Theoretical Explanation Of Balance Of Power

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015 Last Modified: 02 May 2017

The concept of the Balance of Power can be a useful tool in explaining the behaviour of states. Mostly because it is founded on the theory that all states act to preserve their own self interest. If they are to do this they must prevent domination by any other state, which leads to the assumption that they must build up power and form alliances. Throughout history we can see the B.O.P. concept in action. The states of Europe held each other in balance through the first 300 years of the modern state system. The clearest example of the B.O.P. concept can be found in the Cold War. In the Cold War the two superpowers the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. held a stable world balance between them. Both states sought to deter domination by the other through a build up of arms and through the creation of strong alliance systems. Under the B.O.P. theory the logic of the Cold War strategies and alliances seems apparent, with the best method of security being strength.

In comparison with the era of the Cold War, we are now living in a constantly changing world. In recent years a number of emerging nations have been challenging the position of dominance of the old powers, which are dropping down the international pecking order. In economic terms, countries from the "South" now account for more than half of global GDP (Gross Domestic Product), are leading world growth -with growth rates above 11% (China) and 9% (India) -and consume more than half of the world's energy. It is forecast that in thirty years time, China and India will be global powers and that, along with the United States of America (USA), they will compete amongst themselves for world leadership.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been alone in the world; no state or combination of states provides an effective counterweight. Moreover Globalization, Market forces and operation of non state elements without regard for national boundaries and loyalties have made the balancing phenomenon more complicated. Therefore, some recent studies in the field of International relations advocate that power politics including balancing of power has become obsolete and the theory of the balance of power has lost its relevance. This phenomenon has raised series of questions and just a few are picked out here:-

Question 1:

Historically why and how the states opt for International balance of power?

Question 2:

Is contemporary international politics devoid of balance of power and power politics?

Question 3:

Are traditional measures and sources of power losing their relevance in world?

Question 4

What is the effect of prevailing global security situations on International balance of power?

Aim of the Paper: The dual aim of the paper is to map the different trends that are shaping the senario for the future global power balance as well as to offer a tool to better cope with the high uncertainty on how this landscape will evolve in the comming decades.

Research design:- This paper represents an attempt by five individuals to think collectively about the international Balance of Power (BoP), analyse past and current international setup to establish pattern of BoP and finally make futuristic prediction in this regard. A humble attempt has also been made to suggest a strategy for Pakistan to carving out its role and relevance in future global seting.

Relatively simple research design is used for this paper. It is in fact a historical, qualitative and an analytical appraisal of transformation of the global power balance that rests on the data extracted from both primary and secondary sources. This paper is mainly focused on studying the building blocks and mechanisms, by virtue of which the theories global power balance, are offering its scholarly and normative influence for contributing in predicting futuristic international scenarios. Three empirical gaps and theoretical arguments in the field of foreign/security policy and IR have been discussed in the study. For conduct of the research the paper would follow the standpoint of the realists' school. In the simplest form the realist paradigm claims that in International relations, 'sovereign states' are the key actors. In due process of International interaction among the states, their interests intrinsically come into conflict, mainly for gain of material power. Balancing thus occurs to protect/ promote its share in material gain.

Organization Of The Paper: Paper is organized in six parts. Part one is about theoretical explanation of balance of power. Part two discusses historical perspective of BOP. Part three is comprised of Determinants of Rising power. Part four presents Shifts in Global balance of Power a myth or reality consequences and likely power counter in the next two decades alternatives to the balance of power as a basis for international order . Part five is focused on Challenges and Opportunities for Pakistan in likely future international settings. Conclusion and Recommendations are placed at the end.

THEORY OF BOP

According to the "balance-of-power theory" balance of power is a fundamental process of international politics, it is a kind of "master law" of international relations. There is a long history to this "Newtonian" conception of the balance of power. Yet in the European intellectual tradition it was, at least through the eighteenth century, a minority view. Much more common was the idea that prudent sovereigns ought to pursue balance-of-power politics. If they followed balance-of-power logic, they would preserve their own independence as well as prevent Europe from falling prey to an "oriental-style" despotism. Thus the "balance of power" was an important adjunct to European ideologies that rejected universal empire on normative grounds.

In contemporary international-relations theory, "balance-of-power theory" is primarily associated with structural realism. Kenneth Waltz, the founder of structural realism, argues that because the international system lacks a common authority (is in a state of anarchy), it inclines states to behave in ways that, over time, produce recurrent balancing equilibria. Within contemporary realism (broadly defined) there exist a number of approaches that reject this interpretation of the basic dynamics of world politics.

Both hegemonic-stability theorists and power-transition theorists argue that the natural equilibrium of international systems is unbalanced: that systems are characterized by the repeated emergence of dominant powers. In substance, the arguments of both camps are basically identical, although the former incline towards qualitative analysis and the latter towards statistical studies. They do adopt somewhat distinctive terminology, however.

Hegemonic-stability theorists generally view such systems as "hegemony under anarchy," i.e., the dominant power acts as a kind of quasi-world government, setting the rules for trade, war, and peace. Power-transition theorists, in contrast, tend to dismiss the notion that the international system is anarchical. In J.F.K. Organski's view, the international system is characterized by a pyramid of power, with the dominant state at the top. This system is hierarchical, and has a great deal in common with domestic systems.

Advocates of both approaches tend to disagree with balance-of-power theorists that the best way to preserve peace between major powers is for states to achieve a balance of power between them. The logic is straightforward: when power is unbalanced, i.e., when a state or coalition of states is clearly superior to their potential rivals, then the former have no need to initiate wars to get what they want while the latter know they are likely to lose any confrontation. Wars between great powers, however, happen when both sides believe they can win, i.e., when they at least perceive the existence of a rough equality of capabilities.

Hegemonic-stability theory - and particularly the work of Robert Gilpin - helped spawn a third variant of realism, often called "neoclassical realism." Neoclassical realism shares a great deal in common with the understanding of the balance of power prevalent in early modern Europe: balancing is a prudent policy, but there is no "force of nature" that impels states to engage in balancing behavior.

In my view, behind all the interpretations of the balance of power lies the appeal to realism in the conduct of international affairs. Realism remains the best, perhaps the only persuasive, argument for restraint; and it is common ground that the doctrine of the balance of power is a device to promote restraint, whether it is argued that lack of restraint is wrong, or dangerous, or ultimately bound to fail. In that sense the balance of power in international affairs is clearly related to the idea of checks and balances within a government, which is equally a device to impose restraint on men who might otherwise, seduced by power, abandon it.

When Hans Morgenthau wrote Politics Among Nations in 1948, he was coming from the experience of World War II and his observations of the struggle for power and peace. He was very aware of the international system of the 19th century and how it changed through the first half of the 20th century. Then, as the Cold War settled in, he observed how a new bipolar world emerged from the former multi-polar world. He was very sure that an "objective and universally valid truth" existed to explain the world politic and that truth was "accessible to human reason." The Realist view of the world was born with Morgenthau (and others) with this view that to successfully navigate the treacherous world of international politics, one must have a very clear understanding of how the world "really" operated.

Waltz, arriving on the scene a generation later and with more time to observe the apparent bipolarity established by the United States and the Soviet Union, decided that the early Realists were fundamentally correct. He posits that since the international world is anarchical and that power is the coin of the realm, states must make decisions based on the position they have relative to others. Therefore, the actions of states can, to some extent, be predicted based on their power position in the region and world.

States, in Waltz's understanding of the World, remain the principal actor. Transnational, sub-national, and even a-national actors may arrive on the scene and even have effects in the international arena, but the state will always find a way to deal with the "interlopers." None of the other potential replacements for the state have the capability of providing what states can do for their populations.

Realists have a pessimistic view of the world; there is conflict, always has been conflict, and there always will be conflict. This view rejects the notion that one can differentiate morally between "virtuous" and "non-virtuous" states in the international system. Such a view of how the world really works does not easily admit that the system can be changed and that conflict can be avoided.

The Realist, then, is concerned with how the world actually operates and not with how the world ought to operate. The Realist sees the state as the fundamental actor in the international system, which is anarchical and amoral. As a result, actions taken by states that are not aligned with or do not at least take into account these "realities" are likely doomed to failure. Morgenthau was quite convinced that mistaken faith in Wilson's liberal philosophy had taken the world to the brink of disaster. The attempt to use morals to decide on actions was not successful. Only firm decisions taken with a full understanding of the reality of the international system would bring successful foreign policy.

Fundamental is this system is the balance of power. Each state is concerned as to where it sits in relation to other states. When one state begins to gain power, other states will make decisions based on that power. Some will organize to counter those gains, either as an individual or by forming alliances.

Coming along a generation after Waltz, Stephen Walt added to the Realist paradigm the notion of the "balance of threat." Really just another way of discussing the balance of power, he shows how threats are the means by which states communicate with each other, thus ensuring they are taken seriously so their interests are protected. Balancing of power is a two sided proposition, though, meaning that a state, by its actions, can convince other states to either balance against them or with them. "Band-wagoning," a process, by which states join with others, ostensibly to counter an aggressive state, is a mechanism Walt believes must be better understood and taken into account by leaders of states.

We may actually be seeing some of this going on in response to U. S. actions with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of Iraq, by standing up to aggressive action on the part of Al Qaeda, most of NATO stood with the United States and remains with US in the fight in Afghanistan. The opposite occurred with Iraq, when the European states saw American actions as being aggressive, and have "band-wagoned" in opposition to the United States.

In order to promote a theoretical understanding of international relations and get answers of our research questions we will use realists' approach of the balance of power. The realists' theory provides answers to our questions as under:-

Realists' Theory

Question 1:

Historically why and how the states opt for International balance of power?

Against threatening (or powerful) states by forming alliance

Question 2:

Is contemporary international politics devoid of balance of power and power politics?

Balance of power is still relevant

Question 3:

Are traditional measures and sources of power losing their relevance in world politics?

They are still relevant

Question 4

what is the effect of prevailing global security situations on International balance of power?

After the disintegration of USSR, traditional international balance of power was disturbed because of US unilateral approach to the world's leading problems. After the current transitional flux, several poles are emerging and the traditional balance of power is going to be restored.

DEFINITION OF BALANCE OF POWER

Political Dictionary: balance of power

Probably the oldest concept in the study of International Relations going back at least to the work of Thucydides. It is closely associated with both diplomatic parlance and realist theory. Its logic derives from the self-help imperative of the international system's anarchic structure, in which states are obliged to give priority to survival and security. In pursuing this logic, states will usually join together to oppose any expansionist centre of power that threatens to dominate the system and thus threaten their sovereignty. Balance of power behaviour is central to conceptions of the national interest and to alliance policy. If successful, it preserves individual states and the anarchic structure of the system as a whole. Its opposite is 'bandwagoning', in which states seek security by joining with the dominant power. Realists conceive balance of power as an automatic tendency in state behaviour. In an international society perspective, balance of power is a conscious policy shared amongst a group of states, and serving as the principle by which they regulate their relations. Neither 'balance' nor 'power' are measurable, and their interpretation is much debated.

- Barry Buzan

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

In international relations, an equilibrium of power sufficient to discourage or prevent one nation or party from imposing its will on or interfering with the interests of another. The term came into use at the end of the Napoleonic Wars to denote the power relationships in the European state system. Until World War I, Britain played the role of balancer in a number of shifting alliances. After World War II, a Northern Hemisphere balance of power pitted the U.S. and its allies (NATO) against the Soviet Union and its satellites ( Warsaw Pact) in a bipolar balance of power backed by the threat of nuclear war. China's defection from the Soviet camp to a nonaligned but covertly anti-Soviet stance produced a third node of power. With the Soviet Union's collapse (1991), the U.S. and its NATO allies were recognized universally as the world's paramount military power.

Balance of power, 0n Britannica.com

Columbia Encyclopedia:

Balance of power is system of international relations in which nations seek to maintain an approximate equilibrium of power among many rivals, thus preventing the preponderance of any one state. Crucial to the system is a willingness on the part of individual national governments to change alliances as the situation demands in order to maintain the balance. Thucydides' description of Greece in the 5th cent. B.C. and Guicciardini's description of 15th-century Italy are early illustrations. Its modern development began in the mid-17th cent., when it was directed against the France of Louis XIV. Balance of power was the stated British objective for much of the 18th and 19th cent., and it characterized the European international system, for example, from 1815-1914. After World War I the balance of power system was attacked by proponents of cooperation and a community of power. International relations were changed radically after World War II by the predominance of two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, with major ideological differences between them. After the 1960s, with the emergence of China and the Third World, a revived Europe and Japan, it reemerged as a component of international relations. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the United States, as the sole remaining superpower, has been dominant militarily and, to a lesser degree, economically.

US Foreign Policy Encyclopedia:

The balance of power appears at first sight a simple concept. It has been defined as "a phrase in international law for such a 'just equilibrium' between the members of the family of nations as should prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest." Yet the phrase has always been of more use in political polemic than in political analysis. Like other phrases with a strong emotional appeal it is vague, and it would lose its appeal if it were more precise. Its obscurities are several, but the most important is that it blends the descriptive and the normative. The condition is one, the term "balance" implies, toward which international life is forever tending. That is the descriptive element. But the condition is also one that may be upset, and right-thinking statesmen should constantly be on the alert to preserve or restore it. That is the normative element. These two elements reinforce one another. Because such a balance will be established in any event, it is sensible and moral to work toward it.

PART-II

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

OF

BALANCE OF POWER

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF BALANCE OF POWER

4. Prehistoric and Medieval Periods. During the Period of the Warring States in China (403-221 BC), the development of large, cohesive states accompanied the creation of irrigation systems, bureaucracies, and large armies equipped with iron weapons. These Chinese states pursued power through a constantly shifting network of alliances. In ancient Greece during the Peloponnesian Wars (431-404 BC), the rising power of Athens triggered the formation of a coalition of city-states that felt threatened by Athenian power.

5. Pre World Wars Period

a. In the 17th century the Habsburg dynasty, which ruled Austria and Spain, threatened to dominate Europe. During the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), a coalition that included Sweden, England, France, and The Netherlands defeated the rulers of the Habsburg Empire.

b. Early in the 19th century, Napoleon repeatedly made efforts to conquer large areas of Europe. A broad coalition of European states-including Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia-defeated France in a series of major battles that climaxed with Napoleon's defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.

c. The classical European balance of power system emerged thereafter in an alliance known as the Concert of Europe, organized in 1815 by Austrian statesman Klemens von Metternich. This loose alliance between Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, and France ensured that a handful of great powers would coexist, with none able to dominate the others. Under this system, and with Britain playing a balancer role, peace largely prevailed in Europe during the 19th century. It is not an accident that the doctrine of the balance of power-alike in international and in domestic politics-received its classic and most rigorous statements at a time when foreign policy was largely a matter for rulers who could use the war potential of their states for their own aggrandizement. It was because a ruler had to be able to wage effective war that he had to be allowed the armed force that contributed to his domestic control.

d. British reliance on a navy rather than on a standing army was important to the growth of British liberties-and later to American liberty. In a sense, therefore, the international balance of power was needed to check the pretensions of rulers who lacked any effective domestic check. The balance of power, however, although it may act to restrain the actions of those who believe in the doctrine, is in the first instance a device to restrain others.

6. Inter and Intra World Wars Period (1914-1945)

a. When World War I broke out, although all parties made some effort to maintain or protect the balance of power (which, of course, they interpreted differently), none of them could argue that governments, or princes, were behaving in the way that one would expect. German apologists had to contend that Germany was surrounded by malevolent foes and that the survival of Germany was at stake. The allies had to contend not merely that Germany was too powerful for comfort, but that German militarism threatened a European civilization that would otherwise be peaceful. The argument, in short, could not be cast in terms of the balance of power.

b. In order to contain German and its allies, a formidable alliance was formed in Europe. German threat was such that USA broke away with the centuries long stand of neutrality and joined the alliance against Germany. Status quo however, was maintained in Europe. Historians will long continue to debate the causes that finally brought the United States into the war.

c. Same was the case in World War II, where, a status quo was required to be maintained and German advances were to be stopped, alliance on the lines of World War I was formed. The alliance completely decapacitated German led axis powers. In both the World Wars, the entry of the United States so quickly and completely tilted the balance of power in favor of the side it joined. Had the United States been regarded as an element in the balance; the wars in the form they took would never have broken out and it is here that the world saw the introduction of WMD.

7. Cold War Period

a. It was well recognized that the United States and the Soviet Union were in direct and unique competition. The appalling consequences of nuclear war introduced a new kind of stability. The so-called balance of terror or balance of deterrence ensured that each nuclear power was anxious not to give the other power any sort of signal that would justify an attack, and was also anxious not to identify such a signal. This caution was compatible with, and even required, an arms race.

b. The ideological struggle reflected the knowledge of both great powers that they contended in a fast-changing world; and the Cold War began to lose intensity, not when the protagonists decided to abandon it but when world circumstances changed and new elements began to contribute to the balance.

c. It became almost conventional to speak in terms of a world of four poles-the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe and Japan.

d. US led West used all means and opportunities to balance Soviet military power and kept on trying to contain Soviet Union. On the other hand Soviet Union formed an alliance with the opposite block countries to counter the US. Struggle of countering each power continued till the Soviet Union finally collapsed. With the subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union, the United States became incontrovertibly the world's dominant power.

8. Post Cold War

a. After the disintegration of Soviet Union, USA emerged as sole global power hence as per the ground realities, the entire world had to align its policies with the US. Without an apparent foe to challenge its security, the major question confronting U.S. foreign policy was what would succeed the Cold War's bipolar balance of power.

b. The issue among academics and political commentators was whether the United States should emphasize its dominant position as a "unipolar" global power, or seek a leading role in a tripolar or multipolar system.

9. Conclusions from Historical Perspective. In nut shell post cold war power balance is categorized by US unilateralism, West's political, economic and social control to the extent that the situations symbolize with that of eighteenth and nineteenth century's colonization. Striking conclusions of the post cold war power balance are as under:-

a. The end of the Cold War in US and Europe and the ongoing integration of the European economies alongside attempts at greater political integration in the continent have given rise to a view that traditional concepts of security are no longer relevant. There is a powerful perception that the idea of the state and its sovereignty has been made irrelevant by processes that are taking place at both the global and local level. Concept of security has been widened to the extent that currently it includes everything under the sun.

b. Concept of Balance of Power has also been changed from the known enemy threat to fear of unlimited unknowns. Interpretations of the balance has also been changed from balance among nation states to balance among civilizations and much beyond.

c. Post cold war era reintroduces the phenomena of colonization with changed face of chaining the third world through economic, trade and technology transfer policies under the umbrella of IMF, world bank, various technological regimes and UN.

PART III

DETERMINANTS OF RISING POWER (ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER OR ANY OTHER FACTORS DEEMED NECESSARY TO QUALIFY A POWER TO BE THE "RISING POWER")

The international system is characterized by several unique features which colour the entire pattern of interstate relations and international politics. These features may be summarized as follows:-

The central fact about the international system is that it consists of sovereign and independent nation states.

These nation states act in their several interests. Their actions are the result of such factors as the judgments of the individual state authorities.

The international system has no central political organ capable of enforcing uniform laws and standards of behavior. The United Nation is too weak to perform the task.

There are very few universally accepted rules of the game. Generally recognized sources of these rules are four:-

Diplomatic practices, (b) International law, (c) Morality and

(d) World Public opinion. The significance of morality and world public opinion in international politics is hard to determine. The laws and principles flowing from other two sources are not properly codified and states individually interpret them in their interest.

(5) Various states differ in their historical experiences, political ideologies and economic systems. Again they follow different religions, belong to different cultures and value systems. It is the complicated interaction between these various factors that colours their entire outlook.

(6) The different states vary with respect to such vital factors as size of population and territory, character, political systems, resources, ideology and judgment.

(7) The power distribution of the world is very odd. Between super powers (like the USA and the Soviet Union) and small powers (like Peru, Ethiopia, Srilanka, Sudan etc) there are a number of powers-medium, secondary and lesser powers.

(8) Despite the fact of unequal power distribution each state by virtue of being independent and sovereign is regarded as equal and claims equal rights. In the absence of any central organ capable of guaranteeing these equal rights, the protection of these equal rights becomes the concern of each individual state. They are free to select and apply their own methods to protect their status and rights. The result is the international political activity.

(9) The cumulative result of all the above factors is the emergence of a typical system which unlike community lacks common values and goals, has no universally accepted procedures and code of conduct where because of these factors resort to arms to resolve disputes is not uncommon.

NATURE AND ROLE OF POWER

The word power refers to one's capacity to control. As man endeavours to control the various aspects of his environment, his capacity to control these aspects manifests itself in different ways. It is his scientific knowledge (power) through which he controls nature whereas his capacity to control the means of production and distribution is called his economic power. Political power is different from these. It is man's power over the minds and actions of other men.

Two questions arise in this connection-first, why men want to control and direct the activities of others and second, what are the sources of this power. One probable answer to the first question is that the best way to avoid control over one-self by others is to control all others. Perhaps controlling all others is the only surest means for avoiding possible control by them over one-self. Diving deeper into this line of analysis leads one to the Hobbesean conception of human nature. Another answer is that man wants to control others for material benefits. Thus economic needs of man become the principal driving force behind all his political activity.

As regards the sources of power, too, there is a wide divergence of opinion. The different views can broadly be categorized into two- the classical view and the modern view. According to the classical view the sources of political power are economic and physical strength, which one can exert on others. It exerts through orders, threats etc., and operates by creating either an expectation of benefit or the fear of disadvantages. In the modern sense power is more a spiritual and intellectual leadership. It is the capacity of a leading state to invite confidence, support and co-operation from lesser states through its championship of promising political principles or a value system. This type of power is based on a kind of 'concensus in shared values'. It assumes the form of voluntary agreement among states to follow a given course of action. It is exerted not through orders and threats but through persuasion. It is tutelage in principles and values through which the powerful try to identify their aims with the aspirations of the lesser powers. It is because of this that it is some times called an 'ideological contest' or 'selling of ideas'.

Rising Power

Rising power is a 'national power' having certain ingredients to threaten the statuesque of global settings. In the light of the above discussion the rising power is variously described-Pedelford and Lincoln have described it as:

"Strength composed of economic, psychological, moral, military and political elements, successfully directed to the furtherance of national interests, constitute rising national power".

This is by far the best definition of rising power in that it takes into consideration both classical and modern views regarding the sources of power and also touches on the objectives for which it is used. Rising power operates in international field in this sense.

It should further be noted here in this connection that the concept of rising power is (a) relative, (b) conditional and (c) situational

Relativity of Rising Power

It is relative in that it has no absolute dimension. Power is rated by the effect it can bring about. A State 'A' may be powerful vis-à-vis 'B' but can at the same time be weaker than, say, China or Soviet Union.

Conditional

Rising power is conditional in that it depends on variety of factors the exact role of which is difficult to assess. States A and B may have equal resources, military strength etc., yet they may differ in effective power. A strong sentiment of Nationalism, for instance, in State 'A' may inspire popular support to government action and policies and may prepare the people for greater sacrifices. This is bound to add to A's power. If any such sentiment is totally absent in State 'B' and the nation is torn by intense internal dissentions, this may make it weaker vis-à-vis 'A' despite its equal or even superior resources and military preparedness.

Situational

Rising power is situational in the sense that it depends on specific international situation. Despite unchanged condition of resources and military might of both, the power equation between States A and B may change because of changed international situation. B may at once become powerful vis-à-vis A because of some favourable turn to international situation, such as, States C, D, E, developing differences with A and turning closer to B. Development of friendly relations between America and India and the formation of an unwritten alliance between US, India and Israel has affected China and Pakistan equation with her neghbours.

DETERMINANTS OF RISING NATIONAL POWER

After having discussed the nature and role of power, we now conveniently turn to the discussion of the elements of a rising national power. The following points must be borne in mind in this connection.

1. All the factors that make a nation more powerful than others cannot be discovered and enumerated.

2. The relative impact of these elements on the power of any nation cannot be accurately weighed.

3. Power of a nation being relative, conditional and situational, absolute assessment of it is simply out of question. Any talk of national power is essentially a comparative matter.

Thus the study of the determinants of national power should not be expected to lead to the exact calculation or assessment of the power of a state.

The factors that influence the power of a nation are broadly categorized as intangible factors. Technology, Geography, Natural resources etc., are tangible factors, whereas political, economic and social systems, ideology, moral leadership etc., are the intangible factors.

GEOGRAPHY

Geography of a state influences its power in various ways. Such geographical aspects as location, shape, topography and climate have a direct influence on the power potential of a nation.

Location

Location of a state affects national power in numerous ways. A state cut off from other states by thousands of miles of ocean has little reasons to fear any aggression. They can employ all their resources for economic development and social progress. They can use their military power to influence the events abroad. This is particularly the case when the nature is bountiful and the state is self sufficient with respect to its requirements. The USA provides an example for this. England's insular position has to much extent granted her relief from the continental rivalries. On the contrary nearness to a big power may affect the entire course of development in quite a different manner. Because of its strategic importance of Suez Zone in the past has led the imperial powers of the west to take interest in Egypt. It was their strategic importance which landed Finland, Norway and Denmark into trouble in 1939-40. Strategic importance of South Korea has increased in the eyes of Japan and Western imperial powers since communist revolution in China.

It is the location that whether a nation will develop into a land or sea power.

Location also imposes a particular type of economy on a nation, by determining its climate, rain fall etc.

Size

Size refers to the land area of a state. In itself it may or may not be an element of power. A vast area may add to the chances of having minerals and of increasing agricultural production making a nation self sufficient with respect to minerals and food product as is the case with the USA, Russia and China. But in some cases it may not be of any import in this respect as vast land scapes of Sahara.

Same can be said with respect to the effect of size on the defence capacity of a nation. It may increase the defence capacity or may even adversely affect it. Russia provides a fine example to illustrate the point. Japan was not too small to defeat Russia in 1904-05. Vastness of her own expanse proved to be a handicap to Russia. It was because of the low level of communication technology, organizational skill and military leadership. But in another case when Napoleon attacked Russia in 1812 her vastness of size proved to be a been. China was saved from total disintegration when attacked by Japan in 1937, because of among other factors, her vast size. Thus it can be said that a vast size combined with other factors like efficiency of transportation the military leadership, foresight of diplomatic leaders etc., definitely adds to the defensive and offensive capacity of a nation.

Shape

Like size, the shape of a state has also a bearing on its power. A compact area is easier to defend than a non-compact one as that of former Pakistan. Similarly an elongated territory like Czechoslovakia is difficult to protect. Single well-planned stroke by enemy can cut it into two. A square shape is preferable. In this case a state capital at centre surrounded by industrial belt is less amenable to enemy attack. According to N.J. Shykeman a circle is an ideal shape.

Topography

Importance of topography as a factor affecting national power cannot be denied. Mountain ranges or big rivers may provide ideal natural international boundaries there by reducing the number of border disputes between the neighbours. Tall mountains also provide natural protection. Himalayas have provided in the past a good protection to India from the north. But tall mountain ranges also stand as barriers against any cultural and economic give and take beyond them. In this sense Himalayas may be said to be responsible for the low level of socio-cultural or economic transaction between India and Tibet. Rivers may provide good ports and an easy access to the centres of population and trade. Rivers flowing from the plane and round the years are very useful with respect to transportation. Those flowing from one state to another provide cheap interstate transport.

Topography influences power in another way also. One of the factors responsible for the international recognition of Switzerland's neutral status is her topography. British rules in India extended their influence to Burma and later brought it under their direct control but never thought of extending their suzerainty to Nepal because of its typicial topography.

As an important determinant of rainfall, also, the topography affects the power potential of a nation.

Climate

Importance of climate with reference to power cannot be denied. It is one of the determinants of the culture and economy of a people, which in turn affects the power of a nation. It imposes a particular type of economy on a nation. Climate puts a ceiling on human efficiency and performance. In the Arctic Zone people have to spend much of their time and energy in sustaining life. Life is equally a hard struggle in the Topical Zone. Excessive heat and rainfall thee are conductive to the spread of various epidemics and affects the health and longevity of the people. This gives a typical irritant short tempered tone to the disposition of the people. Possibility of cold thinking and sustained hard work is ruled out. This helps perpetuate backwardness. Thus extremes of both heat and cold are unfavorable for the health of the people and power of nations. It is not a mere coincidence that almost all major powers of the world are situated in the temperate zone.

Climate also affects the agricultural productivity of a country vast expanses of arable land in India are of little use because of certain monsoons.

That nations with a suitable climate invariably develop into great powers cannot, however, be established. So climate when combined with other favorable factors has a desired effect.

There is a temptation to overrate the influence of geography on the power of a nation. This needs to be checked. This cannot be better expressed that in the words of Robert Rienow. He writes:

"Although it is well to recognition the contribution of geography to the destiny of states. It is well also not to overrate it. Men are not the trees wholly at the mercy of the environment. Instead men may perversely thrive on obstacles. Nature has frowned more than it has smiled on Scotland and built a super sturdy race that has made notable achievements. A nation without a coast or good harbour can hardly become a sea power; by the same token it is more than rain and sunshine to make crops-some one has to cultivate the soil".

Natural Resources

In modern times, a nation can be powerful only if it possesses plentiful natural resources. It requires to be self sufficient in this matter. Self sufficient nations may not realize the importance of natural resources, but those falling short of it all the time feel the brunt of it. Nations depending on others for the supply of these resources cannot sustain an independent stand on international issues over a long period.

Natural resources are of two types. Those which can be reproduced an multiplied over years by human efforts and those which once exhausted can never be recovered. Food stuffs and other agricultural products fall in the first category whereas the minerals fall in the second.

Food-Stuffs and Agricultural Products

Raymond W. Hiller rightly said that 'Hunger is the most important factor in the world today. The real challenge of the twentieth century is race between man and starvation. In many parts of the world, food is a major problem. America, Soviet Union, France, Italy and Japan are self-sufficient. America is over fed. But too much of surplus production also creates problems. It leads to dependency on foreign markets. Germany and particularly Great Britain needs substantial imports. The underdeveloped centries food problem is acute. Thousands die of starvation every year in various parts of the underdeveloped world.

Food affects the power of nation in many respects. Availability of food-stuffs affects the foreign policies and war strategies particularly in the days of Crisis. A country with good reserves of food can fight a longer war. It was evidenced in first and second World Wars. England was particularly alarmed when Germany attacked Egypt. The fear of cutting supplies of food grains and other resources from its eastern empires was at the root.

Again, mal-nourished people cannot complete the well fed in the matters of production. Mal-nourishment affects the health and consequently the efficiency of the people. Moreover they are potent sources of dissatisfaction thereby weakening the popular support particularly when it is very much required.

Production of food grains and other agricultural products can be multiplied by human efforts and application of scientific knowledge to it. Yet there are limits to this as well. Nature needs to be co-operative to human efforts. Indian agriculture is a gamble of monsoon. Application of scientific methods may help better the situation. Nevertheless, natural factors put a broad ceiling on its prosperity in this respect.

Minerals

Only the states with substantial industries can become great military powers today. Development of industry needs to be both quantitative and qualitative. Mineral are the sinews of industry. Industries can thrive only when substantial minerals resources are available. Industrially developed countries like USA, China and Russia are rich in mineral resources.

Technology

Application of science is technology. Technology has a wide sweep. It affects not only the power of nation but also its economy and indirectly even social set up. Politics and even the value structure of a society. Technological progress creates new problems, fears and tension such as those which are felt today by us in the industrialized urban sectors. This tells on the social set up and value structure of the people.

Military technology is the branch directly affecting the power of a nation. In the past, the European powers like Great Britain, France could build and protect vast empires because of their being advanced in military technology. The secret of German power during the great wars of our century was to much extent in the innovations it made in military technology. Today the USA and the Soviet Union are the great powers by virtue of among other things their advancement in nuclear technology.

Developed military technology needs to be matched by developed industrial technology. Without a suitably developed infrastructure, military technology cannot advance, and even if it is developed it does not prove to be a reliable instrument of power. Power so attained does not sustain in the absence of adequate support of industrial technology. Today even the underdeveloped countries are trying to get nuclear know-how and construct nuclear installation. But in the context of their backward industry nuclear technology alone is not going to make them powerful over-night. The development of industries gear up nation's entire economy. It was surplus industrial production which, in the first instance, compelled the European to search markets. Secret of Japan's power lies in its developed industry. It was with help of industrial technology that it arose out of the ashes after Second World War.

Population

Men are necessary for production and fighting. With all the developments in modern technology man is not completely replaced by machine. Naturally therefore, other elements being equal, the state having largest number of population to perform these tasks will be most powerful. So the Voltaire's statement that 'God is always on the side of the biggest battalions' hold good even today. If they attain the level of development in other field equal to that attained by developed countries, the populous countries like China and India are bound to become most powerful countries by virtue of their population.

Armed forces are made up of men. Again men are required to perform other such services as supply to the forces in the field. They are also essential to continue the work of production. This indeed is a gigantic task. Agricultural production is to be continued uninterrupted. This requires the services of vast number of men. Then other necessities of life like clothing, medicine, housing, transportation, are to be continually produced and distributed. This again is a vast area which demands the services of a large number of people. Any break in the routine creates problems and difficulties. Munition making is a trade directly related to the armed forces and on the quality and quantity of the weapons produced depends the strength of the army.

Looking at these facts, it can be safely said that population has a direct bearing on the power of a nation. A certain level of population is just essential. If the population of a country falls short of this requirement it is bound to be weak. It is not just an accident that the USA and the USSR having a good number of population are the big powers of the world today and those with less than the requirement like Australia and Canada are, not even secondary powers.

However, over population creates difficulties. Problem of feeding them properly and maintaining a particular standard of life becomes difficult. The concept of over population is relative one. It is related to the productive capacity of the state. India and China are over populated in the sense that population there excels the productive capacity of the countries. The productive capacity of any state can be improved to some extent by applying new scientific knowledge and technology to the field of production. So with an appropriate increase in production India and China can cease to be over populated.

Apart from the number of men, their quality is of extreme significance. Modern industrial and war technology require skilled men. Men must be ready to and capable of developing different skills, as per the requirement of the time. Again they must have a good degree of mobility so that they can be shifted from one place to another or from one profession to another. Inertia in this matter creates difficulties. Besides such factors as the age composition of the population, its percentage of literacy, health and longevity of the people, all have a significant import on the national power. For instance between the two groups of population having equal number but one containing more older people than the other where the number of young people is more, the former is bound to be weak.

Another factor that is called 'moral' of the people is also emphasized. This broadly refers to the will power of people, to continue the task undertaken amidst difficulties and through the moments of despair. Needless to say that people with high morale make a powerful nation. But the morale of a people is the result of other factors. Those who believe in the talk of 'national character' attribute it to the heredity and regard it as a born quality. Reality is different. It is the result of such other factors as ideology, the political, economic and social systems etc.

Ideology

Nature and role of ideology in international relations is a subject matter of independent discussion and is treated in a separate chapter. Here we are concerned with the import of ideology on the power of a nation.

In this connection, it is sufficient to know that ideology is a set of some abstract ideas which undertakes to explain the reality, specifies value preferences and visualizes an ideal society, the ways and means to attain which are also stipulated. Some ideologies assert the inevitability of change and certainty of dawning of the ideal situation. In this case they impart a morale to the fighter on the side of the ideology.

In recent years ideologies have injected passionate drives into international relations. Communist revolution of Soviet Union added new dimension to the International life. Old conflicts of interests turned into ideological conflicts like communism versus capitalism, totalitarianism versus liberalism etc. the rise of Facism and Nazism made the picture more complicated. Second World War was fought in the name of ideologies. How far it can be regarded as an ideological conflict is, however, debatable.

However, it must be admitted that ideology affects the national power. Ideology like nationalism creates common interest and imparts a unity to nations. Again commitment to an ideology creates a sense of dedication for cause an prepares men for higher sacrifices. Narrow individualistic interests give place to group or national interests. In case the ideology promises better life, men are easily prepared to fight for it. When it holds the prophecy of inevitability of change and revolution, it boosts the morale of the fighters on its side. Death is no longer an insignificant ordinary death; it is martyrdom. In this sense certain ideologies like nationalism and communism are very significant.

Political, Economic and Social System

The political, economic and social systems and institutions have both, a direct and indirect bearing on the national power.

Capitalism, socialism, Islamism, communism are the different economic systems. In fact, between extreme capitalism at the one end and communism at another, there are various systems with slight shades of differences. What import these systems have on national power? How do they influence it? These questions are indeed difficult to answer yet logically we can arrive at certain conclusions. Capitalism rests on the philosophy of Laissez-Faire. It is the result of allowing the people a complete free play in economic matters. The entire economy rests on free competition due to which market laws operate freely, slowly but certainly eliminating the lesser partners in the competition. This lead to a high degree of economic inequality. Exploitation and operation of the vast number of masses is the result. All the benefits of national life go to a small section of people where as miseries and sufferings is the lot of the masses. Meeting the bare necessities of life becomes difficult to a large section of people. All their energies are consumed in hand to mouth activity. Mentally also they are engrossed in thinking out ways and means to meet the requirements of the next day. In such a situation what caliber, morale dedication and spirit of sacrifice can be expected from them. The talk of national security and national defence is simply irrelevant to them. Their lot is of sufferings and miseries and it is constant. Under-fed and half-necked slum dwellers as they are, they have little stakes in national security. With such a vast majority of population utterly indifferent towards the security of nation, can be expect a nation to be strong? It is argued that nation's power lies in national surplus. How van surplus shown keeping millions starving make a nation stronger? The talk about efficiency in production etc., is simply futile.

On the contrary in a socialist society all have equal stakes in national security. With a raised standard of living to all, higher literacy and hygienic level, the character of the entire population raises step by step. They attain a high degree of dedication, preparedness for sacrifice and a higher degree of morale. It is not an accident that amidst different odds and despairs, the people of North Vietnam could face twenty years' aggression by the USA and could maintain a high morale.

Political System

From democracy to dictatorship there are a number of political systems. No two democracies are similar. They vary in the level of democracy, the form of government etc. these various political systems have different effects on the national power. An authoritarian or autocratic government may appear powerful. Dictatorial regimes are generally said to be very efficient and capable of quick decisions. This is particularly an asset in the days of crises and high tensions like those of war. The government can take quick and firm decisions. The bureaucracy too, for the fear of punishment, works efficiently. A democratic government takes much more time, comparatively, to arrive at decisions. So in the initial phases of war armies of the authoritarian states seem to gain. But after a point they cease to be efficient or powerful either.

The democratic government enjoys confidence of the people. Its decision to fight is the decision of the people. So once a decision is taken entire nation supports it. Victories or defeat thereafter are those of entire nation the people. This is not the case with autocratic or dictatorial governments. A dictator rules in his own right. It is his government not of the people. His government never takes people into confidence while taking any decision. People have neither any affinity with the government nor any respect for its decisions. So it becomes highly difficult for the government to muster popular support to its decisions. It cannot expect sacrifice from the people. So after a point they cannot compete with the armies of the democratic government. In this situation the morale of the fighting man starts falling sown sleepy. Thereafter they may start encountering defeat after defeat at the hands of armies of the democratic countries.

PART-IV

The Shift in Global balance of Power a myth or reality

MYTHS AND REALITIES OF RISING POWERS AND

GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER

10. Preamble:

Balance of Power' strategies amongst nations and regional and security alliances have been a recurrent and normal feature of global history. Power shifts when they take place generate corresponding responses in strategic jockeying by established powers to recreate new balance of power to ensure the continuance of the old established order. The present world order-characterized by an unprecedented number of democratic nations; a greater global prosperity, even with the current crisis, than the world has ever known; and a long peace among great powers-reflects American preferences, and was built and preserved by American power in all its political, economic, and military dimensions.

The perception of US decline today is certainly understandable, given the dismal economic situation since 2008 and the nation's large fiscal deficits, which, combined with the continuing growth of the Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, Turkish, and other economies, seem to portend a significant and irreversible shift in global economic power. Some of the pessimism is also due to the belief that the United States has lost favor, and therefore influence, in much of the world, because of its various responses to the attacks of September 11. The detainment facilities at Guantánamo, the use of torture against suspected terrorists, and the widely condemned invasion of Iraq in 2003 have all tarnished the American "brand" and put a dent in America's "soft power"-its ability to attract others to its point of view. With this broad perception of decline as the backdrop, every failure of the United States to get its way in the world tends to reinforce the impression.

Powerful as this sense of decline may be, however, it deserves a more rigorous examination. Measuring changes in a nation's relative power is a tricky business, but there are some basic indicators: the size and the influence of its economy relative to that of other powers; the magnitude of military power compared with that of potential adversaries; the degree of political influence it wields in the international system-all of which make up what the Chinese call "comprehensive national power."

Moreover, a great power's decline is the product of fundamental changes in the international distribution of various forms of power that usually occur over longer stretches of time. Great powers rarely decline suddenly. A war may bring them down, but even that is usually a symptom, and a culmination, of a longer process.

11. Shift in Global Balance of Power - A Myth or Reality

The global shift of power to Asia and the global strategic dominance of the United States has been the subject of discussion since many years. Main theme of the debates and discussion is that whether United States power is in 'absolute decline' or 'relative decline'. Either way, with the global shift of power to Asia what would inevitably follow is that the global balance of power would also be acquiring newer contours.

The shape of the global order is largely a function of the prevailing balance of power. As discussed earlier, since 1945, this global order has been dominated by the United States, a question arises that will the relative U.S. decline and the 'rise of the rest' lead to the decaying of this established order? The international system is both complex and contradictory at the same time. The world being dynamic, predictions and forecasts tend to be subjective than objective. Nobody predicted - at least not out loud- the fall of the Berlin Wall, Japan's loss of influence, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, the upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism, Arab Spring and the meteoric rise of the oil prices. Without wishing to predict the future, and instead taking the current situation as a starting point, the international system is characterized by three general tendencies.

a. A new international order which is both uni and multi-polar at the same time.

b. The rise of Asia (China) which will come to dominate the 21st century in the economic dimensions of world order.

c. The (re)enforcing of the religion.

12. New Uni and Multi-Polar International Order

a. Moving Towards Geo-Economics. During the Cold War, international system was differentiated by the ideological confrontation between two superpowers. In the early stage of the post Cold War, the tripartite world dominated by Europe, the USA and Japan characterized the environment. The current constellation of global forces and alliances is much less clear than it was in the two previous stages. In this third stage, a world order which is multi-polar and uni-polar at the same time is taking shape. It amounts to an a la carte menu which makes room for both old and new powers as well as old and new alliances.

The world is uni-polar in the military and political spheres on account of the clear domination of USA, and multi-polar in all other facets of international relations. The upcoming world economies of the BRICS-countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South-Africa) up to now seem to follow an approach of pursuing geo-economics while avoiding to reopen the existing conflicts, at least for the time being. China is following a comprehensive approach towards national power. India is also pursuing geo economics while simultaneously modernizing its military might for a more dominant and perceived global role. Other countries and alliances/blocks also follow to varying extent different models to modernize their economies.

Sanjaya Baru puts it: "India's economic opening up in 1991 created the basis for India's re-integration with not just the global economy but also its own wider Asian neighborhood. That was the geopolitical and strategic consequence of India's improved economic performance and greater openness since 1991. India's "Look East" and "Look West" policies were logical consequences of her re-integration into the global economy. The geo-economic and geopolitical consequences of the reforms of 1991 were not an accident. They were well understood at the time based on an analysis of what had happened to the "closed" Soviet and Soviet-style economies in the 1970s and especially 1980s, and the "open" economies of east Asia, including Dengist China." [1] 

b. Contemporary Political Order-Future Trajectories. No phenomenon dominates the current global political landscape more than the USA being the sole Super Power. The US is currently the only country that has the military might that influences global affairs and deploys military power across the globe. However, there are other power centers such as China, EU and Russia. NATO also figures out at this power calculus. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Republic in 1990, the erstwhile Cold War ensured a balance of power which greatly stabilized the global political landscape.