Power

Power is the center of all political activities. The concept of power is quite complex and
hence, it does not have a commonly accepted definition. Max Learner said, The idea of
power is so important to us today that we cannot live without it, in spite of the fact that
to live by it may appear to be sterile and brutal. Morgenthau defines political power as,
A psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over whom it is
exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the
influence which the former exerts over the latters mind.
In the broad sense, power can be defined as the ability or capacity to control others and
get them to do what one wants them to do and also, to see that they do not do what one
does not want them to do. Therefore, it is the ability to control the behavior of other
states in accordance with ones own will. According to Organski, power is, the ability to
influence the behavior of others, in accordance with ones own ends. Unless a nation can
do this, she may be large, she may be wealthy, she may even be great, but she is not
powerful.
While defining power, Morgenthau writes, When we speak of power, we mean mans
control over the minds and actions of others. He also says that, International politics,
like all politics, is a struggle for power.
Bertrand Russell Power is a quantitative concept. Given two men with similar desires, if
one achieves all the desires that the other achieves, and also others, he has more power
than the other.
Schwarzenberger Power means the capacity to impose ones own will on the others, by
reliance on effective sanctions, in case of non-compliance.
When we apply the above definitions and statements to the international level, power
may be defined, as the general capacity of the state to control the behavior of other
states.
Power, thus, is a means, but not an end by itself. Once power is achieved, it should be
directed towards the achievement of ends. Those who have power, must determine how,
where, what purpose it is going to be used in.
The elements which serve as the foundation of political power are as follows:
Tangible Elements
Geography Since ancient times, the importance of the geographical features upon
which the power of a nation depends, has been recognized. There are four such factors
which are significant here. These are:
Size Size of territory increase the power of a nation. Generally, it is believed that a
smaller state cannot become powerful. England was powerful, as long as it had colonies.
A large state can have a large supply of natural resources and can accommodate a large
population. At present, USA, China, India are likely to play an effective role in
international politics. A state should not be very small, otherwise it will be difficult for it
to occupy an important place. Hitler could occupy Austria and Czechoslovakia because
they were small in size and had a very cold climate. When a state has a big land, plenty
of resources, and when people use it effectively, then the state will grow richer. Hence,
the rulers since ancient times tried to conquer other states to grow.
Climate Climate of a state greatly influences the national power. Tropical/tundra regions
are very cold and not sustainable for development of power. The temperate regions are
considered the best for the health and energy of the people, which leads to the nations
productivity. In fact, all great civilizations of the world developed in temperate zones.

Similarly, uncertain rainfall and frequent droughts also limit the power of a nation. If a
country has extreme climate, either too cold or too hot, then it is not good. It affects the
energy and productive capacity of the people adversely. It also makes the country
dependent on foreign markets, for food and foreign aid. This hampers the development
of national power and individual foreign policy. E.g. Bangladesh
Location The location of a country decided the security of that country and also its
relationship with the outside world. Hence, it is one of the most important factors as far
as the geographical conditions are concerned. England and Japan, being islands, have
been more secure. Britain could develop its navy and conquer so many countries
because of this factor. It was able to build its mighty empire and prevent France,
Germany and Spain from attacking it. The location of a country also greatly influences its
foreign policy.
Topography The topography or configuration of land also plays an important role in
determination of a nations powers. The topographic features decide the natural
boundaries between states and limit their natural expansion. E.g. the Himalayas have
served as a natural boundary between India and China. Countries like Japan, Britain and
China have great river resources, which helped them in irrigation, cheap transportation
and harbors. Thus, it influences the military and economic powers of a state.
However, due to the advancement of science and technology, the geographic factors
have lost much of their importance.
Natural Resources The natural resources and raw materials available in a country also
greatly contribute to the national power. It includes the minerals, water resources and
the fertility of the soil, etc. However, the natural resources must be exploited, with the
help of technical know-how, skilled labor and capital.
Man-made raw materials like cotton, rubber etc, if utilized properly, can make a country
prosperous. In present times, materials like oil, uranium, atomic energy etc have also
greatly affected the national power of nations. Another important natural resource is the
food stuff. If a country is dependent on foreign market/aid for food supply, then it cannot
have an independent foreign policy, as its independence of action is greatly reduced and
thus, also its power is reduced. E.g. India could not pursue an effective foreign policy till
it became independent in food supply.
Various countries have been blessed with different resources. E.g. India and Pakistan with
cotton and jute, the Middle-East with oil, Bolivia with tin, Thailand with rice, Indonesia
with rubber and hot spices etc. The leading industrial countries of the world have
automatically occupied important positions in the hierarchy of power.
Population Population is another important determinant of national power. Generally,
large population is considered as a source of strength, but sometimes, it can also be a
source of weakness for the state. Usually, for a developed country, a large population is a
source of strength whereas in under-developed countries, it is a source of weakness. If
utilized properly, a large population may help in increasing agricultural and
manufacturing capacities.
Besides this, the age composition is also significant. If there are too many children or
elderly people in the population, it means an additional strain on the national economy,
whereas larger young population means health in national economy as well as military
power. Along with this, even the quality of population is important, i.e. hardworking,
energetic, educated people are an asset to the state whereas illiterate, indifferent
lethargic people are a liability. E.g. China has a huge population but since it is hardworking, it has made economic progress and has occupied a significant position in power
hierarchy. However, there are countries like Japan, making rapid progress with a small
population.

Technology It means the application of science and technology in national

development. In recent years, technology at least in three spheres has greatly influenced
the power of the state, namely communication, military and industrial. The industrial
technology adds to the power of the country, by enabling it to increase production. The
military technology has played even a more important role in increasing the power of a
state. E.g. Britain conquered so many countries due to its technological advancement
and naval power. Japan and Germany emerged as powerful, due to information and
technology advancement. Similarly, in the post Second World War period, the USA and
USSR became superpowers due to military and technological factors.
Economic Development This is yet another important determinant of the strength of a
nation. Mere possession of raw material and natural resources does not make a country
powerful. It depends upon the capacity of the state to exploit and utilize the resources
effectively. Nations with greater industrial capacity are considered economically
developed and hence, are powerful. The decline of France in comparison with Germany,
after 1870s, was due to her industrial backwardness. Similarly, USSR became a great
power after it acquired better industrial capacity and nuclear power. Today, when you
look around, all those countries which are economically developed, play an important
role in international politics.
Military Preparedness Since old times, this particular aspect has been an important
factor in making a nation powerful. Military preparedness is one of the most tangible
factors supporting the foreign policy and promoting national interest. However, both the
quality and quantity of military forces are a vital factor. E.g. Germany could gain
superiority over Britain because of the use of submarines. Similarly, the nations
possessing nuclear power have an advantage over those who do not. A large country, if
militarily ill-equipped or with a small army, cannot occupy an important place in the
power hierarchy. Thus, military capacity and advancement does decide the place of a
nation in international politics.
Non-Tangible Elements
A. National Morale and Character This is a significant factor in determining the
national power. It is mainly a product of history and social experience. It was due to the
national character of the small European countries that they could dominate the Asian
and African nations. The national morale too contributes towards national character.
National moral is defined as the degree of determination with which a nation supports
the foreign politics of its government in peace and war.
According to Palmer and Perkins, Morale is a thing of the spirit, made of loyalty,
courage, faith, impulse to the preservation of personality and dignity. In other words, it
refers to the sum total of the individual qualities of men, in a nation, in the form of their
willingness, to put the nations welfare above their own regional welfare. It amounts to
the willingness to sacrifice. If a country suffers from internal divisions and jealousies, it
will either not be able to demonstrate any morale, or else, if there is any morale, it will
not be effective. However, the national character keeps changing from time to time.
Leadership It certainly plays a very important role. In every political system, all
important and crucial decisions are taken by the political leaders. They decide the nature
of relations with other states, declare war and also conclude peace treaties. If their
decisions are correct, it creates a positive impact no the powers of the state. Hence, the
leadership must possess wisdom and knowledge. Leaders can also greatly contribute to
the boosting of national morale during times of crises.
The leaders keep giving slogans to the people, to boost their morale. E.g. during the
Second World War, Roosevelt won the support of the people, by giving the slogan
Remember Pearl Harbor. At various points of time, one single leader has swayed the
entire population of the country and has played a significant role in molding world history.

Diplomacy The position of a country in world politics is also determined by the

diplomats of that country. In all democratic countries, there is a special procedure, for
recruiting the diplomats. They are appointed to help their country to negotiate with the
leaders of other countries, in order to maintain peace and friendly relations with the
leaders of other countries. According to Morganthau, it is quality of a nations diplomacy,
which gives direction and weight to other elements of national power. While highlighting
the importance of democracy, Morganthau writes, Diplomacy is the brain of national
power, as national morale is its soul. If its vision is blurred, its judgment defective and its
determination feeble, all the advantages of geographical location, of self-sufficiency in
food, raw material and industrial production, of military preparedness, of size and quality
of population, will, in the long run, help a nation little.
However, this view of Morganthau is not universally shared. Many scholars believe that
diplomacy has lost its importance due to the development of rapid means of
communication. However, diplomacy still plays a significant role in promoting the
national interest.
Organized Groups In many countries, there are groups functioning within the country,
such as the religious, linguistic, racial, social, economic groups. All these groups play a
very important role in domestic issues and hence, in international politics as well. This
also includes peoples movements, on a certain national or international issue. E.g.
peoples movements started by Gandhi against the British, Martin Luther King Jr. for
affirmative action.
Ideology Ideas and ideologies form another intangible element of power. The ideas
which a government holds or supports about the socio-economic patterns go a long way
in determining the extent of popular support for it, at home and abroad. Ideology is very
closely linked with national power. Most of the ideologies are concerned with the
achievement of power as the immediate goal of foreign policy. The ideology gives unity
to a nation, and a sense of common interest to the people. Ideologies also serve as a
good means/weapon to raise the morale of the people. Nations with a common ideology
join hands together to strengthen their cause. E.g. Second World War, Cold War.
Common ideology decides the allies and thus influences the power structure, because it
was the common ideology, which divided the world into two power blocs, and also gave
rise to the non-aligned movement.
Balance of Power
The balance of power in the ordinary sense means that there is some equilibrium of
power between various nations. The concept of equilibrium has been taken from the field
of mechanics and is being put to use in many sciences, such as physics, biology,
economics and sociology. However, in international politics, it has a different meaning.
This principle of balance of power has been introduced in international politics to bring
about stability between the members of the international community, i.e. sovereign
states. In politics, the concept of balance of power is never static. It is dynamic and is
changing constantly.
Balance of power is a process of bringing about a division of power amongst sovereign
states, in their external relations with one another. If power is out of balance, it may be
brought back into a state of equilibrium by decreasing the power of the strong units or by
increasing the power of the weaker ones, or a combination of both.
It is difficult to give an exact definition of balance of power. As Martin Wright says, the
notion is, notoriously full of confusions. Another scholar, Cloude, rightly says, the
trouble with balance of power is not that it has no meaning, but it has too many
meanings.

Palmer and Perkins The concept of balance of power assumes that in a world of
sovereign states, through shifting alliances, and countervailing pressures, no one power
or combination of powers will be allowed to grow so strongly as to threaten the security
of the rest.
George Schwarzenberger defines balance of power as, equilibrium or certain amount of
stability in international relations.
George Fry, in Encyclopedia of Social Science, defines balance of power as, just
equilibrium in power, among the members of the family of nations, as will prevent
anyone of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the others.
Morgenthau It is an actual state of affairs in which power is distributed among several
nations, with approximate equality.
The theory of balance of power is, thus, an application of the checks and balances theory
of domestic politics. It is based on the principle that the effective antidote is power is
power only and exclusively. Morganthau attaches four different meanings to this term:
(1) As a policy aimed at a certain state of affairs at bringing about a certain power
distribution
(2) As an actual state of affairs, in which power is distributed among several nations, with
approximate equality
(3) As an approximately equal distribution of power
(4) As any distribution of power
Ernest Haas has mentioned four uses of the term:
1234-

As
As
As
As

description
a propaganda and ideology
analytical concept
prescription

Thus, balance of power means, or the implications of balance of power are:

1) Balance of power as description indicates the character of situation in which the
power relationship is roughly equalized
2) Balance of power when identified as a policy means that unbalanced power is
dangerous. Thus, as a safeguard, the undesirable behavior of other states could be
prevented, only by confronting power, with counteracting power
3) When balance of power is viewed as a system of international politics, it refers to a
kind of arrangement, for the conduct of international relations in a multi-state system
4) The term balance of power is used as a symbol of realism. It is based on the view
that a disregard for balance of power shows the neglect of power factor in
international politics. The realists view international politics as nothing but the
struggle for power. When the term is used in this context, it indicates the reality of
power politics.
Characteristics of balance of power
1. Balance of power is subject to constant change, from equilibrium to disequilibrium
2. It is achieved by the active intervention of man
3. Balance of power favors the status quo but to be effective, the policy must be
changing and dynamic
4. The real balance of power seldom exists. The real test is war. If war takes place, it
means that there was no real balance of power
5. It offers both an objective approach of a historian and subjective approach of a
statesman
6. It is sometimes identified as a policy

7. This game is meant for bigger powers only and the smaller powers are like weights in
a balance
8. To keep the balance, it requires a balancing power for the successful operation of the
system
Evolution of balance of power
In the 17th century, the 30yr war from 1618 to 1648 can be analyzed from the point of
view of balance of power. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 firmly established the nationstate system and clearly determined the general pattern of international relations. As a
consequence, balance of power started playing a significant role. When Louis XIV of
France threatened to destroy the balance, he was checked by England and Netherlands.
In the 18th century, when in 1714, the Treaty of Utrech, which ended the war of Spanish
succession, restored the balance of power in Europe. The period from the Treaty of Utrech
to the partition of Poland, i.e. from 1713 to 1772 is regarded as the Golden Age of
balance of power, both in theory and practice.
In the 19th century, the rise of Napoleon disturbed the balance of power in Europe. The
Congress of Vienna (1814) sought to establish a new balance of power, based on the
principle of legitimacy and status quo. In 1854, the balance of power was further
extended beyond Europe, when France, Britain and Austria formed a coalition against
Russia.
In the 20th century, Europe was divided into two camps Britain, France and Russia,
known as the Triple Entente, on one side, v/s Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany, known
as the Triple Alliance, on the other side. When the balance of power was disturbed in the
Balkan area, the First World War broke out in 1914. Between 1919 and 1939, this doctrine
was followed only in theory. There was formation of alliance and counter-alliances in the
name of balance of power, which finally resulted in the Second World War.
Before the Second World War, Britain played a significant role in maintaining balance of
power in international politics. However, after the war, UK lost this position to the USA.
After the war, the old style of balance of power did not exist any longer. A new type of
balance came into existence, which has been described as balance of terror by Churchill.
The world became bi-polar. Both the superpowers were engaged in hectic activities, to
produce more and more destructive weapons, in the name of defending themselves
against a possible attack of the other. As a result, both feared that there would be
another great global war. Due to this fear, each wanted to be more powerful than the
other.
They both wanted to maintain peace in an environment of deterrence, which depends not
on actual strength, but on what the strength is supposed to be. It means that a state of
affairs has come into existence, in which each side was afraid of the other and was
prepared to undertake anything for the destruction of the other. In this period, the world,
as it became bi-polar, divided into the US capitalist bloc and the USSR communist bloc.
The UK decided to be an ally of the US. The growth of communism was becoming a
danger to the capitalist states of the world. It was during this period that the UK tried to
bend USA to the defense of the weak west-European countries, and tried to act as a
moderator in the Soviet-American tensions.
From 1945 to 1991, i.e. during the Cold War period, the nations had to take sides and
show their leanings. According to Keinneth Waltz, he prefers a system of US-USSR
bipolarity, in order to minimize international conflicts. In his opinion, in the presence of
mutual vigilance, conditions of war will be set aside and there will be no room to adhere
to the course of appeasement.
However, according to Deutsch and Singer, the multi-polar balance of power is much
better than bi-polar as it would allow for lesser conflicts. The model of Waltz is inherent

with a serious danger, in the sense that in a bi-polar world, there would be no one to
check the outbreak of war, if at all it breaks out. However, it may not be a case in a multipolar world and hence, according to Deutsch and Singer, a multi-polar world is better.
According to Rosecrance, there is a system called bi-multi-polarity. It means that there
should be bi-polarity at the nuclear level of activities and multi-polarity at the political,
economic and conventional military levels. The political-economic fragmentation of
international politics will prevent local wars from rapidly escalating into a major
confrontation.
Techniques of Balance of Power
The balance of power is not a natural phenomenon. It requires special efforts. The
techniques which contribute to the operation of balance of power are:
1- Alliances and counter-alliances This is one of the most commonly used devices of
the balance of power system. It has been a traditional instrument to strengthen ones
position vis--vis the opponents. When a state feels that it cant defend itself against
another big state, it enters into alliances with other states for achieving its goal. The
essentials of a stable, long-lasting alliance are enough power to achieve the purpose,
may be through aggression or defense, common interest between aligning states,
strategy, geography, common ideologies, cultural similarities, complementary
economies etc.
2- Compensation Compensation of a territorial nature was a common method for
maintaining balance of power in the 18th and 19th centuries. Territorial compensation
has been frequently made by strong powers at the expense of weaker ones and by
victorious nations at the end of a war. However, the method of territorial
compensation was retained in an indirect manner and after World War II; it has been
given up completely.
3- Partition It can also be used as an instrument for the maintenance of balance of
power. Usually, major powers divide the territory in such a way that there is no
danger of any one of them acquiring a predominant position. E.g. Poland was divided
between Russia and Prussia and Austria-Hungary in 1772, so that the relative powers
of each of the three states could be maintained.
4- Arms & Disarmament Military preparedness is the best means of national defense
and which also results in arms race. To obtain a balance of power, consisting efforts at
disarmament are essential.
5- Intervention and war These two techniques of balance of power are usually adopted
as the last resort. Intervention is a dictatorial interference in the internal affairs of
another country by a powerful nation, in order to extract some specific concession
and the ultimate intervention is war.
6- Divide and Rule This device has been resorted to by those nations, who want to
keep their competitors weak by keeping them divided. This is a very old policy. It was
employed by the Romans, to maintain their control over scattered people. Britain
used it often to keep its huge empire intact. In the post Second World War period, the
superpowers continued to follow this policy of divide and rule, though in a different
way, with a view to bringing maximum number of non-aligned states under their
influence.
7- Buffer states This is another important technique for maintaining the balance of
power between two powerful states. Buffer states are of great importance, because of
their cushioning effect between great powers. Due to their mutual interest, in the
preservation of equilibrium of power, the two adjoining states agree to follow a policy

of non-interference towards the in-between small states. E.g. Afghanistan in the 19th
and early 20th centuries acted as a buffer state between Russia and Britain.
8- Neutralization Sometimes a country is neutralized to create a sort of buffer between
two powerful countries and they pledge not to attack it or interfere with its affairs.
E.g. Belgium was neutralized in Europe and when Germany violated its neutrality in
1914, it was strongly resented by Britain and France.
Evaluation/Utility of Balance of Power
Merits/Advantages
(i)

(ii)

(iii)

Prevention of war In the absence of the system of collective security, balance of

power has greatly contributed in the preservation of world peace. It has ensured
peace by maintaining balance of power and by checking aggression. Due to this,
no state can be sure of its victory and hence, shall not dare to resort to war. E.g.
the period from 1810 to 1914 (as also 1713 to 1772) is regarded as the classic era
of the doctrine of balance of power, as peace was maintained for a long time.
Preservation of modern state system By guaranteeing independence of smaller
states, the principle of balance of power has greatly contributed to preservation of
the modern state system. This was done by preventing any single state or a group
of states from becoming so powerful as to threaten the existence of smaller,
weaker states. Professor Taylor has rightly observed, No one state has ever been
strong enough to eat up all the rest and the jealousy of the great powers
preserved even smaller states, which could not have preserved themselves.
Obedience of international law The balance of power has led to the obedience of
international law, in the absence of any effective machinery for the enforcement
of the law. Oppenheimer states, Balance of power is an indispensable condition
of the very existence of international law, as there is not and never can be a
central political authority above the sovereign states that could enforce the laws
on nations. A balance of power must prevent any member of the family of nations
from becoming omnipotent.

Demerits/Disadvantages
1. Encouragement to war The balance of power does not necessarily bring peace.
In some situations, it encourages war. As Organski puts it, The periods of balance
were periods of war and not periods of peace. E.g. The First World War occurred
because Germany miscalculated that its power was equal to that of its
adversaries. On the other hand, due to the preponderance of the power of the
Allies, peace was established after the First World War.
2. Power not the only goal The theory of balance of power wrongly assumes that all
actions of states are motivated by the consideration of increasing their power. No
doubt power is one of the goals of the states but it is not the sole goal. The
economic and cultural interest of the states also greatly influenced their actions.
3. States are not static The theory of balance of power assumes that all states are
static units. Not only through armaments, conquest or allies, but also through
industrialization, improvement in national character and several other methods
the states increase their powers.
4. States cannot switch sides at will The theory of balance of power wrongly
assumes that states can shift sides according to their own will. In fact, the states
are chiefly motivated by the consideration of their national interest. They choose
allies to promote the same. Although they can change sides temporarily, they
generally are tied to their friends by political, economic and other such interests.
Each state selects its friends on the basis of its national interest and it opposes
those who seem to upset the international order.
5. Balance of power is not the rule The theory of balance of power wrongly
assumes that balance of power is the rule and preponderance of power is an
exception. However, history shows that there has been preponderance of some

power at most of the time. Thus, balance of power is an exception and

preponderance the rule.
6. Preponderance of power is not a threat The theory of balance of power wrongly
assumes that preponderance of power of one nation or group of nations poses a
threat to the independence of smaller nations and to world peace. This is not true.
If we go back in world history, peace has been disrupted by less powerful states
than by the preponderant powers.
7. Self-interest The theory of balance of power violates all norms of international
morality and justice. It attaches more importance to self-interest and it lays
emphasis on the principle of expediency rather than justice and fair play.
8. Criticism of the concept of balance The concept of balance which occupies key
position in the theory of balance of power also has been criticized. It is not correct
to assume that the balancer would join the weaker side, in order to redress the
balance. As Organski says, There is no such thing as a balancer and never has
been. There is no single nation motivated primarily by a desire to maintain the
balance. England played the role of the traditional balancer for a long time. It
was not motivated solely to maintain the balance but also to promote its national
interest.
9. No scale of measurement It is not possible to measure the power position of
states at a given time of history and claim that balance of power existed. There is
not yardstick to measure political power. The only way to assess the subjective
strength of various states is through a war, which is not conducive to world peace.
10. It resulted in power struggle The balance of power has not preserved the peace,
but has resulted in power struggle among the states. It has divided the world into
hostile camps. As Palmer and Perkins observe, As long as the nation state system
is prevailing, balance of power policies will be followed in practice. However, they
are condemned in theory. In all possibility, they will continue to operate even if
effective super-national groupings on a regional or world level are formed.
Decline/Causes of the decline/Relevance of balance of power
Palmer and Perkins hold that in the present context, the doctrine of balance of power has
become too simple and too difficult a policy. To quote them, the impact of new forces,
i.e. nationalism, industrialism, democracy, mass education, new methods and techniques
of warfare, growing important of public opinion, development in international
organizations and international laws, the growing economic interdependence of nations
and people in a shrinking world, the disappearance of colonial frontiers, the emergence
of many new nations, the advent of the nuclear space age, all these and many other
forces have shaped our contemporary world and make the balance of power at once too
simple and too difficult a policy.
This decline in the doctrine of balance of power has been attributed to the following
factors:
(1) Bipolarity The bi-polar power system, which emerged in the post Second World War
period, gave a serious setback to the system of balance of power. After the Second
World War, Britain lost its power and no more could it play the role of a balancer. Two
superpowers, USA and USSR, emerged and all other countries rallied around them.
Both these powers could not play the role of a balancer.
(2) Disappearance of a balancer No third power can play the role of a balancer, if two
superpowers are strong enough to determine the position of the state, with their
weight alone. Hence, the role of the balancer came to and end. Today, there does not
exist any nation or group of nations, which can play the role of a balancer.
(3) Fear of destructive war With the development of the modern nuclear weapons, any
future war could result in total destruction of the world. This discouraged any country
to play the role of a balancer. Only the UN can perform this function, but it has its
own limits.
(4) Ideological limitations The ideologies of nationalism, democracy etc have serious
limitations. While nationalism has prevented the feasibility of changing the frontiers

of any state, the democratic principles and public opinion have imposed checks on
the freedom of the statesmen to play an independent role in international politics. As
Palmer and Perkins observed, where the foreign policy of a state is highly favored by
ideology, that state is usually not much interested in the balance of power and is
poorly equipped to pursue it.
(5) Disparity in the powers of the states Today, while the small states or lesser powers
are becoming weaker day-by-day, the great powers are becoming more and more
powerful. This resulted in upsetting the balance of power.
(6) Impact of new forces Balance of power has been branded as outdated, on the
grounds that certain new forces are working against the operation of this system. As
Frederick says, one could damn the principle today, for not offering any solution at
all, either in light of justice, or of clarity or even of understanding.
However, as long as power continues to be a factor in the conduct of international
relations, the balance of power shall continue to have relevance. However, its relevance
would depend upon how far its mechanism is modified to suit the new conditions. As long
as an alternative is not provided, balance of power shall continue to play an important
role in international politics.
Bipolarity and multi-polarity, with reference to the Cold War
The meaning of the term superpower points to an unprecedented accumulation of
power in the hands of a few nations, which sets them aside from the great powers as
well. Power is a relative term and cannot be defined or evaluated absolutely. It is
measured in relation to other nations of the world. When the First World War started in
1914, there were 8 great powers, which played the major role in the war. These 8 powers,
however, did not receive great powers by the end of the First World War. In fact, it left 5
main powers in the international politics. After Second World War, the great powers
system almost vanished and never quite came back. The USA, because of the atom
bomb, automatically became the most powerful country, with USSR coming closer to it. It
was because of the USs desire to involve an Asian power and European powers, other
than the Soviet Union in the process of maintaining peace, through the UNO that Britain,
China and France were treated as great powers and were offered a permanent seat on
the Security Council.
The emergence of superpowers
The great powers concept was essentially a 19th century phenomenon, which signified
domination of a few countries on the lesser powers. While the great powers could prevail
upon small powers within the framework of balance of power, the superpowers could
impose their will upon small powers and great powers equally. Not only this, the
emergence of the superpowers destroyed the balance of power among the great powers.
Now, the concept of balance of power rotated around the super powers and they
continued to balance each other. Thus, with the emergence of USA and USSR as
superpowers in international politics, the world became bipolar. Even the great powers in
international affairs were compelled to align with one of the superpowers, in accordance
with their national interest and something more. This something more is ideology. It was
for the first time in the history of international relations and international politics that
ideology came to play such a major role in deciding the international alignment of power.
Thus, it is not only the technical know-how that goes into making a superpower. Along
with that, the ideology, economic power, military power, availability of human and
natural resources, and the possibility of other countries aligning makes a superpower.
What led to the further divide is the disparity of power between the two superpowers and
the allied countries. This disparity has resulted in the loss of freedom of action and choice
on the part of the allied countries and hence, they were called the satellites, for they had
to be in the orbit of one of the two superpowers, in order to protect their national
interest, security, economic advancement and stability of the political system. E.g. the

western European countries had no choice but to remain in the US orbit in order to
prevent the Soviet bloc from overpowering them.
Shifting of allies from one camp to the other is neither feasible nor of any consequence to
either of the two superpowers. It is not feasible because the two camps are based on
antagonistic ideologies. E.g. When Yugoslavia broke away from the Soviet bloc, it could
not join the US bloc for the simple reason that it subscribed to the communist ideology
and hence, ideologically, it could not align itself with the capitalist bloc.
Along with the superpowers becoming stronger, there existed the third world, which
refused to align itself with either of the power blocs permanently, and then came up what
was called the non-aligned movement. However, even the non-alignment has not been
an absolute phenomenon. E.g. Cuba was a close Soviet ally. However, for the fear of
Soviet military domination and political dictations, it remained with the third world camp.
On the other hand, Pakistan continued to be a third world nations, despite its
dependence and alliance with the USA. Not only thus, Pakistan has sought help from US
for its survival, economically and militarily, and has provided a military base for the use
of the US, which is a clear alliance. Thus, although the third world nations exist, and most
of them remained non-aligned, yet they are not the third force in international politics. To
quote Morganthau, With two giants strong enough to determine the position of the
scales with their own weight, there can be no chance for a third world power or a third
force to exert a decisive influence.
Polycentricism
There were three major factors that affected the bipolar system existing in the world:
The 1st was the decolonization of the Asian and African nations, creating the third world,
which decided to remain more or less non-aligned as far as their foreign policy and
conduct of foreign relations was concerned. On various occasions, the third world
challenged the policies of the superpowers and of the blocs led by them, defied them and
asserted its will in matters related to itself, as well as of international importance.
The 2nd factor affecting bipolarism was nuclear proliferation. There was a time when only
the USA had atomic power in the world. Soon, USSR acquired the nuclear technology but
this monopolistic situation changed and China, France, and Britain also joined the list of
nuclear powers. Several other states like West Germany, Japan, India, Pakistan, Israel and
South Africa also became nuclear powers. Under such situations, tight bipolarism could
not exist. China was the first nuclear power in Asia and it refused to be a satellite to the
Soviet Union.
The 3rd significant factor affecting bipolarism was the disintegration of the USSR.
One more factor important in this emergence of multi-polarism was awareness on the
part of the USA and USSR.
The present international system cannot be called exactly polycentric. At the most, it can
be called multi polar in economic matters and uni-polar in political matters. After the end
of bi-polarism, no third or fourth power center has emerged as yet.
Cold War
Origin
Mutual distrust and suspicion resulted in hostility between the two superpowers.
According to Morganthau, from the aftermath of the Second World War onwards, these
two blocs have faced each other like two fighters in a short and narrow lane... This
hostility is termed as the Cold War. The Cold War is a state of international relations
between nations, marked by hostility and warfare, pursued with means other than

violence. It belongs to the domain of diplomacy. Its objective is to bend, and not to break,
the will of the other side as far as necessary, in order to safeguard ones own interests.
In a Cold War, prestige was the used as a chief weapon. To quote Morganthau, prestige
has become particularly important as a political weapons, in an age, in which struggle for
power is fought not only with the traditional methods of political pressure and military
force, but in a large measure, as a struggle for the minds of men. In wide areas of Africa,
Middle-East, Asia, Latin America, the Cold War has been fought primarily in the terms of
competition between two rival philosophies, economic system and ways of life.
The chief instrument of the cold war was propaganda, aiming at increasing ones power
prestige and lessening that of the rival power, and foreign aid, which in the normal
course, carries with it the ties, giving an edge to the provider, over the foreign policy
goals of the recipient nation. Ultimately, power is the decisive factor in the struggle for
power.
The cold war was necessitated by the tremendous power of overkill, placed in the hands
of the superpowers, by nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons compelled the
superpowers to convince their own people and the people of the world at large that they
have no intention to start the Third World War and that they are committed to the use of
peaceful methods to promote the goals of their foreign policy. Thus, peace propaganda
and foreign willingness to disarm became two major instruments of the cold war. Each
power wanted to place the other in the dock, while itself pretending to work for
relaxation of international tensions on one hand, and still continuing to attain supremacy
in nuclear weapons on the other.
Dtente/The Thaw
The two superpowers, though engaged in the cold war, did adopted mellower attitudes
towards one another to relax tension in their national interest. This state of relaxation of
tensions and peaceful existence is denoted by the term dtente. This word has a special
connotation in the context of relations between the two superpowers. It presupposes a
state of conflict and tension between them, which has been reduced, relaxed or totally
dissolved.
However, it is important to note that the cold war between the two superpowers, at no
point of time in the history of their mutual relationship, become so acute as to promote a
war or a direct military engagement between them. The direct engagement of armed
forces of the rival power blocs was prevented, not only by the spirit of dtente, but also
by the threat and counter-threat of military force. No superpower was ready or prepared
to risk a nuclear war, irrespective of high ideological or other stakes. The period from
1969 to 1978 was the period of dtente, during which the relations between the USA and
USSR became quite normal. In 1970, USSR signed a non-aggression treaty with West
Germany, which considerably reduced he tension in Europe. After the period of dtente
set in, there was a remarkable improvement in the relations between China and USA as
well. By 1979, with the exchange of ambassadors between China and USA, their cold war
virtually came to an end.
In spite of dtente between the two countries, there were various points of conflict
between them. E.g. to retain its influence in the Middle East and to counteract the
growing influence of Russia in the region, the US continued to support the arms build-up
in Iran.
The Soviet Unions decision to invade Afghanistan in 1979, the overthrowing of the Shah
of Iran and the role of the US in the same, and in the areas around, led to increase in
distrust and suspicion in the two superpowers. Such developments resulted in the new
cold war. However, the second cold war also thawed through eventually, due to various
factors, such as the Moscow Summit in 1988, where the two superpowers exchanged
documents on ratification of Intermediate Range Nuclear Treaty and pledged to strive for

a treaty of Strategic Arms Reduction. They also agreed to give advanced notice about the
launching of inter-continental range sea and ground missile tests and hold joint
verification of the testing of nuclear weapons. In December 1988, the Soviet Union
announced unilateral reduction of Soviet troops and armaments in Europe. The two
superpowers showed great spirits of accommodation on various international issues. The
various summit meetings greatly contributed to the elimination of the cold war.
The Washington summit in 1990 (May-June) further eased the cold war, when President
Bush Sr. and President Gorbachev concluded a number of agreements on nuclear,
chemical and conventional arms. They agreed to destroy thousands of tons of chemical
weapons, and to reduce their stockpiles. They also agreed to stop further production of
these weapons, with immediate effect.
By mid-1990, the NATO leaders formally announced the end of the cold war, at their
summit meeting held in London.
The concept of national interest is very vague and is relevant in the context needed. In
the view of the vagueness of this concept, some scholars have suggested that it is a
meaningless concept, that it is a pseudo or false theory.
As per the Brookings Institute, As the general and continuing ends for which a nation
acts. Dyke defines it, an interest which the states seek to protect or achieve in relation
to each other.
Methods of promoting national interest
Broadly speaking, there are three methods used for promoting national interest:
1) Coercive methods According to writers like Charles Beard, the coercive measures
adopted by the states, for the enforcement of national interest, can be divided into two
categories:
(a) Measures taken within the state, which do not infringe directly upon the state against
whom they are taken. The acts falling in this category are of a negative character, even
though they may produce positive effects. E.g. economic boycotts, severance of
diplomatic relations completely.
Such measures can be employed by the state for the advancement and enforcement of
its national interest. It may be observed that though these measures are considered
coercive, they are not violent in nature and dont create any international crisis.
(b) Measures which are directly operating against a state, which are the object of
enforcement procedures. These involve the use of physical force.
The history is full of such examples, when different states resorted to the display of
physical force, where they enforce national interest. The state can also take certain
measures on its own soil, to advance its national interest, which ultimately operates
against the enemy state. There include actions like seizure and confiscation of property
of the offending states or its subjects, by way of compensation in the value of the wrongs
done. It can also lead to actions like suspension of the operation of treaties between the
two states.
All these methods, in a way, are acts of war and the state against whom they are
directed has to determine if it wants to give the developments a shape of war.
2) Alliances Alliances are generally concluded by two or more nations for the protection
and promotion of the common interest. As a result of the alliance, the protection of these
common interests becomes a legal obligation, which the member states are duty-bound
to discharge. These alliances may be concluded for the protection of a large variety of

national interests and their nature depends upon the nature of the interest sought to be
protected. Thus, the nature and duration of alliance will depend upon the relative
strength of those interests.
4) Diplomatic Negotiations These are yet another method of protecting national
interest. It may be noted that the diplomatic negotiations prove fruitful if the interest of
the concerned states are complimentary or compatible. In such cases, an agreement can
be reached through mutual bargaining. On the other hand, in case of incompatible or
conflicting interests, negotiations are virtually impossible. In addition to national interest,
the states must try to protect certain common interest in the larger interest of the
international community.
Types of national interest
According to Thomas Robinson, there are six different types of national interest:
1- Primary interest, includes presentation of physical, political, cultural identity of the
state against possible encroachment from any outside foreign power. According to
Thomas Robinson, these primary interests are permanent and the state must defend
them at all costs.
2- Secondary interest though lesser important than primary interest, it is quite vital or
significant to the existence of the state. This includes protection of the citizens living
abroad and ensures diplomatic privileges and immunities for members of the diplomatic
staff.
3- Permanent interest This refers to the relatively constant and long term interest of the
state. If at all there is a change in the permanent interest, it is slow in process.
4- Variable interest These refer to those interests of a nation which the nation considers
important or significant for the national good in a given set of circumstances. The
variable interest of a state is largely determined by public opinion, sectional interest,
eminent leaders, party politics etc.
5- General interest This refers to those positive conditions, which apply to a large
number of nations or in several specified fields like economics, trade, diplomatic
interactions etc.
6- Specific interest This refers to the time and space of the interest to be protected.
In addition to these, Professor Thomas Robinson refers to three more interests called
international interests:
a. Identical interests, refers to those interests which are common in a number of states.
b. Complimentary interests, refers to those interests which are not identical, but can be
the basis of agreement on some specific issue
c. Conflicting interests, refers to those which are not fixed and they undergo change due
to the force of events and diplomacy.
Thus, the present conflicting interest may become a complimentary interest in the future.
Polarity, in international relations, is a description of the distribution of power, within the
international system. There are three types of systems uni-polarity, bipolarity, and
multi-polarity. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power
and influence of the state, in a region or internationally.
Uni-polarity/hegemony Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups,
with or without threat or force. It goes to the extent that the dominant state can dictate

terms to other nations, to its advantage. At present, there is hegemony and the world is
dominated by the USA.
The cold war period, from 1945-1990, with its main avenues of coercion, the formation of
NATO by the USA, and the Warsaw Pact lead by the USSR, often appears as a battle for
hegemony. Since the end of the cold war, the observers and thinkers have used the term
hegemony, to describe the USs role as the sole superpower in the modern world.
However, some scholars of international relations argue that the US does not have global
hegemony since it lacks the resources to impose dominance over the entire globe. They
also claim that countries like China, India and the European Union are also emerging
superpowers themselves. They are capable of competing with the US in their own regions
and also world-wide.
Bipolarity in international relations/politics It describes a distribution of power, in
which two states have the majority of economic, military and cultural influence,
internationally or regionally. E.g. during the cold war period, most of the western
democratic states were under the influence of the US, while most communist states and
much of the middle east were under the influence of the USSR. Besides these, the two
powers were competing with each other to get more and more countries allied with them.
Multi-polarity A multi-polar international system is one where there are several
powers, where there are several powers, without any power or alliance, and are unable to
dominate all the others. Its not needed to be a great power to participate in the system.
However, some powers are more equal than others. It is characterized by shifting
alliances - the actors try to seek a balance of power, forced into peace or into war, to
maintain this balance. One of the major implications of an international system with
various numbers of poles is that international decisions will often be made for strategic
reasons to maintain a balance of power, rather than out of ideological or historical
reasons.
Multi-polarity in the cold war Multi-polarity could be used to describe the relationship
of the three great powers, viz. China, USA and USSR, during the cold war. The period of
tri-polarity in the context of the cold war is recognized to have begun with Nixons
opening of China and ended with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.
Multi-polarity today A multi-polar world can be contrasted with a uni-polar
international system, such as the global preponderance of power. The widespread view is
that USA is so powerful, that it does not have to care about the balance of power when it
acts. Of course, this view is incompatible with multi-polarity, which has two main possible
views:
a. A superpower is something of the past, is one view which holds that in the cold war,
the US and USSR were superpowers, but due to complex economic interdependencies
and the creation of the global village, the idea of a sole superpower has ceased to be
applicable.
b. The other view is that they were never superpowers. It proposes that US and USSR
were never superpowers and only existed in a multi-polar system, dependent on the
states that were in their sphere of influence.
While there is no doubt that the US has great economic clout and has highly influenced
the culture of various nations around the globe, their dependency on foreign investor
nations, resources from developing nations and foreign trade have created a mutual
economic dependency between the US and the developing nations. According to those
who question the validity of calling the US a superpower, due to this interdependency,
the US cannot be called a superpower as it is not self-sufficient and it relies on the global
community to sustain its peoples quality of life. Together, the diplomatic and economic
factors that bind the global village, have created a state of existence in which no nation
or union could dominate the other, according to the people who believe in a modern
multi-polar system.