PSIR Optional

Balance of POWER

POLITY for Civil services
deepanalysis
  • Balance of Power –
    • Treated as MAXIM i.e on par with fundamental law.
    • David Hume called it common sense.
    • Feature of Westphalian world order.
    • Militaristic concept.
    • The first formal recognition of BOP was in 1713 in Treaty of Utrecht. The famous historian AJP Taylor mentions 1848-1914 as GOLDEN AGE OF BOP. 
    • European countries formally adopted concept in 1815, Vienna congress which has given rise to CONCERT OF EUROPE where countries of Europe gave guarantees to ensure BOP so that peace is maintained. The concert of Europe gave 100 years of peace to Europe (till 1914).
    • Britishers were masters in the BoP. It was the hallmark of British FP.
      • Internal
      • External
  • Techniques of BoP –
    • Arms race
    • Arms control
    • Disarmament
    • Partition
    • Alliance
    • Penalties
    • Reparation
  • Relevance of BoP in 21st cent – 
    • Relevance of BoP has always been contested.
    • First to challenge BoP – liberal/idealists/utopians – Nehru, Woodrow Wilson. BoP can’t give peace on a durable basis. Acc to Nehru it gives a nervous state of peace. Hence they proposed alternatives like collective security (Wilson, Nehru).
    • Disarmament – Nehru. However collective security proved ineffective prevent WW2.
  • BoP after WW2 – BoP was questioned.
    • Rise of superpowers – Only superpower can balance superpower because of nuclear balance. Hence concept of BoP lost its relevance and concept of deterrence i.e nuclear balance came into existence. Arnold Wolfers calls nuclear balance as balance of terror based on MAD, other states have to go for bandwagoning/appeasement of superpower.
  • It is to be noted that BoP concept works in two situations –
    • Regional context and multipolar world.
    • In conventional wars – The techniques of BoP are wars, in case of nuclear weapons, war can’t be used to weaken the powers of states. Hence either diplomacy of deterrence will be needed.
  • BoP in 21st cent – 
    • Again in question due to many changes in world order.
    • Growth of CI will limit the scope of hard power.
    • In 21st cent nature of security challenges have changed –
      • Most threats are now internal security threats, clash of civilisations.
      • Rise of asymmetrical actors – Terrorist actors. Against these unconventional security challenges, the conventional techniques became redundant.
    • Out of box thinking is required, innovative solutions.
    • In 21st cent even terrorism has become more complicated (post modern)
      • Earlier terrorism was institutionalised, now it has become deinstitutionalised, self motivated.
      • Earlier terrorism was ideological but now it has become religious (religious fundamentalism).
    • Whether BoP has become completely irrelevant?
      • BoP will remain relevant, so long common sense is relevant. It has become all the more relevant in present time.
      • Asia Century – There is a huge probability of war between the two Asian giants. There is a probability of conventional war between India and China. It is to be noted that both the countries have no first use policy.
  • Ideally India should have first use policy to prevent conventional war from China. However, India is not in a position of first use, it may prove counter productive. Hence India has to go for internal and external balancing (quad, act east policy, the policy of free and open Indo pacific).
  • Conceptual Modification of BoP – 
    • Acc to Waltz, BoP is “the national response to the rising hegemon”. However acc to Mearsheimer nations prefer bandwagoning.
    • Stephen Walt has given concept of Balance of Threat. Instead of balancing power, nations balance threat.
  • Power Transition theory – 
    • Acc to BoP theory the situation of balance is more stable and peaceful, if balance is between 2 countries. However acc to Kenneth these are less dangerous when there is imbalance. However the dangerous times are the times of power transitions.
  • Asymmetrical Balancing – between asymmetrical actors.
  • Soft balancing – Opposing actions of superpowers on political crackpots.
  • Collective Security – Like BoP collective security is “management of power”.
    • Collective security system is based on BoP at the same time, it is criticism of BoP.
    • Similarity in BoP and Collective Security – 
      • Both believe in view that power is antidote to power.
      • Power can be deterred by greater power. Both are based on conventional war.
      • Both are militaristic concept.
    • Difference – 
      • Collective security is institutionalised BoP.
        • BoP is based on common sense, there is no institution to organise it and hence BoP is uncertain, nervous state of peace.
        • Collective security is based on institutions like – LON, UN.
      • BoP believes that security depends on self help. However collective security is based on view that security is collective concept, it means security of one country is concern of other. Hence collective security is based on one for all and all for one.
    • Advantages of Collective Security – 
      • Overcome nervous state of peace.
      • It is good for poor countries.
        • They can focus on development and avoid arms race.
      • Can be conducive to international peace because countries will not be in arms race.
    • Assessment of Collective Security – 
      • Utopian Idea – Any country which depends on collective security had to suffer. Ex – India.
      • Bandwagoning, joining alliances, joining defence pacts like NATO is option for poor countries.
    • Why is collective security utopian?
      • Based on assumptions that other countries will send their forces to maintain international peace even when they are not directly affected.
      • It is based on assumptions that nations will forget their long term interest and will enter in war to check their aggression.
    • Actual Practice –
      • Under LON (It could not come under existence as it was too idealistic)
        • USA was absent.
        • Western countries were doing appeasement of fascist powers.
        • Under LON charter until and unless all countries agree it could not be operationalise (that is why under UN power is left under hand of P5).
      • Under UN – 
        • During Cold War – Only one occasion. Ex – Korean Crisis 1950, that too not ideally.
        • Rest of the time – Collective security was paralysed by superpowers rivalry.
        • After end of Cold War – Only one occasion – Gulf war – for first time USSR didn’t oppose USA. It shows that Cold War is over, USSR was no more a superpower.
        • After Gulf War – USA, Russia rivalry reemerged hence again UNSC remained paralysed. Ex – USA & Russia could not agree on “R2P action” w.r.t Syria. Both countries go for their unilateral actions against common enemy.
  • Collective Defence – 
    • Ex – NATO, Warsaw Pact, Baghdad Pact.
    • Approach of India – India was against joining military alliances. India preferred being non-aligned. India preferred collective security.
    • Basic Difference – 
      • CS – Universal, CD – Only for members.
      • CS – Anyone committing aggression, CD – Enemy is known (Russia).
      • CS – Non Geographical (India), CD – Geographical [USA (NATO)].
    • Collective defence weakens collective security, no one will trust CS. Acc to USA CD is the only practical way in which CS can come into existence.
    • Acc to USA art 51 of UN charter allows the self defence to countries.
  • Uniting for peace resolution – Collective security in the case of Korean Crisis was not operationalised in ideal sense, it was done through uniting for peace resolution, which itself gone out of use later on. Russia never accepted legal validity of UPR.
    • Conclusion – Collective security keeps on failing again and again. It appears an utopian idea all the time.
  • Impact of failure of collective security – 
    • It has led to new ideas to maintain security –
      • Collective defence
      • Deterrence
    • It has also led to big question mark on relevance of UN – the core objective of UN is to save the generations from the scourge of war.
    • In UN system UNSC has been empowered with police powers (collective security to punish those who threaten the world peace.
    • The countries which have been given responsible failed to provide leadership because –
      • Countries give priority to their narrow nations interest.
      • The countries which are holding position at high table of diplomacy do not come from such civilisation and culture whose values are based on peace, humanity, cosmopolitism.
      • Justice is to be done. Justice is right people at right place.
      • Justice is only deserved by India. Only Indian culture has values of cosmopolitism, peace.
  • Views of Aurobindo Ghosh – 
    • Rise of India as nation is inevitable.
    • India is chose by universal spirit to spread message of god. Rise of India is not just for its own benefit, it is for benefit of humanity.

Related Posts