Key Concepts of International Relations - 1 | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Balance of Power

The Balance of Power in International Politics
In international politics, the realist paradigm has long been dominant, with the struggle for power being a central theme. As Morgenthau suggests, regardless of the ultimate goal, power is always the immediate objective. Power is typically defined as a state's ability to influence other states and is characterized by its relational, relative, and compelling nature.

The elements of power can be categorized as follows:

• Geography: Factors such as size, location, topography, resources, and isolation can greatly impact a nation's power. For example, the United States' hegemonic position can largely be attributed to its favorable geography, including its isolated location and abundance of resources.
• Political Factors: A country's political stability and domestic consensus on foreign policy can contribute to its strength. When there is political stability and agreement on foreign policy, it becomes easier for a country to exert its influence.
• Social Factors: A homogeneous society can simplify foreign policy decision-making, while a heterogeneous society can make it more challenging. For example, India's diverse population has historically made it difficult for the country to establish a consistent policy towards Israel, due to the differing sentiments of various minority groups.
• Leadership: Although structural realists tend to discount the role of individual leaders, strong leadership can be crucial in converting weaker elements of sovereignty into strengths. Kautilya, an ancient scholar on geopolitics, developed the "Saptang theory" of state elements and emphasized the importance of a strong king, or "Nabhi." Recent shifts in US foreign policy under President Trump also demonstrate the impact of leadership on a nation's power.
• Intelligence: The power of countries such as Russia, the United States, Israel, and Britain can be attributed in part to their highly professional intelligence agencies. Effective intelligence gathering and analysis can significantly enhance a nation's ability to influence others.
• Technology: Technological advancements have become a key determinant of power in the modern world, with technology sometimes even outweighing the importance of geography. Nations with advanced technology can exert greater influence on the global stage.
• Economic Status: A nation's economic prowess can greatly impact its power and ability to influence other states. Countries with strong economies can use their resources to exert pressure on other nations, either through direct financial assistance or by leveraging economic interdependence.
• Military Status: A nation's military strength can play a significant role in determining its power. A strong military can act as a deterrent to potential adversaries and can be used to project influence around the world.

In conclusion, the balance of power in international politics is shaped by a complex interplay of factors, ranging from geography and political stability to technology and military strength. Understanding these elements is crucial for nations seeking to enhance their influence and navigate the ever-changing landscape of global politics.

Determinants of Power

The elements of power become determinants of power only when a country can make skillful use of these elements.

Measurement of Power
Countries often do not disclose their real status in terms of military capabilities, making it difficult to accurately calculate the amount of power they possess. However, it is important for countries to measure their own power and that of others. Based on the amount of power, countries can be categorized as:

1. Superpowers: e.g., the USA. These are extraordinary powers that other countries, even in combination, cannot defeat.
2. Great powers: e.g., Russia, China, Britain, France. These countries are capable of defending their interests on their own. These include the P5 members besides the USA.
3. Middle powers: e.g., India, Pakistan, Israel, Vietnam, Iran. These countries can defend themselves in coalition with others.
4. Small powers: All countries are referred to as powers out of respect.

Types of Powers

• There are two forms of power: Hard power (carrots and sticks) and Soft power (invisible, cultural, and ideological). Traditionally, realists give greater importance to hard power. However, liberals like Joseph Nye argue that the importance of hard power has declined considerably in the 21st century due to complex interdependence. One reason for the decline of the USA's hegemony is its greater reliance on hard power.
• Later, Nye modified his views and accepted that soft power alone may not work. He introduced the concept of Smart Power, which was popularized by Hillary Clinton. According to Clinton, we cannot work with 19th-century concepts, and there is a need for the skillful use of military, economic, cultural, and diplomatic powers. Joseph Nye defined Smart Power as an approach that 'underscores' the necessity of strong military power but invests heavily in institutions, partnerships, and alliances.
• Nye is also concerned about the rise of Sharp Power as an alternative to Soft Power. Sharp Power represents the power of authoritarian states and the power of propaganda, which aims to attack the credibility of Western liberal democracies, such as China's policies.
• John Chipman introduced the concept of Fast Power, suggesting that speed has become the determinant of power in the 21st century. According to him, what matters is not the heft but how agile and adaptive a country is. The rule of the present world is not the survival of the fittest but the survival of the fastest.

Polarity of Power Thesis

The Polarity of Power thesis is given by structural realists like Kenneth Waltz and Mearsheimer. According to them, a bipolar world order is the most stable and least dangerous. Polarity denotes the distribution of power across the globe. Three models have been observed so far:

1. Multipolar world: This is the most unstable model, with frequent wars. In a situation of multipolarity, greater confusion prevails, leading to more fingers on the trigger button and a higher chance of accidental war.
2. Unipolar world: This is also unstable because a single hegemon will overstretch, free riders will take advantage, and there will be a relative decline in the power of the hegemon. Additionally, a single superpower may suffer from megalomania, believing there are no limitations to its powers, and may start destroying the order it has built through unilateral actions.
3. Bipolar world: This is the most stable model for several reasons:
   • There is a strategic balance between the two superpowers.
   • It is easy to keep watch on their actions.
   • The two superpowers will contain anarchy in their own zones of influence.

India supports a multipolar world order, as it believes in exercising strategic autonomy. A multipolar world refers to a decline in the dominance of the United States and the rise of other powers such as China, Russia, Iran, and India. While it seems contradictory for India to support the rise of China given their status as strategic partners with the United States and China's potential security threat, the overall concept of multipolarity allows for a more balanced distribution of power.

• In South Asia, however, India does not support a multipolar system. Instead, India aims to maintain its hegemony in the region and does not want China to have significant influence in South Asia.
• The concept of Balance of Power (BoP) has been a long-standing principle in international relations and remains relevant in the 21st century. David Hume considered it a common-sense principle, and it has been a characteristic of the Westphalian world order. BoP is a militaristic concept, with its first formal recognition in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Historian APJ Taylor mentioned the period between 1848 and 1914 as the golden age of balance of power, and European countries formally adopted the concept in the Vienna Congress of 1815, which gave rise to the Concert of Europe. This system ensured a balance of power to maintain peace and lasted until 1914.
• The British were masters in the art of balance of power, making it the hallmark of their foreign policy. While the term is sometimes used loosely in newspapers and can be confusing, it is important to remember that BoP is primarily concerned with military power rather than economic power. The concept has been referred to as "murky" due to its ambiguous nature, but its relevance in contemporary times cannot be ignored. As long as common sense remains relevant, the concept of Balance of Power will continue to hold significance in the 21st century.

What are the main assumptions of Balance of Power?

• The Balance of Power is based on the principles of the Westphalian world order, which places a strong emphasis on the concept of sovereignty and territorial integrity. In this system, land is considered a valuable resource and nations often seek to expand their territories.
• The international political structure in the Westphalian world order is characterized by anarchy, which drives nations to accumulate power in order to protect their interests. This power accumulation can be achieved through an arms race or the formation of alliances with other countries.
• War is a recurring feature in the balance of power system, and it is often used as a tool to maintain the balance itself. This is one of the reasons why Woodrow Wilson sought alternatives to this system. In the balance of power, when a state gains exceptional power, such as France under Napoleon, other nations come together to counterbalance that state and prevent it from establishing hegemony.
• The ultimate way to maintain balance in this system is through war, but it is important to note that no actor is permanently removed from the system. Defeated states are reintegrated back into the international community, illustrating the principle that there are no permanent friends or enemies in the balance of power system.

The concept of balance of power involves various techniques aimed at maintaining stability and peace by preventing any one nation from becoming too powerful. Some of these techniques include:

• Arms race: Nations engage in a competition to build and maintain a strong military presence, ensuring that no single country gains an overwhelming advantage.
• Disarmament: Reducing or eliminating military forces and weapons, thereby ensuring that no country has excessive power.
• Partitioning territory: Dividing disputed territories among multiple nations to prevent one nation from controlling a large area.
• Establishing buffer states: Creation of smaller states between major powers to prevent direct confrontation and maintain balance.
• Disarmament and reparations for defeated countries: Weakening a defeated country by disarming its military and imposing war fines.

Despite being a fundamental concept in international relations, the balance of power is often considered a vague and murky concept, with various interpretations and meanings. One such interpretation is given by Morgenthau, who highlights four meanings of the balance of power:

• A policy aimed at creating a specific state of affairs.
• The actual state of affairs.
• An approximately equal distribution of power among nations.
• Any distribution of power among nations.

Ernst Haas further elaborates on the concept by providing eight different meanings of balance of power:

1. Equilibrium resulting from an equal distribution of power among states.
2. Equilibrium resulting from an unequal distribution of power among states.
3. Equilibrium resulting from the domination of one state acting as a balancer, such as Britain historically.
4. A system that promotes relative stability and peace.
5. A system characterized by instability and war.
6. A way to describe power politics.
7. A universal law of history.
8. A guide for foreign policy makers.

Relevance of Balance of Power in 21^st century

The relevance of Balance of Power (BoP) in the 21st century has been questioned due to several factors, including changes in the global political landscape, emergence of non-state actors, and advances in technology and warfare. However, it is important to note that BoP remains relevant in certain regional situations, as states continue to engage in power politics to maintain their security and stability.

1. Challenges to the Balance of Power Theory

• Liberal and idealist critiques: Figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Pandit Nehru criticized BoP as being prone to war and perpetuating a state of tension among nations. Wilson proposed the concept of collective security as an alternative to BoP, although it has never fully replaced power politics.
• Modifications by realists: Scholars such as Stephan Walt and Kenneth Organski have offered alternative theories, focusing on balancing threats rather than power and examining power transitions as triggers for wars.
• Social constructivist critiques: This school of thought argues that BoP theory overlooks the role of norms and values in determining state behavior and emphasizes material structures too much.
• Asymmetrical balancing: The inclusion of non-state actors as security threats requires a new approach to balancing, as there is an inherent asymmetry between state and non-state actors.
• Soft balancing: With the existence of a single superpower, other states may engage in soft balancing through political means rather than military approaches.
• Impact of nuclear weapons: The development of nuclear weapons has led some scholars to argue that states should focus on nuclear deterrence rather than BoP.

2. Ideal Conditions for Balance of Power

• Westphalian world order: BoP is more applicable in a world governed by nation-states rather than complex interdependence or global politics.
• Regional situations: BoP is more relevant in regional contexts, as it is difficult to imagine its operation on a global scale.
• Multipolarity: BoP operates best in a multipolar situation, rather than unipolarity or bipolarity.
• Conventional warfare: BoP is based on the notion of conventional warfare, which may be challenged by advances in technology and the emergence of nuclear weapons.

3. Contemporary Relevance of Balance of Power: Despite these challenges, BoP remains relevant in certain contexts, such as the Asia-Pacific region, where the rise of China has led to power politics and alliance-building among neighboring states, including India, Japan, and Australia. Similarly, tensions between Russia and NATO countries in Eastern and Southern Europe suggest that BoP continues to play a role in regional security dynamics.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the balance of power in international politics remains a relevant concept in the 21st century, despite challenges posed by changes in the global political landscape, non-state actors, and technological advancements. The complex interplay of factors shaping a nation's power, such as geography, political stability, technology, and military strength, continue to influence global politics. While the balance of power may be more applicable in certain regional contexts and under specific conditions like multipolarity, its fundamental principles of maintaining stability and preventing any one nation from becoming too powerful still hold significance in contemporary international relations.