International​ ​Relations

Balance​ ​of​ ​Power

I​ ​-INTRODUCTION
Balance​ ​of​ ​Power,​ ​theory​ ​and​ ​policy​ ​of​ ​international​ ​relations​ ​that​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​the​ ​most​ ​effective
check​ ​on​ ​the​ ​power​ ​of​ ​a​ ​state​ ​is​ ​the​ ​power​ ​of​ ​other​ ​states.​ ​In​ ​international​ ​relations,​ ​the​ ​term
state​ ​refers​ ​to​ ​a​ ​country​ ​with​ ​a​ ​government​ ​and​ ​a​ ​population.​ ​The​ ​term​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​refers
to​ ​the​ ​relatively​ ​equal​ ​power​ ​capabilities​ ​of​ ​rival​ ​states​ ​or​ ​alliances.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​the​ ​United
States​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Soviet​ ​Union​ ​maintained​ ​equivalent​ ​arsenals​ ​of​ ​nuclear​ ​weapons​ ​in​ ​the​ ​1970s
and​ ​1980s,​ ​which​ ​helped​ ​sustain​ ​a​ ​military​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power.

The​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​theory​ ​maintains​ ​that​ ​when​ ​one​ ​state​ ​or​ ​alliance​ ​increases​ ​its​ ​power​ ​or
applies​ ​it​ ​more​ ​aggressively,​ ​threatened​ ​states​ ​will​ ​increase​ ​their​ ​own​ ​power​ ​in​ ​response,​ ​often
by​ ​forming​ ​a​ ​counter-balancing​ ​coalition.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​the​ ​rise​ ​of​ ​German​ ​power​ ​before​ ​and
during​ ​World​ ​War​ ​I​ ​(1914-1918)​ ​and​ ​World​ ​War​ ​II​ ​(1939-1945)​ ​triggered​ ​the​ ​formation​ ​of​ ​an
anti-German​ ​coalition,​ ​consisting​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Soviet​ ​Union,​ ​Britain,​ ​France,​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States,​ ​and
other​ ​countries.

II​ ​-SIGNIFICANCE​ ​TO​ ​INTERNATIONAL​ ​RELATIONS

As​ ​a​ ​policy,​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​suggests​ ​that​ ​states​ ​counter​ ​any​ ​threat​ ​to​ ​their​ ​security​ ​by​ ​allying
with​ ​other​ ​threatened​ ​states​ ​and​ ​by​ ​increasing​ ​their​ ​own​ ​military​ ​capabilities.​ ​The​ ​policy​ ​of
forming​ ​a​ ​geographically​ ​based​ ​coalition​ ​of​ ​states​ ​to​ ​surround​ ​and​ ​block​ ​an​ ​expansionist​ ​power
is​ ​known​ ​as​ ​containment.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​followed​ ​a​ ​containment​ ​policy​ ​towards
the​ ​Soviet​ ​Union​ ​after​ ​World​ ​War​ ​II​ ​by​ ​building​ ​military​ ​alliances​ ​and​ ​bases​ ​throughout​ ​Europe,
the​ ​Middle​ ​East,​ ​and​ ​Asia.

As​ ​a​ ​theory,​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​predicts​ ​that​ ​rapid​ ​changes​ ​in​ ​international​ ​power​ ​and
status—especially​ ​attempts​ ​by​ ​one​ ​state​ ​to​ ​conquer​ ​a​ ​region—will​ ​provoke​ ​counterbalancing
actions.​ ​For​ ​this​ ​reason,​ ​the​ ​balancing​ ​process​ ​helps​ ​to​ ​maintain​ ​the​ ​stability​ ​of​ ​relations
between​ ​states.

A​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​system​ ​functions​ ​most​ ​effectively​ ​when​ ​alliances​ ​are​ ​fluid,​ ​when​ ​they​ ​are
easily​ ​formed​ ​or​ ​broken​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​expediency,​ ​regardless​ ​of​ ​values,​ ​religion,​ ​history,​ ​or
form​ ​of​ ​government.​ ​Occasionally​ ​a​ ​single​ ​state​ ​plays​ ​a​ ​balancer​ ​role,​ ​shifting​ ​its​ ​support​ ​to
oppose​ ​whatever​ ​state​ ​or​ ​alliance​ ​is​ ​strongest.​ ​Britain​ ​played​ ​this​ ​role​ ​in​ ​Europe​ ​in​ ​the​ ​18th​ ​and
19th​ ​centuries,​ ​particularly​ ​in​ ​its​ ​relations​ ​with​ ​France,​ ​Russia,​ ​and​ ​Germany.​ ​China​ ​acted​ ​as​ ​a
balancer​ ​during​ ​the​ ​Cold​ ​War,​ ​when​ ​it​ ​shifted​ ​its​ ​support​ ​between​ ​the​ ​Soviet​ ​Union​ ​and​ ​the
United​ ​States.

A​ ​weakness​ ​of​ ​the​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​concept​ ​is​ ​the​ ​difficulty​ ​of​ ​measuring​ ​power.​ ​Ultimately​ ​a
state’s​ ​power​ ​derives​ ​from​ ​the​ ​size​ ​of​ ​its​ ​land​ ​mass,​ ​population,​ ​and​ ​its​ ​level​ ​of​ ​technology.​ ​But
this​ ​potential​ ​power—measured​ ​roughly​ ​by​ ​a​ ​state’s​ ​Gross​ ​Domestic​ ​Product​ ​(GDP)—translates
imperfectly​ ​into​ ​military​ ​capability.​ ​The​ ​effective​ ​use​ ​of​ ​military​ ​force​ ​depends​ ​on​ ​such​ ​elements
as​ ​leadership,​ ​morale,​ ​geography,​ ​and​ ​luck.​ ​Furthermore,​ ​leaders’​ ​misperceptions​ ​can​ ​seriously
distort​ ​the​ ​calculation​ ​of​ ​power.​ ​During​ ​the​ ​Vietnam​ ​War​ ​(1959-1975),​ ​for​ ​example,​ ​U.S.
presidents​ ​consistently​ ​underestimated​ ​the​ ​strength​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Vietnamese​ ​Communists​ ​because​ ​by
conventional​ ​measures​ ​of​ ​power​ ​they​ ​were​ ​much​ ​weaker​ ​than​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States.

III​ ​-FROM​ ​ANCIENT​ ​TIMES​ ​TO​ ​WORLD​ ​WAR​ ​II

Historical​ ​examples​ ​of​ ​power​ ​balancing​ ​are​ ​found​ ​throughout​ ​history​ ​in​ ​various​ ​regions​ ​of​ ​the
world,​ ​leading​ ​some​ ​scholars​ ​to​ ​characterize​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​as​ ​a​ ​universal​ ​and​ ​timeless
principle.​ ​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​ ​War​ ​(431-404​ ​BC),
the​ ​rising​ ​power​ ​of​ ​Athens​ ​triggered​ ​the​ ​formation​ ​of​ ​a​ ​coalition​ ​of​ ​city-states​ ​that​ ​felt​ ​threatened
by​ ​Athenian​ ​power.​ ​The​ ​alliance,​ ​led​ ​by​ ​Sparta,​ ​succeeded​ ​in​ ​defeating​ ​Athens​ ​and​ ​restoring​ ​a
balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​among​ ​Greek​ ​cities.

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,
Britain,​ ​France,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Netherlands​ ​defeated​ ​the​ ​rulers​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Habsburg​ ​Empire.​ ​Early​ ​in​ ​the
19th​ ​century,​ ​french​ ​emperor​ ​Napoleon​ ​I​ ​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.​ ​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.
During​ ​World​ ​War​ ​II,​ ​Germany’s​ ​rising​ ​power,​ ​aggressive​ ​conquests,​ ​and​ ​alliance​ ​with​ ​Italy​ ​and
Japan​ ​triggered​ ​yet​ ​another​ ​coalition​ ​of​ ​opposing​ ​states—notably​ ​the​ ​capitalist​ ​democracies​ ​of
Britain​ ​and​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Communist​ ​Soviet​ ​Union.

IV​ ​-IN​ ​THE​ ​NUCLEAR​ ​AGE

The​ ​Cold​ ​War​ ​standoff​ ​between​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Soviet​ ​Union​ ​shaped​ ​the​ ​global
balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​after​ ​World​ ​War​ ​II.​ ​Although​ ​an​ ​actual​ ​war​ ​between​ ​these​ ​two​ ​superpowers
never​ ​occurred,​ ​the​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​process​ ​instead​ ​took​ ​the​ ​form​ ​of​ ​a​ ​massive​ ​arms​ ​race,​ ​in
which​ ​each​ ​superpower​ ​responded​ ​by​ ​adding​ ​to​ ​their​ ​military​ ​buildup.​ ​The​ ​possession​ ​of​ ​large
arsenals​ ​of​ ​nuclear​ ​weapons​ ​by​ ​both​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Soviet​ ​Union​ ​ensured​ ​that​ ​any
potential​ ​war​ ​would​ ​prove​ ​disastrous​ ​for​ ​both.

Because​ ​of​ ​the​ ​threat​ ​to​ ​human​ ​survival​ ​posed​ ​by​ ​nuclear​ ​weapons,​ ​military​ ​strategists​ ​often
referred​ ​to​ ​the​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​as​ ​a​ ​“balance​ ​of​ ​terror.”
During​ ​the​ ​Cold​ ​War,​ ​the​ ​U.S.​ ​policy​ ​of​ ​containment​ ​encircled​ ​the​ ​Soviet​ ​Union​ ​with​ ​military​ ​and
political​ ​alliances​ ​in​ ​Western​ ​Europe,​ ​the​ ​Middle​ ​East,​ ​and​ ​Southeast​ ​Asia.​ ​The​ ​major​ ​U.S.​ ​and
Soviet​ ​military​ ​interventions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Cold​ ​War—in​ ​Korea,​ ​Vietnam,​ ​and​ ​Afghanistan—took​ ​place
in​ ​politically​ ​contested​ ​regions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​world​ ​where​ ​both​ ​superpowers​ ​jockeyed​ ​for​ ​influence.
Small​ ​states​ ​sometimes​ ​benefited​ ​from​ ​the​ ​superpower​ ​competition.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​1960s,​ ​for​ ​example,
Cuba’s​ ​relations​ ​with​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​soured.​ ​At​ ​that​ ​time,​ ​Cuba​ ​allied​ ​itself​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Soviet
Union​ ​and​ ​received​ ​large​ ​economic​ ​and​ ​military​ ​subsidies.

V​ ​-IN​ ​THE​ ​POST-COLD​ ​WAR​ ​ERA

The​ ​collapse​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Soviet​ ​Union​ ​in​ ​1991​ ​left​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​as​ ​the​ ​world’s​ ​sole​ ​superpower.
Balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​theory​ ​suggests​ ​that​ ​without​ ​the​ ​Soviet​ ​threat​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States,​ ​as​ ​the
dominant​ ​world​ ​power,​ ​will​ ​face​ ​difficulties​ ​in​ ​its​ ​relations​ ​with​ ​such​ ​states​ ​as​ ​China​ ​and​ ​the
European​ ​powers.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​in​ ​1995​ ​and​ ​1996​ ​France​ ​openly​ ​challenged​ ​U.S.​ ​actions​ ​or
proposals​ ​on​ ​a​ ​range​ ​of​ ​issues.​ ​These​ ​included​ ​Middle​ ​East​ ​policy,​ ​the​ ​command​ ​structure​ ​of
the​ ​North​ ​Atlantic​ ​Treaty​ ​Organization​ ​(NATO),​ ​the​ ​United​ ​Nations,​ ​world​ ​trade​ ​regulations,​ ​and
responses​ ​to​ ​conflicts​ ​in​ ​Africa​ ​and​ ​the​ ​former​ ​Yugoslavia.​ ​At​ ​the​ ​same​ ​time,​ ​Russian-Chinese
relations,​ ​which​ ​had​ ​been​ ​very​ ​hostile​ ​in​ ​the​ ​1970s​ ​and​ ​1980s,​ ​improved​ ​dramatically​ ​in​ ​the
1990s.​ ​This​ ​improvement​ ​occurred​ ​largely​ ​because​ ​both​ ​countries​ ​feared​ ​the​ ​predominant
power​ ​of​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States.

In​ ​regional​ ​conflicts,​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​continues​ ​to​ ​operate​ ​in​ ​a​ ​traditional​ ​manner​ ​in​ ​the
post-Cold​ ​War​ ​era.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​1991​ ​Persian​ ​Gulf​ ​War,​ ​aggression​ ​by​ ​Iraq​ ​catalyzed​ ​a
broad​ ​alliance​ ​against​ ​that​ ​nation.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​future,​ ​the​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​power​ ​principle​ ​should​ ​continue
to​ ​reduce​ ​the​ ​likelihood​ ​of​ ​aggression.​ ​Great​ ​powers​ ​such​ ​as​ ​China​ ​and​ ​Russia,​ ​along​ ​with
smaller​ ​states​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Iraq​ ​and​ ​North​ ​Korea,​ ​generally​ ​understand​ ​that​ ​aggression​ ​creates​ ​new
sources​ ​of​ ​resistance​ ​and​ ​is​ ​thus​ ​self-defeating.

Regards:
Ghulam​ ​Abbas​ ​Abbasi