BALANCE OF POWER AND ITS DEVICES

Whenever the term Balance of Power is used without qualification, it

refers to an actual state of affairs in which power is distributed
among nations with approximately equality” — Hans. J.
Morgenthau.

“Unmanaged struggle for power can be a source of war in

international relations.”

Such a realization stands universally recognized and it has led to the

development of certain devices of power management. One such
device has been Balance of Power.

In fact, Balance of Power has been traditionally an important fact of

international relations. It has been guiding the decisions and policies
of nations. Since the 17th century Several scholars regard it as the best
guide for securing the goals of national interest without getting
involved in war. Upto the first half of twentieth century, Balance of
Power was regarded as being the only known modern device of
international management of power.

“Balance of Power is a nearly fundamental law of politics as it is

possible to find.” —Martin Wright

Palmer and Perkins also hold that balance of power principle has been
“a basic principle of international relations.

What is Balance of Power?

It is indeed very difficult to define Balance of Power. It has been
defined it differently by different scholars.

“The trouble with Balance of Power is not that it has no meaning, but
that it has too many meanings.” —Innis L. Claude Jr.

Some writers define it in terms of equilibrium where as others in

terms of “preponderance” or “disequilibrium”. Some define it as a
principle of action while others define it as a policy or system.

Some Popular Definitions of Balance of Power:

(1) “Balance of Power is such a ‘just equilibrium’ in power among the
members of the family of nations as will prevent any one of them from
becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon others.” —Sidney
B. Fay

(2) “Balance of Power is an equilibrium or a certain amount of stability

in power relations that under favourable conditions is produced by an
alliance of states or by other devices.” —George Schwarzenberger

(3) “Balance of Power is such a system in which some nations regulate

their power relations without any interference by any big power. As
such it is a decentralized system in which power and policies remain in
the hands of constituting units.” —Inis Claude

(4) Balance of Power means “the maintenance of such a just

equilibrium between the members of the family of nations as should
prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to impose
its will upon the rest.” —Lord Castlereagh
ADVERTISEMENTS:

(5) “Whenever the term Balance of Power is used without

qualification, it refers to an actual state of affairs in which power is
distributed among nations with approximately equality.” —Hans. J.
Morgenthau

All these definitions clearly reflect that Balance of Power is defined

differently by different scholars. It is very difficult to give or select a
uniformly acceptable definition. This difficultly makes it essential for
us to study the features of Balance of Power.

Nature of Balance of Power

Palmer and Perkins describe several major features of Balance of
Power (BOP):

1. Some Sort of Equilibrium in Power Relations:

The term Balance of Power suggests ‘equilibrium which is subject to
constant, ceaseless change. In short, though it stands for equilibrium,
it also involves some disequilibrium. That is why scholars define it as a
just equilibriums or some sort of equilibrium in power relations.

2. Temporary and Unstable:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In practice a balance of power always proves to be temporary and

unstable. A particular balance of power survives only for a short time.

3. To be Actively Achieved:
The balance of power has to be achieved by the active intervention of
men. It is not a gift of God. States cannot afford to wait until it
“happens”. They have to secure it through their efforts.

4. Favours Status quo:

Balance of power favours status quo in power positions of major
powers. It seeks to maintain a balance in their power relations.
However, in order to be effective, a foreign policy of balance of power
must be changing and dynamic.

5. The Test of BOP is War:

A real balance of power seldom exists. The only test of a balance is war
and when war breaks out the balance comes to an end. War is a
situation which balance of power seeks to prevent and when it breaks
out, balance power comes to an end.

6. Not a Device of Peace:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Balance of Power is not a primary device of peace because it admits

war as a means for maintaining balance.

7. Big Powers as Actors of BOP:

In a balance of power system, the big states or powerful states are the
players. The small states or less powerful states are either spectators
or the victims of the game.

8. Multiplicity of States as an Essential Condition:

Balance of Power system operates when there are present a number of
major powers, each of which is determined to maintain a particular
balance or equilibrium in their power relations.

9. National Interest is its Basis:

Balance of Power is a policy that can be adopted by any state. The real
basis that leads to this policy is national interest in a given
environment.

The Golden Age of BOP:

The period of 1815-1914 was the golden age of Balance of Power.
During this period, it was regarded as a nearly fundamental law of
international relations. It broke down due the outbreak of First World
War in 1914. It was tried to be unsuccessfully revived during 1919-
1939. However, the attempt failed and the world had to bear the
Second World War.

The Second World War (1939-45) produced several structural changes

in the international system as well as in the balance of power system.
Under the impact of these changes, the Balance of Power system lost
much of its relevance as a device of power management. It is now lost
much of its relevance in international relations.

Underlying Principal Assumptions and Postulates of

Balance of Power:
The Balance of Power rests upon several fundamental postulates and
assumptions.

(a) Five Principal Assumptions:

(1) Firstly, Balance of Power assumes that states are determined to
protect their vital rights and interests by all means, including war.

(2) Secondly, vital interests of the states are threatened.

(3) The relative power position of states can be measured with a

degree of accuracy.

(4) Balance of Power assumes that “balance” will either deter the
threatening state from launching an attack or permit the victim to
avoid defeat if an attack should occur.

(5) The statesmen can, and they do make foreign policy decisions
intelligently on basis of power considerations.

(b) Major Postulates of Balance of Power:

(1) A nation following balance of power is prepared to change its
alliances or treaties if the circumstances may so demand.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(2) When a nation finds that a particular preponderance of power is

increasing menacingly, it gets prepared to go to war for maintaining
the balance.

(3) Balance of Power postulates that no nation is to be totally

eliminated in war. War is aimed only at the weakening of power of the
violator of the balance. After war a new balance of power system is
achieved. The basic principle of Balance of Power is that excessive
power anywhere in the system is a threat to the existence of others and
that the most effective antidote to power is power.

From the above discussion of the features, assumptions, postulates

and purposes of Balance of Power, it becomes clear that Balance of
power is a device of power management which is used by several
major powers for maintaining a balance in their power relations.

In this process they maintain a sort of equilibrium in their power

relations and do not permit any state to violate the Balance. In case
any state tries to disturb or violate the balance of power, the other
states individually or collectively or is a group can take action,
including war, for weakening the power of the violator as well as for
restoring the balance.

Methods of Balance of Power:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Balance of Power is not automatic; it has to be secured by the states

following this policy. In fact, there are several methods by which states
try to secure and maintain balance of power. “Balance of Power is a
game which is played by actors with the help of several devices.”

Major Methods of Balance of Power:

I. Compensation:
It is also known as territorial compensation. It usually entails the
annexation or division of the territory of the state whose power is
considered dangerous for the balance. In the 17th and 18th centuries
this device was regularly used for maintaining a balance of power
which used to get disturbed by the territorial acquisitions of any
nation.

For examples the three partitions of Poland in 1772, 1793 and 1795
were based upon the principle of compensation. Austria, Prussia and
Russia agreed to divide Polish territory in such a way that the
distribution of power among them would be approximately the same.

In the latter part of the 19th century, and after each of the two world
wars of the 20th century, territorial compensation was used as a
device for weakening the powers of the states whose actions had led to
a violation of the balance. It was applied by the colonial powers for
justifying their actions aimed at maintaining their imperial
possessions.

II. Alliances and Counter Alliances:

Alliance-making are regarded as a principal method of balance of
power. Alliance is a device by which a combination of nations creates a
favourable balance of power by entering into military or security pacts
aimed at augmenting their own strength vis-a-vis the power of their
opponents. However, an alliance among a group of nations, almost
always, leads to the establishment of a counter alliance by the
opponents. History is full of examples of such alliances and counter
alliances.

Whenever any nation threatened the balance of Europe, other states

formed alliances against it and were usually able to curb the power of
the over- ambitious state. After the Triple Alliance of 1882, a rival
alliance—The Triple Entente, was slowly formed through bilateral
agreements over a period of 17 years (1891-1907).

In post-1945 period, alliances like NATO, SEATO, Warsaw Pact

emerged as devices of Balance of Power. The first two were established
by the USA and the third one was organised by the erstwhile USSR for
strengthening their respective power positions in the era of cold war.

III. Intervention and Non-intervention:

“Intervention is a dictatorial interference in the internal affairs of
another state/states with a view to change or maintain a particular
desired situation which is considered to be harmful or useful to the
competing opponents. Some times during a war between two states no
attempt is made by other states to intervene. This is done for making
the two warring states weaker.

As such intervention and non-intervention are used as devices of

Balance of Power. Mostly it is used by a major power for regaining an
old ally or for picking up a new ally or for imposing a desired situation
on other states. British intervention in Greece, the US intervention is
Grenada, Nicaragua, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, and (Erstwhile) USSR’s
interventions in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan
can be quoted as examples of interventions carried out by the big
powers.

IV. Divide and Rule:

The policy of divide and rule has also been a method of balance of
power. It has been a time honored policy of weakening the opponents.
It is resorted to be all such nations who try to make or keep their
competitors weak by keeping them divided or by dividing them.

The French policy towards Germany and the British policy towards the
European continent can be cited as the outstanding examples. The rich
and powerful states now do not refrain from using divide and rule for
controlling the policies of the new states of Asia, Africa and Latin
America.

V. Buffer States or Zones:

Another method of balance of power is to set up a buffer state between
two rivals or opponents. Buffers, observes V.V. Dyke, “are areas which
are weak, which possess considerable strategic importance to two or
more strong powers, Buffer is a small state created or maintained as a
separating state i.e. as a buffer state for keeping two competing states
physically separate each stronger power then tries to bring the buffer
within its sphere of influence but regards it as important, if not vital,
that no other strong power be permitted to do so.

The major function of a buffer is to keep the two powerful nations

apart and thus minimise the chances of clash and hence to help the
maintenance of balance.”

VI. Armaments and Disarmaments:

All nations, particularly very powerful nations, place great emphasis
on armaments as the means for maintaining or securing a favourable
position in power relations in the world. It is also used as a means to
keep away a possible aggressor or enemy.
However, armament race between two competitors or opponents can
lead to a highly dangerous situation which cans accidently cause a war.
In this way armament race can act as a danger to world peace and
security. Consequently, now-a-days, Disarmaments and Arms Control
are regarded as better devices for maintaining and strengthening
world peace and security. A comprehensive disarmament
plan/exercise involving nuclear disarmament can go a long way in
strengthening the balance (peace) that exists in international
relations.

VII. The Holder of the Balance or the Balancer:

The system of balance of power may consist of two scales plus a third
element ‘holder’ of the balance or the balancer. The balancer is a
nation or a group of nations, which remains aloof from the policies of
the two rivals or opponents and plays the role of, “the laughing third
party.”

It poses temptations to both parties to the balance, and each

contending party tries to win over the support of the laughing third
party—the balancer. Normally, the balancer remains away from both
the parties but if any party to the balance becomes unduly weak
resulting into a threat to the balance, the balancer joins it and helps
the restoration of balance.

After that the balancer again becomes aloof. Traditionally Britain used
to play the role of a balancer in Europe. However in the era cold war
no state could perform the role of a balancer in international relations.
The rise of unipolarity after 1991, involving the presence of only one
super power has now further reduced the chances for the emergence of
a balancer in international relations. These are the seven major
methods or devices of Balance of Power. These have been traditionally
used by nations pursuing the policy of a balance of power.

Critical Evaluation of Balance of Power:

Balance of Power has been strongly praised as well as severely
criticized.

Some Scholars observe:

“Balance of Power is nearly a fundamental law of politics as is
possible to find,” —Martin Wright

“Balance of Power is a basic principle of international relations.” —

Palmer and Perkins

As against this several others like Richard Cobden criticize it as unreal,

inadequate and uncertain system. They hold that Balance of Power
admits war in the have balance and makes the nations power hungry.
The supporters of Balance of Power advance a number of arguments in
favour and give example of the 1815-1914 period of history to prove the
effectiveness of balance of power as a device of power management.

Balance of Power: Arguments in Favour:

(1) A Source of Stability in International Relations:
Balance of Power provides stability to international relations. It is a
device of effective power management and peace. During the past 400
years it was successful, at most of the times, in preserving peace.
“Balance of Power has many a times prevented war. War breaks out
only when any state assumes excessive power.” —Fredric Geniz

(2) It suits the real nature of International Relations:

Balance of Power is in tune with the dynamic nature of international
relations. It helps continuous adjustments and readjustments in
relations without any grave risk of war among states.

(3) Ensures Multiplicity of States:

Since Balance of Power postulates the presence of a number of major
international actors (7 or 8 even more), it ensures multiplicity of
nations and their active participation in preserving balance in
international relations.

(4) Guarantees the Freedom of Small States:

Balance of Power ensures the preservation of small and weak states.
Its rule that no nation is to be completely eliminated, favors the
continued existence of all states. Each state feels secure about its
security in the balance of power system.

(5) Balance of Power Discourages War:

Balance of Power discourages war because each state knows that any
attempt to become unduly powerful shall invoke an action, even war,
by all other states and hence, it keeps its ambitions under control.

(6) A Source of Peace in International Relations:

Finally, Balance of Power is always a source of peace and order in
international relations. It supports status quo in relations. Between
1815-1914 it successfully prevented war.
Balance of Power: Arguments Against:
(1) Balance of Power cannot ensure Peace:
Balance of Power does not necessarily bring peace. Even during its
golden days, it failed to prevent the domination of small states by the
big states. It was not successful in preserving the security of small
states. In fact, in the past, wars have been fought in the name of
preservation of Balance of Power.

The three periods of stability—one starting from 1648, the second

from 1815 and the third from Treaty of Versailles (1918), were
preceded by continuous warfare and by the wholesale elimination of
small states starting with the destruction of Poland, and followed by a
large number of isolated acts of a similar nature. The tragedy is that all
these acts were accomplished in the name of balance of power.
Balance of Power cannot really secure peace and freedom of the
nations.

(2) States are not Static Units:

Each state always tries to secure more and more national power. It
does not really belong to any balance of power system. Another point
that must be raised about the balance of power is that nations are not
static units.

They increase their power through military aggressions, seizure of

territory and alliances. They can change their power from within by
improving social organisation, by industrializing and by mobilizing
internal resources. So the traditional mechanism of the balance of
power is not the only cause responsible for an increase of power.
(3) Preponderance of One State in the world can also secure
Peace:
A preponderance of power in the hands of one state or group of states
does not necessarily threaten world peace or the independence of any
nation. The unipolarism resulting from the collapse of one super
power (USSR) and the continued presence of the other super power
(USA) has not in any way disturbed international peace and security
or power balance. In contemporary times the preponderance of one
state is a reality and yet there is peace and peaceful coexistence.

(4) Narrow Basis:

The concept of Balance of Power is based upon a narrow view of
international relations. It regards power-relations as the whole of
international relations. It gives near total importance to preservation
of self and national-interest as the motives of all state actions. It fails
to give proper weight age to other ends—social, economic, cultural and
moral, that provide strong motives to international relations.

(5) A Mechanical view of Peace:

Balance of Power wrongly takes a mechanistic view of world peace as a
situation of balance or equilibrium in power relations. Peace does not
depend upon balance in power relations. It really depends upon
international consciousness and morality.

(6) Equality of a number of States is a Myth:

Balance of Power presupposes the existence of a number of equally
powerful states. In practice no two states have or can have equal
power. It involves the conception of equilibrium which is in fact
disequilibrium and is subject to continuous change.

(7) Nations are not free to break Alliances:

The theory of the balance of power can also be criticized on the ground
that it wrongly assumes that nations are free to make or break
alliances as and when they may desire for the main consideration of
balance of power.

(8) Uncertainty of Balance of Power:

Morgenthau criticizes Balance of Power for its uncertainty. Balance of
Power is uncertain because its operation depends upon an evaluation
of power of various nations. In practice it is not possible to have an
absolutely correct evaluation of power of a state.

(9) Balance of Power is Unreal:

Since the evaluation of the national power of a nation is always
uncertain, no nation can afford dependence upon the balance of
power. Each nation always keeps a secret about its power. Since all
nations keep safe margins, the balance of power at a particular time is
always unreal.

(10) Inadequacy of Balance of Power:

Balance of Power in itself is an inadequate device of international
peace and security. It even accepts war as a means for maintaining a
balance. Fear cannot be a real basis of international relations.

(11) Balance of Power has now lost its Relevance:

Finally, the critics argue that now Balance of Power it is not a relevant
principle of international relations. The big changes in the
international system as well as in the balance of power system have
made it almost an obsolete system. On the basis of above arguments,
the critics of Balance of Power advocate its total rejection.

Undoubtedly, in contemporary times the balance of power has lost its

utility and much of its importance due to changes in the international
system. However it cannot be denied that it continues to be an
important factor in the regional power relations among the states of a
region. It is used by nations for assessing the nature of power relations
at the regional level.

Role and Relevance of Balance of Power in

International Relations:
“As long as the nation-state system is the prevailing pattern of
international society, balance of power policies will be followed in
practice, and in all probability, they will continue to operate, even if
effective supranational groupings on a regional or world level are
formed” —Palmer and Perkins.

In contemporary times, Balance of Power has lost much of its utility

due to several changes in the international relations. The following
changes in the international relations as well as in the traditional
balance of power system have adversely affected the role and relevance
of Balance of Power as a device of power management in International
politics.
(1) End of the era of European Domination and the dawn of
era of Global Politics:
The structure of international politics has undergone a radical change
from the classical period. From a narrow European dominated
international system it has come to be a truly global system in which
Asian, African and Latin American states enjoy a new and added
importance. Today Europe is no longer the centre of world politics.
European politics constitutes only one small segment of international
politics. This changes has considerably reduced the operation ability of
balance of power.

(2) Changes in Psychological Environment:

The characteristic moral and intellectual consensus that characterised
European nations during the classical period of Balance of Power
(1815-1914) has ceased to exist. Each major power now seeks to
protect its interests as universal interests and hence tries to impose
these upon others. The use of propaganda and ideology as instruments
of national policy has increased manifold. This development has
further checked the importance of balance of power.

(3) Rise of Propaganda, Psychological and Political Warfare

as instruments of National Policy:
Previously, diplomacy and war used to be the chief means of
conducting foreign policies. The decline of diplomacy, rise of new
diplomacy and the new fear of war as a means, have brought into
operation two new devices- Propaganda and Political warfare, as the
instruments of national policy. These have in turn reduced the
popularity and role of balance of power principle in international
relations.

(4) Emergence of Ideology as a Factor of International

Relations:
The new importance of ideology and other less tangible but,
nevertheless, important elements of national power have further
created unfavorable conditions for the operation of balance of power.

(5) Reduction in the Number of Major Powers:

The most obvious structural change that has seriously limited the role
of balance of power has been the numerical reduction of the players of
power-politics game. For its operation, Balance of Power needs the
presence of a number of major power actors. The presence of two
superpowers during 1945-91 discouraged the operation of balance of
power and now there is present only one super power in the world.

(6) The Bipolarity of Cold War period and the new era of
Unipolarity:
The bipolarity (presence of two super powers and their blocs) that
emerged in the cold war period reduced the flexibility of the
international system. It reduced the chances of balance of power
whose working requires the existence of flexibility in power relations,
alliances and treaties. Presently unipolarity characterizes the
international system.

(7) The End of the Era of Colonialism and Imperialism:

Another big change in the structure of balance of power has been the
disappearance of imperialism and colonialism: It has limited the scope
for the exercise of power by the European powers, who in the past
always worked as the key players of the principle Balance of Power.

(8) Disappearance of the “Balancer”:

The rise of two super powers the disappearance of the “holder of
balance” or the “balancer” considerably reduced the chances of
balance of power politics during 1945-91. Traditionally, Britain used to
play such a role in Europe. The sharp and big decline in the power of
Britain in the post-war period compelled it to abandon its role of
balancer between the two super powers. No other nation or even a
group of nations was successful in acting as a balancer between the
USA and the (erstwhile) USSR. The absence of a balancer further
reduced the role of balance of power in post-war international
relations.

(9) Change of Concept of War into Total War:

The emergence of nuclear weapons and other revolutionary
developments in war technology has produced a big in change the
nature of war. The replacement of war by Total War has made war the
most dreaded situation in international relations. This has forced
nations to reject war as an instrument of balance of power which rests
upon the assumption that nations can even go to war for preserving or
restoring the balance.

(10) The Emergence of Global Actors:

The rise of the United Nations and several other international and
regional actors in international relations has given a new looked to the
international relations of our times. The presence of the UN has made
a big change in the structure and functioning of the international
system. With a provision for collective security of international peace
and security, the United Nations constitutes a better source of peace.
Due to all these changes in international relations, Balance of Power
has come to suffer a big decline. It has definitely lost much of its
relevance.

In contemporary times, Balance of Power has ceased to be a fully

relevant and credible principle of international relations. However, it
still retains a presence in international relations, more particularly, in
the sphere of regional relations among states.

Some scholars observe:

“The idea of balance of power is still the central theoretical concept in
international relation.” —Snyder

“The Structural changes in international politics of post-war period

have not greatly affected the principle of Balance of Power. It still
holds good in respect of regional relations among nations.” —Arnold
Wolfers

Although Balance of Power has lost must of its relevance as a global

level device of power management, it is still being used by the states
of a region to maintain a balance in their power positions.

Several scholars admit its continued presence:

“As long as the nation-state system is the prevailing pattern of
international society, balance of power policies will be followed in
practice, and in all probability, they will continue to operate, even if
effective supranational groupings on a regional or world level are
formed.” —Palmer and Perkins

Indeed the concept of Balance of Power is bound to continue so long

as the struggle for power among nations continues to characterize
international relations. Even the staunch critics of Balance of Power
like, Martin Wright and Friendrich admit that Balance of Power is still
a basic element in international relations. Balance of power is neither
totally obsolete nor dead. Its role, however, has changed from a global
device to a regional device of power management.