Introduction and Background
Through out history, kings, nobles,
statement, politicians, scholars and military strategists have concerned
themselves with various methods aimed at managing relationships between one
another in order to actualize their individual and group interests. the old
language of war, violence and military conquest cannot always be relied upon to
provide solutions to human conflict.
The balance of power principle is
one of the oldest concepts in the international system especially among the
European powers. The post-Westphalia Europe saw the emergence of a number of
powerful nation states some of them strong enough to threaten the sovereignty
of their neighbours. The weakening of papal authority at this time also created
an anarchic international environment where representations could no longer be
made to a defactoimpire.
Relations between states are often
characterized by rivalry, tension and conflict. One of more states often seek
to dominate others and to upset the existing order of things in favour of some
new arrangement which they consider more consonant to their concepts and
perceptions of the world.
Balance of power is as old as
warfare itself. In the early and middle ages kings enter into alliances with
friendly kingdom, either to counter the threats of a more powerful neighbour or
to balance the might of other
uncomfortable alliances. Alignments based on power develop as states with
common interests co-opeate with one another in order to counter the threats
posed to them by aggressive and unfriendly neighbours.
From a historical perspective
balance of power has been a conscious goal of international relations since the
ancient world. in post-medieval Europe, the Italian city states pursued the
balance of power policy with vigour.
The balance of power theory was
formulated as fundamental principle of diplomacy is the beginning if the 17th
century with the works of Hugo Grotius and his successors who provided it the
desired momentum. This was the period when the science of international law was
being developed to assume fundamental structure and discipline. In accordance
with the nero discipline, the European states formed a sort o Federal community
whose fundamental condition was the preservation of a balance of power or a
disposition of things in such a manner that no one state should be in position to dominate the other s
or dictate terms to the others without question. This condition provided a
reasonable settlement which was generally accepted and held to be a matter of
interest to all aides. It was further understood that if this right was
infringed upon by any side acting milaterally to change the status quo, every power has a duty to
interfere even through the use of force, to seek redress.
The balance of power principle has
become a basic ingredient. of political science and international relations.
most of the was experienced in Europe between the treaty of Westphalia (1648)
and the congress of Vienna (1814) was in one form or the other an excuse or a
process to maintain the sanctity of the balance of power. The hundred years of
peace which Eumpe enjoyed between
the congress of Vienna and the finish World war 91914) could also be credited
as a successful outcome of the balance of power process.
In interventional politics, balance
of power has been seen as a means of curbing absolute power and tyranny. David
Hume stated emphatically that.
… no state or ruler should ever be allowed to become
so great as to incapacitate the neighbouring states form defending their rights
against it…
Similarly,
Machiavelli argued that “whoever contributes towards the advancement of another
power ruins his own”.
In international relations, balance
of power exist to create parity and, as a follow up, stability between
contending forces. as a term in international law, balance of power exists to create
a just equilibrium” between the members of the family of nations. According to
Michael Sheehan, balance of power exists to presses a doctrine whose sole aim
is to present one nation or group of nations form becoming sufficiently strong
so as to enable it enforce its will upon the
rest members of the international system or to wield undue influence
over the rest.
Balance of power is a process of
creating peace and order, at lines, through the use of military power so as to
check and balance out the possible abuse of power and order in the global
environment. Balance of power checks the preponderance of power on one side and
guards the system against dictatorship and usurpation.
The balance of power this an outrace
of the destine to either maintain an existing status quo or over throw it and
create an entirely new one. It is, in so
many words, the result of the struggle for power between states at the
international level. it is not safe for a state to rely on the goodwill of
powerful neighbours because such goodwill could be as shifting as other
delicate interests of states. Adequate protection would be better quarantined
by matching power, and an endless quest for power is the exclusive motive
behind the foreign polices of almost all state.
In the 18th century,
balance of power existed to create relative military parity and order between
European powers. Britain at this time. Largely played the role of power broken or
balance. British position at this time was to provide military support to a
weaker nation or help form an alliance against a more powerful and aggressive one. the aim was to
ensure that no European nation places itself in position to command the
monopoly of power.
Britain, like many great power of
Europe see balance of power as a traditional imprint of foreign policy Balance
of power is determined by “equality of power” so that the power of one is equal
to that of the other. The theory of balance of power has certain key aspects
which scholars and other political thinkers commonly agree upon. Balance of
power is an aspect of political realism. One of the main objectives of balance
of power is to guarantee the security of the state and ensure deliberate
self-preservation, states may also be willing to accept convict or even war in
order to prevent the opponent from drastically altering the balance of power
especially when issues of vital interest are concerned. The US was prepared to
go to war with the Soviet Union in 1992 in order to prevent the soviets form
installing long-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. the success of such bold soviet
scheme would have fundamentally altered the balance of power between the two
powers. Security is achieved through conscious efforts to avoid the dominance
of one particular state or group of states. Thus, states may continue of align
themselves with one another until equilibrium is reached.
Balance of Power Equilibrium/Tools
Equilibrium describes a situation in which power
relationship between countries are balanced through a deliberate and conscious
policy creation. According to L. Oppenheim, an equilibrium between the various
powers which form the family of nations is infact essential to the very
existence of international law. His view is that in the absence of any central
authority with the ability to regulate the behaviour and conduct of States. the
only means through which states can check and sanction each other through a
code of rules and customs” is the capacity of the powers to hold each other in
check” ref. He argued that if this system fails, nothing can prevent
a state sufficiently powerful form ignoring basic precepts of international law
and acting solely according to its own interest and objectives.
in international politics, each
country strive to protect its territorial integrity. However, situations
occasionally arise where a country may develop aggressive or expansionist
tendencies to control another or others.
This may create a member of varying
scenario. a country may resort to aments either to create a disequilibrium in
the relationship with its neighbour or to achieve same. another sceneries is
for a country to enter into an alliance with another so us to offset the preponderance of power at
the other end.
In the first instance, country a
many embark on the procurement of military handwork and build up to other forms
of military to prevent country from B from attacking it. Country B may also embark
on a similar crusade to keep A in check. This process of agreement would
ultimately tilt the scale in favour of A or B.
Equilibrium Disequilibrium
In
the above scenario, state A has gained comprehensive advantage over state B by
the sheer force of military capability. State B may then move to the next
stage. In this scenario, state B will approach State C and demand an alliance
to offset the threat presented by the prepare durance of power in favour of
state A.
State
C may accept D’s proposal and essence her of support when the need arises. The
power of B & C will then balance the power of A and yet create an equilibrium.
The
power of B and C may yet create disequilibrium of it spaces the power of A.
countries B and C may not have the intent to attack a despite the advantage
they have since the goal of the alliance is to balance. As threat and deter her
intentions. The two scenarios here is that either B builds up her power
(armament) to balance A’s threat or it enters into an alliance with C in order
to achieve the same purpose armaments and alliance formation we the two major
tools of balance of power.
The balance of power theory have on
occasions proved to be tickle. Balance of power have not often been reasonably
successful in preventing the outbreak of war. War may break our when a country
perceivers that the opponents alliance is not in good faith. Such miscalculation
my lead to an attack on the enemy only for the aggressor to discover, perhaps. Too
late, that the alliance and the commitments behind it are still very much
intact. The intended victim of aggression may turn out to be the aggressor either
because of the effectiveness of its alliance or the superiority of its
armaments stock.
In, balance of power flexibility
remain a part of the process. A country may in one swoop enter into a nee
alliance automatically turning against its former allies if it foresees a
greater benefit by such shift. Alignments aimed at maintaining balance of power
are not rigid. states one often prepared to shift alignments if circumstances
change or when new and greater threats appear on the horizon.
There may also exist a
counter-alliance situation when a greater number of countries are involved. An
alliance between countries B and C would compel country. A to seek further
alliance with country D while both alliances may seek the hands of countries E,
D, F etc, in friendship. The aim is to maximize the potentials and capability
of each side.
If war breaks out in a balance of
power setting, it is bound to involve more than two countries since the allies
are bound, by the demands of the alliance, to join the war.
Balance of power may exist between
two countries or groups. This was the case between the Soviet Union and the US
and their allies throughout the period of the cold war. Balance of power may
also exit between many sovereign governments each controlling its separate
away, but bring together when need arises to confront an aggressor or check
their excesses. This was the case in the 18th and 19th
century Europe when the great powers aligned with each other to balance the
configuration of power, for instance, France, Prussia, Saxony and Bavaria VS
Austria and England, or However and Saxony versus Germany, Italy and Japan. In
the middle Earth, the United States pursues a policy that supports a balance of
power titled in favour of the state of Israel.
BALANCE OF ERROR
The phrase “balance of terror” is
usually applied in reference to the nuclear arms race between the United States
and the Soviet Union during the cold war. Emerging from the ruins of World War
II, the two countries became dominant, militarily and economically in global
affairs. Power was concentrated at the two poles and every issue of global
significance was unearned along the mordant lenses of east – west divide. The
phrase, “balance of terror” was coined in 1955 by Lester Pearson during the 10th
anniversary of the signing of the United Nations charter. It describes the
fragile peak that existed between the two side would be catastrophic for all of
humanity. The development, acquisition and stockpiling of highly sophisticated
and devastating nuclear arsenals here made the prospects of nuclear now simply
unthinkable.
The reality of the revolutionary
impact of the atomic bomb on warfare automatically altered the traditional
relevance of balance of power. For scholars and political scientists, the
balance of terror has created a new world situation form what it now up till
1939 and what it because after 1945.
Before 1939, the empires and great powers had prevented wars between each
other by maintaining a relative balance of their ability to wage war against
each other at all levels-economically, militarily and diplomatically.
The atomic bomb was first used in
1945 by the US to decimate two Japanese cities, and though it has not been used
in warfare even since, it sent a clear, unmistakable message to politicians,
generals and policy makers on all sides about the new reality. This new reality
is a situation that placed the entire humanity in peril at the hands of two
super powers. These two, he US and the USSR, have acquired at their fingerings,
the ability to destroy human civilization. The capability level attained by
both sides have a burnt realization that the nuclear have brought home a burnt
realization that the nuclear arsenals of both sides were large enough,
sophisticated enough and dangerous enough toe wreak such havoc that the issue
of who non or who lost would no longer be a condition.
In its own counter-intuitive way,
the were existence of these powerful and highly destructive weapons, have
become in its own unique way, a condition for peace. Since 1945, many wars have
been fought. Several skirmishes and military actions have also taken place when
diplomacy fails to create the requisite condition for peace. Yet, the super
powers never fought each other directly. When they engage in proxy wars behind
their friends and allies, care is taken to restrict their assistance to
conventional weapons only. That the “balance of terror” has preserved would
peace since 1945 is not were rhetories. It has become a fact of life that the
perfection of nuclear weapons delivery system on land, aim and sea by the US
and Russia in the last several deceases have preserved world peace for more
than half a century. It has also radically altered the traditional balance of
power.
BALANCE OF THREAT
The balance of threat, another
variant of the balance of power concept came form the neo-realist school of international
relations. it was proposed by Stephen Walt, in 1985 in an attempt to modify the
balance of power theory. the balance of threat concept holds that individuals,
states or other alliances is determined by the threat they perceive from other
states, alliances or actors within their operational environment. Walt contends
that States would generally equate a balance by aligning with each other
against a perceived threat. Weaker states with less beggaring potentials should join forces with stronger
ones in order to ensure their own security. He pointed to the alliance patterns
of European states between 1905 and 1939 when alliance were aimed at rebuffing
the recognized threat of German expansion intentions.
Walt further identifies some
criteria which states use to evaluate the threat posed by another state.
1. Its
aggregate strength vis a vis size, population, and economic capabilities.
2. Its geographical proximity,
3. Its offensive capabilities, and
4. Its offensive intentions.
Walt argues that the more other states view a rising
state as possessing these qualities, the more likely such state is perceived as
a threat. The others would therefore seek to maintain a balance against it.
Balance of power theory modified
realism by separating power from threat. In balance of power, states balance
against others whose military powers were perceived to be on the increase. In
the balance of power setting, rising power connotes offensive intentions and
such intentions may lead to aggressive behaviour, Walt’s submission is that
states may rise in power without necessarily constituting itself to a threat to
others. He gave an instance of the size
in power of the US during the Gold war yet it maintained god relations with her
NATO allies because its threat level to those states did not rise. The NATO
countries worked together against the Warsaw pact but did not balance each
other. This, according to Walt, is because the western members of the NATO
alliance did not perceive one another as threats. They see each other as
partners in the same boat working towards a similar goals. That goal is the
security of the western hemisphere, and to a reasonable extent, the rest of the
world.
CRITICISMS OF BALANCE OF POWER
1. The major criticism of balance of power
is that it leads to an arms race between countries and between alliances.
Traditionally, a country aims to acquire greater military potential in order
guarantee its own security and determined be aggressors. The other side also
takes conscious steps to expand its military capability in relationship with
the other side. As both sides engage each other in competition, it becomes a
race to see who acquires more than the other. The arms race reached alarming
levels during the cold man in the struggle between the East and the West to
keep up with the military preparedness
of the other side.
2. Critics
have also argued that gal of power encourage wars by creating a general feeling
of uncertainty and insecurity. when the atmosphere is hazy at the but level, states may misinterpreted
the intentions of others and their actions based on such miscalculations may
lead to conflict.
3. Political
realists argue that balance of power may negate national interest when a state
needs to cut decisively and aggressively to protect her interests. Such
interests could be economic, expansionist or pure irredentism.
4. Alliances
could lead to unnecessary was because when states are forced to take sides the
will to make peace becomes secondary as such efforts would be seen more as
weakness than a genuine desire for peace. In 1914, the German Kaiser felt
better obliged to allow Austria take punitive measures against Serbia rather
than play a more honourable role of mediator between the two sides. Similarly,
Britain quickly lost the appetite for mediation in the face of Mazi Rampage in
the late 1930s and quickly sought alliances with other “live minded” nations.
5. Political idealists have criticized
balance of power as setting the stage for war. Woodrow Wilson described balance
of power as an immoral concept.
Despite these criticisms however,
same scholar still believe that balance of power have served the interests of
global peace in very significant ways. They urge that balance of power has not
only cases present only discouraged wars
but in some cases prevented it altogether. they argue further that it has
preserved the independence of small states which, standing on their own, would
have fallen easy prey to expansionist neigbours, other advantage attributed to
the balance of power regime include encouraging inter-state co-operation and
acting as checks on the activities of predator states.