The Structural Balance in International Relationships
Less than a month ago, Canada decided to sever friendly ties with Iran and to force the Iranian diplomats in Canada to leave the country. While the decision may have seemed a bit sudden, it was actually the result of months of simmering of changes in international relation.
To understand Canada’s decision, we need to look into Canada’s relationship with Israel. Ever since the Zionist movement, Israel has long been at loggerheads with Iran, and the two countries have feuded over religious land rights. Recently, Canada had been growing closer to Israel and Israel’s prime minister even thanked Canada for its support of Israel’s right of self defense. Their positive relationship culminated with a visit from the Prime Minister of Israel to Canada this March.
At this time, Canada was friends with both Israel and Iran. The three nations formed a triangle with two positive edges, Canada to Israel and Canada to Iran. However, the Israel to Iran edge was negative. According to the structural balance property, this type of triangle with two positive edges is not balanced and will eventually evolve. Canada would be uncomfortable that its two friends were enemies with each other, but it knew that their relationship was too difficult to mend. Since Israel and Iran were mutual enemies, they both tried to break Canada’s friendship with the other nation. Had one nation been successful in breaking Canada’s friendship with the other, then the triangle would be structurally balanced because it would consist of one alliance and a common enemy. In other words, the triangle would consist of one positive edge and two negative edges.
Eventually, the force of structural balance prevailed as Canada terminated its friendship with Iran, changing its positive edge into a negative one. As its relationship with Israel bloomed, Canada realized that it could not be friends with Iran without upsetting Israel. This realization caused Canada to break it tie with Iran, declaring that Iran “threatened the violence of Israel” and “engaged in anti-Semantic rhetoric.” Its reasons for breaking ties with Iran allude to the strengthening friendship with Israel. In order to show that it truly supported Israel, Canada was forced to declare Israel’s enemies as its own, just like the structural balance triangle predicted.
This scenario not only showed how structural balance governs friendships, but it also showed how these friendships are constantly being reevaluated. As Canada became closer to Israel, it had to abandon its once friendly ties with Iran. This breakage may have much have much deeper implication and cause a global domino effect of changing friendships. Friends of Israel may consider severing ties with Canada, which would cause friends of Canada, such as the United States, to sever ties with those nations. However, each nation would carefully evaluate this domino effect before severing ties. For instance, friends of Iran may be tempted to sever ties with Canada, but if they needed the support of the US, then they may not want to become an enemy of Canada. Nonetheless, this example shows just how fragile international relationships are and how they constantly change.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/01/f-canada-israel-relations.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/world/meast/iran-diplomatic-relations/index.html
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1243616–on-the-brink-with-israel-and-iran