Answer1: 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 balance of power theory in international relations suggests that national security is enhanced
when military capability is distributed so that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others. If
one state becomes much stronger than others, the theory predicts that it will take advantage of its
strength and attack weaker neighbours, thereby providing an incentive for those threatened to unite
in a defensive coalition. Some realists maintain that this would be more stable as aggression would
appear unattractive and would be averted if there was equilibrium of power between the rival
coalitions.

The emergence of nuclear factor in international politics has overwhelming transformed the essence
of balance-of-power concept. This dynamic is an escalation of political dimension of balance-of-
power and reduction of military aspect (hard power). However some realists argue that in world
politics military and political both characteristics of balance-of-power indeed shape nation-states
balancing approach against dominant players in a system. Therefore weak players get engaged with
strong one stopping its opponents military threat and having deterrence capability. As a result,
strategic balancing comes to light. As the focus of the study is concerned, this entire scenario can be
seen amid two major players of South Asia i.e. Pakistan and India. It has been analyzed that the
balance-of-power politics has long been troubling due to hard power imbalance between Pakistan
and India since independence. Besides the influential role of superpower(s) in the theatre of South
Asian politics has also been a great disturbing factor for regional equilibrium and widening hard
power unevenness where the U.S. or (USSR in past) is/were trying to maintain global balance in
Asian-oriented global politics by making dyadic strategic partnerships with regional players. As the
strategic triangle - Pakistan-China-India - seems quite significant wherein Pak-China strategic
relationship has emerged owing to one of the very basic and common Indian factor and China being
the most adjacent player of South Asian region has played a role by creating a balancing aptitude in
its relations with both India and Pakistan whereas the U.S. (as a sole superpower) could not do this.
While changing dynamics in India and U.S. partnership regarding strategic balancing after civil
nuclear deal, Pakistan and China both have also strengthened their 60-years old strategic
relationship. As a result, the strategic quadrangle - the U.S.-India-China-Pakistan is getting eminent as
a new dynamic of the South Asian balance-of-power politics.

Answer2: There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. While the statement may be
true for international relations , it may not always be true down at the person-to-person relations.
For nations, interests are permanent while friends may not be so. However, for people, permanent
friends do exist, even though interests may change.

Friends are formed when people with similar interests meet each other. While it may be argued that
friends are forged as a result of similar interests and thus when interests change, friends also change,
this argument is flawed. Interest is not the only binding factor among friends; fate is another factor.
People have feelings, unlike entities like nations. A friendship formed from the bottom of the heart is
usually hard to break.
Nations do not become friends in the same sense that people do. The people of one nation may have
good feelings for the people of another, such as people of US and UK, because of common cultural or
familial links. But nations do not define their relationships by the feelings they have for one another.
Instead, nations have permanent interests, for they have to further the well-being and security of
their citizens. When nations perceive that an alliance with another nation will secure those interests,
they enter into one. During World War II, even nations that are fundamentally hostile to one another
allied themselves when their perceived interests dictated that they do so. That is how the USSR
ended up allied with the US and Britain. Another example is the recent Iraq War in which France, a
hitherto staunch ally of the US, did not support the US-led war. This was in stark contrast to the US-
led war in Afghanistan a few years ago, in which France supported the US in their war efforts. Thus it
is clear that when the interests of allied nations no longer converge, the reason for their alliance
disappears, and the alliance splits apart. The former allies do not necessarily become enemies, but
each becomes freer to pursue its own interests. The merger and separation between Singapore and
Malaysia in the 1960s also serves to illustrate the point that friendships between nations are
transient. Therefore, nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests.