deserved; the 395th Infantry, a black unit
fighting with the French, won 171 commendations for valor. Upon returning home, Jim Crow racism
was as rampant as ever in America, and more than 70 returning veterans were lynched in the first
year after the end of the war. Still, the experience of black soldiers and the effects of the wartime
Great Migration of southern blacks to northern cities had a lasting impact on American society, and
sowed the seeds of the Civil Rights Movement.
World War I was a turning point for America economically. With war orders flooding in from
Europe, American manufacturers grew rich, and American industrial might began to lead the world.
The international financial system set up its capital in New York during this period, and the war
catapulted America into a leading role in economic and military affairs.
When President Wilson traveled to Paris for the peace conference that would lead to the Treaty of
Versailles, he came armed with his Fourteen Points, an idealistic plan to reorder Europe with the
United States as a model for the rest of the world. He failed to gain most of what he wanted as the
French and British were more inclined towards a vengeful peace, requiring reparations from
Germany, than to any idealistic requests of the United States. The League of Nations, the one victory
Wilson managed at the conference, was never ratified by the United States Senate, and, without the
United States, it failed as a toothless organization that collapsed in the face of German and Japanese
aggression in the 1930s.
2. The Middle East (The Origins of Arab-Israeli Wars):
Israel, the Arab States and the Great Powers: The conflict between Israel and the Arabs is one of
the most profound and protracted conflicts of the twentieth century and the principal precipitant of
wars in the Middle East. There are two major dimensions to this conflict: the Israeli-Palestinian
dimension and the Israeli-Arab dimension. The origins of the conflict go back to the end of the
nineteenth century when the Zionist movement conceived the idea of building a national home for
the Jewish people in Palestine. This project met with bitter opposition on the part of the Arab
population of the country. The upshot was a clash between two national movements for possession of
Palestine. There were two peoples and one land, hence the conflict.
The neighboring Arab states became involved in this conflict on the side of the Palestinian Arabs in
the 1930s. After the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the main weight of the conflict shifted
from the local or inter-communal level to the inter-state level. In 1967 the conflict was further
complicated by Israel's capture of the West Bank from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria and the
8 | Page

Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. From this point on, these states had a direct territorial dispute with
Israel quite apart from their commitment to the Palestinian cause.
On the root cause of the conflict there are widely divergent views. Most Arabs maintain that the root
cause of the conflict is the dispossession and dispersal of the Palestinian Arabs, an original sin which
was compounded by Israel's subsequent territorial acquisitions. In their view, Israel is an inherently
aggressive and expansionist state and the real source of violence in the region. Most Israelis, on the
other hand, maintain that the root cause of the conflict is not territory but the Arab rejection of
Israel's very right to exist as a sovereign state in the Middle East. According to this view, the basic
Arab objective is the liquidation of the State of Israel while Israel acts only in self-defense and in
response to the Arab challenges. But whatever one's view of the origins and nature of the ArabIsraeli conflict, there can be no doubt that this conflict has been a major cause of wars in the Middle
East.
The 1948 Palestine War: The 1948 Arab-Israeli war was the climax of the conflict between the
Jewish and Palestinian national movements which had been three decades in the making. As the
mandatory power in Palestine, Britain had repeatedly tried and failed to find a solution that would
reconcile the two rival communities in the country. In February 1947, the British cabinet decided to
refer the problem to the United Nations and the struggle for Palestine entered its most critical phase.
The United Nations, on 29 November 1947, passed its famous resolution which proposed the
partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jews accepted the partition plan;
all the Arab states and the Palestinians rejected it vehemently. The Palestinians launched a campaign
of violence to frustrate partition and Palestine was engulfed by a civil war in which the Jews
eventually gained the upper hand. At midnight on 14 May 1948, upon expiry of the British mandate,
the Jews proclaimed the establishment of an independent state which they called Israel. The
following day the regular armies of the Arab states intervened in the conflict, turning a civil war into
the first full-scale Arab-Israeli war, a war which ended in defeat for the Arabs and disaster for the
Palestinians.
3. The US Invasion of Iraq:
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the culmination of a long series of events and the product of
many complexes, different, and yet interrelated factors. In the first instance, it was a part of the
counterattack the US embarked on against terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 atrocities. Saddam
Husseins links to terrorist organizations in the past qualified Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism and,
therefore, a target under the criteria which George W. Bush set out when he announced the war on
terror in his 2002 State of the Union. Once Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban regime overthrown,
and the remnants of al-Qaeda scattered, Iraq represented the next logical step in the War on Terror
(Rotella, 2002). Although no direct links were ever found between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda,
despite feverish attempts to do so by Neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, there was
irrefutable proof of links to other terrorist networks which adhered to a similar ideology.
The issue of Iraqs possession of WMD, which had dragged on since the first Gulf War all the way
through the 1990s, took on new significance in the post 9/11 security environment. Rather than being
a problem of merely containing Saddam Hussein, Iraqs WMD manufacturing capability now more
9 | Page

than ever represented an existential threat to the US, and it led the invasion in order to remove this
manufacturing base so it could not be used to arm terrorist groups, particularly al-Qaeda.
The unofficial reasons why the US led the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were the need to make an
example and strike a massive blow demonstrating Americas unmatched military power. Victory in
Afghanistan was always a foregone conclusion, as it would not have taken any organized full
spectrum military long to defeat the poorly equipped Taliban. Hawkish elements within the Bush
administration and the military establishment sought to intimidate and deter any other nation from
harboring terrorists by waging a campaign of rapid dominance, thereby sending the clear signal that
any country deemed a threat could be next, and could not hope to defend itself against the might of
the US army (Tisdall, 2003).
There was also the belief, or hope, that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein might set in
motion a domino effect, where other hostile regimes in the Middle East would be forced to acquiesce
to the US by their populations demanding the same democratic freedoms the liberated people of Iraq
now enjoyed. Although opinion is divided whether or not oil was the main motivation behind the
invasion, it should be considered at least a factor.
It could be said that the US led the invasion of Iraq in 2003 for reasons ranging from relatively small
practical considerations stemming from 9/11, namely disrupting terrorist organizations and their
potential arming with WMD by Saddam Hussein, to the far reaching strategic masterstrokes of an act
of deterrence, controlling the energy reserves of that country and transforming the entire Middle East
(Toensing, 2007).
Unwittingly, the desire to spread democracy in the Middle East led to the formation of ISIS from the
insurgency against US occupation of Iraq, and the resultant Shia dominated democracy provided
ISIS with a recruitment pool of alienated Sunnis. Furthermore, the heavy weaponry abandoned by
the fleeing Iraqi army, much of which was provided to it by the US, has transformed ISIS into a
pseudo army, and is being used to consolidate as well as increase its gains. Finally, the democratic
revolution and resultant civil war in Syria to overthrow Basher al-Assad has established ISIS as the
main rebel group and has led to the radicalization of the once moderate opposition in that conflict.

Refugee Crisis:
In the last part of the study we will discuss- How the efforts of global powers to create a balance
of power causes refugee crisis & why it is the only root cause?
There are 19 million people in the world who are currently refugees. Its a disastrously high number
and they all need to find somewhere they can live in safety. We have included major refugee crisis
that that has taken place since 1940.
10 | P a g e

1. 1940 to 1960- Post-World War II:

World War II saw the greatest displacement of people from their homes in the 20th century, with
forced laborers dwelling in the lands of the German Reich, millions of ethnic Germans expelled from
the Soviet Union, and millions more fleeing the increasingly harsh regime of Joseph Stalin. In 1950,
the Allies set up the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, which has since sought to
provide relief for people fleeing conflict.
2. 1960 to 2000- End of the colonial era and post-Cold War:
Decolonization movements swept over Asia and Africa in the 1950s and '60s, starting with the Indian
subcontinent, where 14 million people were displaced by the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947.
Wars of independence and the civil conflict that followed sent millions flooding out of Algeria,
Congo, Angola, Nigeria and others into neighboring countries, and newly minted military regimes
often uprooted ethnic communities even after peace was restored.
During the 1970s and '80s, the Cold Wars proxy battles displaced millions of people from
Afghanistan and between countries in the Horn of Africa. With the declining power of the Soviet
Union, many ethnic and nationalist communities in Eastern Europe began to agitate for selfdetermination, resulting in mass movements between Armenia and Azerbaijan and within Georgia
and Tajikistan. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, millions of ethnic Russians flowed into
Russia from the newly independent states.
3. 2000 to present- Instability in the Middle East:
Global displacement levels declined to a historic low in 2005, but started escalating again because of
a series of conflicts, including the U.S. invasion of Iraq. By mid-2015, the total number of refugees
and internally displaced people had climbed to an all-time high of more than 60 million people, the
UNHCR estimates reflecting both the masses of people newly uprooted from war-torn regions of
Syria and South Sudan, as well as those displaced years ago from places like Pakistan and
Afghanistan who still haven't been able to return home.

But when we talk about the global refugee crisis, we're not just talking about numbers. We're really
talking about the ways in which nations fail refugees. That happens at four distinct stages, all of
them terrible in their own way. All refugees go through at least one of those terrible steps, but the
most vulnerable people, if they do ever manage to reach safety at all, are likely to go through all four.
The first step of the refugee crisis is the persecution that forces refugees to flee their homes in the
first place. Some are fleeing war, some political persecution, and some other kinds of violence, but
all refugees, by definition, experience this. Today Syria's civil war is especially dire. But it's not the
only cause of the global refugee crisis, which is being driven by a host of national crises taking place
around the globe, many of which are totally unconnected to one another. There are wars in Somalia
and Afghanistan and Libya, lower-level violence in Central America and Nigeria and Pakistan,
persecution in Eritrea and Myanmar and Bangladesh, and so on.
11 | P a g e

The second step is what happens to those refugees once they are forced out of their homes: Often,
though not always, they end up in camps. Life in the camps is often difficult, cramped, and unsafe,
with few prospects for work or education. This is a crisis for the refugees as well for as the countries
that house them; for instance, host countries like Lebanon and Turkey are struggling to manage their
camps for refugees and to absorb the thousands or even millions of people who live in them. These
camps are a global failure: The UN is far short of the $8.4 billion it says it needs to provide bare
minimum services just for Syrian refugees. And they are also national failures: They keep refugees
from integrating into the local communities and creating stable, productive new lives there. At their
worst, camps can keep families stuck in limbo for generations.
The third step is what happens when refugee families, perhaps after seeing that the camps offer them
little hope or protection, seek out safety from persecution further afield, often in developed countries,
particularly in Europe. The journey is often horrifyingly dangerous: Many families drown crossing
the Mediterranean in rickety boats, for example, which is why a Syrian toddler's body washed up on
a Turkish beach last week. The families understand the risk, and may pay thousands of dollars per
person for the trip, but often feel it is their only option. The trip is so perilous in part because
Western governments, wanting to discourage all forms of uncontrolled migration, have let it be that
way as a matter of deliberate policy.
The fourth step is the one that many Western countries are experiencing now: what happens when
large numbers of refugees show up. Often, they face systems that are badly broken, the squalid
overcrowded camps in Greece, for example or that are overtly hostile to refugees in an effort to
keep them out. This is changing a little bit, but most European countries are still trying to keep
refugees out and refusing to accept even a remotely sufficient number of them for resettlement,
which means the families who make it to Europe end up in camps, sleeping in train stations, or living
in fear of deportation.
This last step of the crisis is about much more than just funding: It's forcing some really sensitive
political issues to the surface in Europe, over migration and identity and the future of the European
Union. Until Europeans can figure out those issues, hundreds of thousands of refugees will continue
to suffer.

Finale
Now that all have been discussed, we can realize the interrelated effects of Global peace, conflict and
refugee crisis. A brief discussion about their connection will give us the final view to conclude our
judgment for the esteemed topic, that is, The efforts of global powers to establish a global system
to create a balance of power in the world to suit their interest are the root cause of global peace,
conflict & refugee crisis.
The Balance of Power: a Cause of War, a Condition of Peace, Refugee crisis or all?
The theory of the balance of power-where the distribution of power is equally shared amongst the
appropriate entities-is a concept crucial to the study of International Relations and of war. When
12 | P a g e

studied in relation to the nineteenth century, we can see that the concept is a major part of both
contemporary and modern literature, thinking and politics. When analyzed in relation to this era-a
time where no general or systemic war occurred- the theory has been taken to act as a cause of war,
a condition of peace and an amalgamation of both. Arguably the final conclusions are subjective, but
there are several factors to be examined to gain a proper overview of the theorys application to this
time.
If we study it in relation to it being a cause of war, there are substantial areas where there is evidence
to suggest that this is a viable argument. The first of these is the so-called security dilemma-a
concept generally integrated within the balance of power. We can see that this era was characterized
by the view that since all states may at any time use force, all states must be prepared to do so. This
climate of fear that was created manifested itself in arms races, formation of alliances and in many
cases open conflict. This was made possible by the nature of the anarchic system of European
international politics. This system, ever since the Westphalia eradication of the Papacy and Holy
Roman Empire as the leaders of European policy was characterized by the lack of higher authority
than the nation-state, meaning that each entity was sovereign. The inference from this is well noted
by analysts, and it is therefore logical to suggest that in anarchy, security is the highest end. The lack
of overall authority meant that a self-help system of alliance and military force dominated the region
and the idea that war was a corollary of the balance of power with the consequence that it was
frequently turned to as a solution of a threat to the equilibrium of the international system, which in
turn substantiates the idea that balance of power theory acted as a cause of war in the nineteenth
century.
This idea is closely linked to the next area of argument. Since it is true that power matters in a
relative, it encouraged statesmen to do as much as possible to solidify and strengthen their own
position. Consequently the use of alliances and coalitions was a fundamental strategy of the age.
States would form alliances for immediate purposes and then switch them when a better opportunity
presented itself. Whilst this was perhaps not as fluid as the preceding century, it was still a factor-for
example Britain and Russia fought as allies against France up to 1815, whilst forty years later (185456) Britain and France were now allies fighting Russia. Whilst it was argued that this system
encouraged peace, the obligations of alliances resulted in war in areas outside purely national
interests, a good example of which would be the massive French contribution to Sardinia-Piedmonts
cause in the 1859 war on Austria. Therefore this adds to the idea that the concept of the balance of
power acted as a cause of war in nineteenth century Europe, as this quest for geopolitical
counterpoise therefore made war more frequent rather than less, as states had more areas where
conflict could-and did-arise.
Two fairly minor issues-tied in with the preceding arguments- also have an impact. Imperialism, a
dominant force in this era, had a considerable impact upon the balance of power in Europe, despite
most of the activity taking place outside the continent. Imperialism arguably made the system
unworkable and a general war more likely, since the pursuit for Empire by the European powers
expanded the potential for competition from a regional to a global level. The other factor that should
be mentioned is the fragility of the balance. Centre mainly on the unification of Germany, which
created structural factors that made it difficult to maintain the status quo, the system was ultimately
shown to be only as strong as its participants who, in practice, failed to maintain the balance at the
13 | P a g e

end on the century. Whilst this is arguably the failure of the international equilibrium rather than the
system itself, it nevertheless acts as support (along with the imperialism factor) for the argument that
the concept of balance caused war.
Conversely however the balance of power can legitimately be considered to be a condition for and
component of peace. The first area of this argument centers on the clear leniency shown to defeated
powers at the conference table throughout the century. For example, at the Congress of Vienna in
1815 France, despite putting Europe through almost two decades of unprecedented bloodshed, was
allowed to return to its pre-war borders, and subsequently returned to Great Power status in the
following decades. This was mainly due to the belief that the balance of power theory had to be used
for managing and restraining both opponents and allies. In other words, no single state wished any
other-even an ally-to gain an opportunity to enhance its influence in a power vacuum that the defeat
of a Great Power (such as Napoleonic France) was bound to create. After the 1815 settlement the
Great Powers in the so-called Concert of Europe actively attempted, through Congresses and
general diplomacy to preserve the balance of power that was defined by the territorial settlement (of
1815). It should also be noted that this was regularly successful, as a study of the events of 1839-40
show where France, offended at its lack of inclusion in a four-Power intervention in the failing
Ottoman Sultans regime, took part in several actions that hinted that it was preparing for war, but
when the four power concert held fast, France backed down. Therefore we can see that the balance
of power can be legitimately seen to be a condition of peace in this area, as European desire to
ensure the balance in the wake of conflict meant an informal collective security system was
established after major wars (with varying degrees of success).
A further area of argument partially connected to the above section is that the system was purported
to generate stability. There is a legitimate argument this is not the case- that the constant pursuit of
balance resulted in the security dilemma discussed above. However, there is evidence to suggest
that this, at least in some cases, was true. Events such as the suppression of French aggression in
1839-40 (discussed above) as well as European interventions in the Ottoman Empire (despite a
general opposition to its existence) support this view. We can see that states were prepared to let
small slights and long standing national rivalries-that may have in preceding eras led to war-rest for
the sake of wider strategic stability. A good example of this would be Prussian Chancellor
Bismarcks calculated mercy towards the Austrians following their crushing defeat at Sadowa that
was motivated not by compassion but by a fear that the destruction of Austria would remove a useful
political entity that was holding down his south-eastern flank. This stance characterized by
Bismarcks concept of real politick (making decisions based on the practical reality rather than
ingrained preferences) has been described by some as a logical response of European statesmen to
the problem of running a state system. It is legitimate to say that it did in many ways secure
European peace much more frequently then had previously been possible. The system was fragile
and certainly not fool-proof-as events such as the Crimean War show-but the pursuit of stability
through diplomacy was nevertheless an integral factor of European statesmanship, and therefore
cannot be ignored when studying the impact of the balance of power as a condition of peace, as
acknowledgement of the issues of stability often tempered hot-headed desires for war.
There is a final area, touched on above, that cannot truly be ascribed to either side, but should
nevertheless be examined when studying the impact of the balance of power in the nineteenth
14 | P a g e

century. This is the point that it was not always a decisive factor in European international relations
of the era-there was no balance of power rule that meant that states always acted in a certain way
when responding to certain triggers. If we study a single incident-the unification of Germany in the
early 1870s-we can add credence to this point. On this occasion, Prussia, which had steadily been
substantially growing in power for the last decade, and had been a main protagonist in two European
wars during this time (which is especially damning considering the infrequency of war in the
nineteenth century, as was noted in the introduction) was allowed to attack and defeat France and use
the political impetus to unite the remaining southern states and create Imperial Germany. This event,
which over night made Germany the strongest power in Europe; thereby creating an intractable
problem to the European balance went unopposed by the other Great Powers. There was no
international condemnation or intervention as one may expect from states who had in 1815 agreed to
enforce the boundaries of nations collectively, mainly due to other factors (far too detailed to go into
here) which were influencing European politics at the time. Whilst only a single case, it does serve to
enforce the point being made, and although it may seem unnecessary to make what could be seen by
many to be a fairly obvious point-that the balance of power did not always dictate matters- it must
nevertheless be acknowledged if we are to consider the impact of the balance of power on nineteenth
century European war and peace effectively.
In conclusion, the balance of power played a crucial role in nineteenth century politics, as the
considerations of the theory impacted upon a wide range of policies, be they bellicose, pacifistic or
even indirect-such as the economic and technological advancement of the nation. Subsequently the
concept played a central part in the political thinking of the age as well as the historical analysis of
today. In relation to the question, we can see that considerations of the balance of power impacted
upon decisions to respond militarily-such as the British involvement in the Crimea in 1856-as well as
forming an integral part of the aims of Great Powers at the peace table-such as at the Congress of
Vienna in 1815 and the ensuing Concert of Europe. Therefore, it is to a large extent agreed that the
balance of power was both a cause of war as well as a condition of peace in the Nineteenth Century
as it is difficult-if not impossible-to attribute the theory wholly to either factor-which were in many
ways inseparable when applied to specific cases.
Sources:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/chapter-4-global-balance-of-power/
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9290985/refugee-crisis-europe-syrian
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/01/04/the-seven-great-powers/
http://editorials.voa.gov/content/refugee-crisis-and-world-peace/2973471.html
http://www.ucdc.edu/academic/courses/ucdc191e-01w14-international-politics-and-global-

6.
7.
8.
9.

system-21st-century
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
http://global.britannica.com/topic/balance-of-power
https://thoughteconomics.com/global-conflict-causes-and-solutions-for-peace/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/10/eight-solutions-world-refugee-crisis/

10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I

15 | P a g e

11. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Middle%20East%20The%20Origins%20of
%20Arab-Israeli%20Wars.html
12. http://www.shmoop.com/wwi/summary.html
13. https://www.usip.org/about-usip-0
14. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/success.shtml
15. http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/1990/1990-2-4.htm
16. http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/40974.htm
17. http://www.e-ir.info/2011/01/31/the-balance-of-power-a-cause-of-war-a-condition-of-peaceor-both/

16 | P a g e