Balance of Power

CONTENTS

Balance of Power
Meaning
Techniques/Devicesand Methods
Relevance of Balance of Power
Collective Security

INTRODUCTION
The presence of states with varying degrees of power makes it necessary to
study the pattern of relationship among them. If one goes by the realist
assumption,the international system is unrestrainedand unprotectedby any
international government, where states have to look after their own national
interestsand, obviously, national security, thereby inducing insecurity in others.
Therefore,the picture that emerges is one in which "each is against the other".
Though international relations may seem anarchic in the absence of any world
government,yet it is not so in the sense of lawlessness and disorder.[ll The key
to the puzzle, as the realists suggest, is the principle of balance of power which
is "a basic principle of international relations and a fundamental law of politics
as it is possible to find". The political relations of independentnations,
especiallythe great powers, traditionally have been explained by the theory of
the balance of power. [21

83
 of power
Balance Meaning 85
OF POWER when actual large-scale and Saxony on the other. In 175(vl 76@,the linc•jp was
BALANCE longperiods Prussia and Hanover on
hasexperienced this was the absence of one single one side, and Austria, Russia, France and Saxony
on the other. These
states, each zealously arrangements were not fool proof and did not prevent
of many sovereign war. but what mattered
presence a way that each state was was that there was no ideological crusadeQas seen in the twentieth
authorityand wasdistributedin such century.
sovereignautonomy. Power state tried to increase its power There was no call for "deFredericking" Prussia as the US "de-Naz.ified"
uardingits In theory, if any prevent it. This was what Germany after the Second World War. Further, those wars were mainly fought
theothers. would unite to
ableto balancethreat,all the others
a Figure 4.1).
(see
over Silesia and did not result in large-scale civilian casualties although a large
therebyposing balance ofpower number of soldiers were killed.[31
known as the as power is not abolished&must be
cameto be is that,as long goodwill of powerful neighbours
assumption
Thebasic ore y on e
power can provide
adequate protection under MEANING
naiveandonlymatching the buzzword. Any potential
wouldbe deterrence becomes
Mutual The balance of power is one notion which is central to the study of international
all circumstances. of all the other states.
deteredbv potentialcombined powers relations. The term is in no way an innovation of the present times and can be
aggressionis power, either by one single nation or by a
a case, balancing traced to the sixteenth century, only to be theorized in the eighteenth century
Therefore,in such nation from imposing its will
preventany one particular and after. It appeared in treaties like the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, in the
groupof nations, state B must try to equalize it. If B memoirs of statesman, and in the writings of diplomats historians and lawyers.
increasesits power,
uponothers.If stateA other states and together they can The diplomats of Ancien Régime (refers to the political system established in
it can join
alonecannotmatch might, France from fourteenth century to eighteenth century under the Valois and
offset the power of A. Bourbon dynasties) considered it as the underlying principle that created
Balance of power stability. In the twentieth century it has been invoked many a times but the
problem is that there is a lack of unanimity on the exact meaning of the term:
Inis L. Claude (1962) observed that "the trouble with the balance of power is not
that it has no meaning but that it has too many meanings"
Professor A.F. Pollard (1923) stated that there are several thousand
meanings of the phrase, but "The essential idea is simple enough: it is
B+C+D 'equilibrium' of the type represented by a pair of scales. When the weights in
the scales are equal, balance results"
Figure4.1 Illustrationof balance of power. George Schwarzenberger (1951) viewed balance of power as •an
equilibrium' or "a certain amount of stability in international relations"
G. Lowes Dickinson(1926) clarified the two uses of the term •balance'. He
Thebalanceof powerthat existedin
Euro e during the eighteenth and
nineteenthcenturiesare clas
examples of b said that "it means, on the one hand, an equality, as of the two sides an
focuswasnoton matching e of power systems. The has a
a rival' power by building up one's army but by account is balanced, and on the other hand, an inequality, as vshen one
forminga coalition of power
of therival.Thus,
ofone or more other states threatened by the growing power 'balance' to one's credit at the bank". He also added "the balance
deterrencewas achieved
Historically,under this by alliances and not by arms races. theory professes the former, but pursues the latter"
power is such a
in thepowerofa
kind of balance of
power systems, there was no increase According to Professor Sidney B. Fay (1937), balance of
of nations as will
singlestateor even
re-arrangedtocounter in the system as a "just equilibrium in power among the members of the family
whole. Only power was to enforce its will
not bound to each aggression.States
pursued prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong
other by permanent independent policies and was
the independence alliances. Only when upon others"
of another, Politics, distinguished
did a group one state threatened Kaplan[51in his System and Process in International
begin to coalesce to oppose the and other international systems. To him
Thereare between the balance of power system
instanceswhen system without a political
operativein
Europebetween such balance of power balance of power system is an intemational social
principles became ate international actors who fall within
betweenFrance, 1740 and subsystem. The actors within the system
and Hanover Prussia,Saxony, 1763. There being used as an undefined term. the
on Bavaria on were many allianceS the sub-class, "national actor". 'Essential'
France,Prussia the otherin the one hand
and Austria, England number of essential actors Illust be at least five
and preferably more.
and Bavaria 1740-1743.In
on the 1744-1745, the line-up was like
one hand, and
Austria, England, Hanover
 of power Struggle for Power and
Balance Nations: The Meaning 87
86 Alnong The Prerequisites for Balance of
his Politics term: Power
Morgenthauin meanings of the 1. A multiplicity of states.
four
Peace has
given of affairs
at a certain state 2. Absence of a centralized
aimed legitimate and strong authority
1. Apolicy sovereign actors. over these
of affairs power
actual state distribution of 3. Relatively unequal distribution
2. An equal of national power.
approximately 4. Requirement of a balancing power.
3. An power.
of
4. Any
distribution
exclusive versions of the concept of 5. Perpetuation of existing power
distribution which benefits the balancer
given eight mutually nations mutually, i.e., status quo.[91
Haas[61has
balance of power: distribution of power among nation- From these assumptions arise a set of
informal widely understood
resultingfrom equal principles or rules:
1. Equilibrium
of power among 1. Be suspicious of an increase in power by another
unequal distribution country—any
resulting from country. Be concerned with the capabilities, not intentions.
2. Equilibrium
nation-states. 2. Always ally with the weaker side. Ignore considerations such
dominance of one nation-state (the as
resultingfrom the friendship or morality.
3. Equilibrium
balancer). 3. Support a state or group of states only until, it is out of danger.
peace.
for relative stability and Remember that no alliance is permanent.
4. A systemproviding
by instability and war. 4. Show moderation towards the aggressor after it is defeated because no
5. A systemcharacterized
politics. alliance is permanent; today's enemy may be tomorrow's ally.
6. Anotherway of saying power
5. Settle non-essential quarrels in peripheral areas in a way that does not
7. A universallaw of history.
disturb the central balance. [101
8. A guide for policy makers.
Kaplan[111also suggests certain basic rules for the functioning of the
Kenneth in his Theoryof International Politics (1979) does not balance of power system:
assumethat statesare self-aggrandizingand aggressive bodies but he does
assumethattheyhave a necessity to preserve themselves. Thus, they are obliged
l. Act to increase capabilities but negotiate rather than fight.
to be concernedwith their security and take into considerations the existence of 2. Fight rather than give up an opportunity to increase capabilities.
otherstates,posingto be potential threats. This induces the states to continually 3. Stop fighting rather than eliminate an essential national actor.
adjusttheirstancein internationalrelations according to their reading of power 4. Act to oppose any coalition or single actor which assumes a
of otherstatesand their own power. The result of these movements is the predominant position with respect to the rest of the system.
emergence of the balance of power.
5. Act to constrain actors who subscribe to supranationalorganizing
HedleyBull**18] in his TheAnarchical Society (1977) considers the balance principles.
of poweras a kind of artefact, the
of states,are willingto see
something that states, or a significant proportion 6. Permit defeated or constrained essential national actors to re-enter
must 'want'
as a desirable end and are
committed to the idea and system as acceptable role partners or act to bring some previously
it to work.
inessential actor within the essential actor classification.
Despiteseveral meanings
Morgenthau
and implications, balance of power remains, as 7. Treat all essential actors as acceptable role partners.
pointedout, "a
international
manifestation of a general social principle" in
relations.

Kennethwaltz,
Characteristics of Balance of Power System
Theoryof certain basic characteristicsof
InternationalPolitics,
McGraw Hill, New York, 1979 [given Professor Palmer and Perkins have enumerated
HedleyBull, The balance of power system:
Anarchicalsociety:
A study of Order in Politics,
Columbia University
 88 suggests equilibrium but it is
of power' itself equilibrium to disequilibrium
• The term •balance i.e., from
changes. of power is not „a
to constant that balance
Spykman (1942) by "the active intervention of
Nicholas J. must be achieved if they are willing to survive
and it
gift of the gods" wait until it 'happens'
man". states cannot
power of the period.
the
a balanceagainst favour of status quo; but to be
tends to be in and should be a dynamic
• policy must be changing
a and its real test, presumably, is war.
balance of power rarely exists upset.
A teal breaks, the whole system gets
war actually
approach of a statesman and an Objective
subjective
• It offers both As was observed by Martin Wight (1946) who
approachof a historian. in the perspectives of a historian and a
suggestedthat the difference
historian will say that there is a balance when the
statesmanis that "The equal in power. The statesman will
seem to him to be
opposinggroups that his side is stronger than the
balance when he thinks
say that there is a holds the balance, when it has
And he will say that his country
one side or the other according to its own interests"
freedomto join
of balance, actually indulge in
Hence, states, which play the game
imbalance—in their favour.
the great states although small
• The balance of power game is a game for
outcome; they become
and weaker states are vitally concerned with the
players.
mere spectators, or more often victims, rather than
• To maintain the balance there is a need for a balancer.
] looking back into history, identified four types of balance of
Hartman112
power process since 1815.
l. "The balancerform in which the balancer promotes flexibility to a
simple, two-bloc form restraining either bloc"
2. 'The Bismarckian form in which the potential troublemaker is restrained
by isolating her through a complex and flexible alliance system built on
the utilization of the counter balancing interests of other powers".
3. "The MunichEra form in which the flexibility stems from the lack of
coordinationof interests upon the part of the likely victims of attack".
4. "The simple two bloc form such as existed in 1907—1914and again from
1949—1963
or so, in which each bloc is the direct sole deterrent or
restraining influence upon the other".

ECHNIQUES/DEVICES AND METHODS

Thereare different techniquesof maintaining
the balance of power system.
'hese are now briefly discussed.
 hniqueq/l)evtcesand Methods 89
1. Alliances and Counter-Alliances:
"JTieqearc the most commonly used
devices for maintaining the balance of
power If one state gnercasesits strength,
its adversaries have no other option but to
balance It by forrngngcoalitions
against it. This has happened quite often In Europe, where. whenever
onc
particular state threatened the balance in Europe, other
states formed coalitions
against it. Coalitions of one group of states may be met
by counter-coal;trone,
formed by another group of states. Twentieth century Europe saw two
€uch
alliances and counter-alliances, one of them being the Triple Entente formed by
France, England and Russia in 1907 as a response to the Trtpic Athance of
Imperial Germany, Austria—Hungaryand Italy. Another was the Axm formed tn
1936 to counter the alliance between France and European nations. Again. the
Allied powers formed a coalition against the Axis power during the Second
World War.
Alliances can be both offensive and defensive, and even a world balance oc
a regional balance. It is not too much to say that balance of power
considerations, whether regional, hemispheric or worldwide. are a controjl;ng
factor in virtually every alliance formed by states. This has proved to be true
during the Cold War days when the United States formed several military
regional arrangements such as NATO, SEATO, CENTO and others. with West
European States, Central Asian states and Pakistan. which were countered by
Soviet led coalitions like the WARSAW Pact.
2. Compensations: Morgenthau points out that "the bargaining of
diplomatic negotiations issuing in political compromise is but the principle of
compensation in the most general form, and as such it is originally connected
with the balance of power". Compensation usually involves annexation or
division of territory. Territorial compensations have been frequently used by
powerful states at the expense of the smaller and weaker ones and by uctonous
powers at the end of a war. Between 1870 and 1914, this principle was applied
on a large-scale, resulting in distribution of colonial territones and the
delineation of spheres of influence in China and elsewhere, among the
European powers. Partition or division of territories has also been used in the
maintenance of balance of power. A Plethora of examples are available in thts
regard, like the division of the Spanish possessions in Europe and outstde
among the Hapsburg and the Bourbons under the Treaty of Utrecht, the partition
of Poland and later its division among Russia, Prussia and Austna. partitton of
Germany by the Treaty of Versailles and again after the Second World War
among Britain, France, Russia and the United States, and division oi Korea and
Vietnam after the Second World War.
3. Buffer States: Geo-strategically, sotne states may be placed in between
some powerful states in such a way that they tend to keep oval pc»wersout of
direct contact with each other, They cotne to constitute a butter between the
two. Palmer and Perkins point out that but't•erstates are of great importance
because of their cushioning effect between the great powers, They may be
 Techniques/Devices and
Methods 91
territories, or even chemical Weapons Treaty and others.
or dependent in a But the problem
states aggregations of power the state, which disarms first, runs with disarmament is that
states, satellite two or more a serious risk. Therefore,
disarmamentis
neutralized with one of often discussed and its practice involves
neutralor difficulties until there are assurances
acatlvcelyofalsociated has been the one that all will disarm together in such a way
may be way. of the world area that it will not disturb the current
relatively
honourable
important buffer regionsnon-Communist powers, an distribution of power. As this assurance is lacking
in most cases, disarmament
one of the from the barriers, conflicting measures are looked upon with suspicion and this
Soviet Union geographical is the
most states having the potential to develop nuclear primaryreason why
separatingthe states, vast distances, period and rising nationalisms. power refrained from
comprisingweak the post-war the Inner Crescent of signing the NPT and the CTBT.
of superpowersduring idea of a large part of They feared a nuclear hegemony of the
nuclear
interests correspondto the served as a buffer haves and their calculative measures to prevent the have-nots
roughly Afghanistan long from joining the
Thismay Spykman. Similarly, Tibet was also a nuclear club.
Rimlandof
Mackinderand the and pre-independent India. and even during the
state between
Russia
during the British India 5. Intervention and Non-Intervention: Intervention is a weapon used by a
China and India both the cases, the Soviet powerful state, usually the balancer to intervene, in the internal affairs of
bufferbetween independenceof India. But in
buffer status, and recent
initialyearsofAfghanistanin 1979 disturbed its character. Nepal and
another state to extract certain concessions necessary to preserve the status quo
interventionin Tibet has destroyed its buffer in the existing balance of power. There have been several instances where such
Chineseoccupation
of Thus both India and
buffer between China and India. interventions have taken lace. Germgpyjmecyenédåft%ö+anish Civil War in
Bhutanalso serve as
a Bhutan. Several lines,
foreign policy towards Nepal and favour o General Franco, Britain in Greece, the United States in Cuba,
Chinafollowa cautious Vietnam and the 38th Parallel in Korea, also serve Lebanon, Laos, Guatemala, and others and the Soviet Union in North Korea,
in
suchas the 17thParallel Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the post-ColdWar
that of the buffer states.
similar purposes, as world, there have been cases of intervention b the United
is vital for the survival
Armaments and Disarmaments: Militarypower East in raq, uwalt and Afghanistan.
4. of the security of that
linked to the maintenance Again, non-intervention is a kind of policy usually followed by the
put great emphasis on their military
particularstate. Therefore, states conventional forces or nuclear arsenal. powerful states as well as the small states, which satisfies the political order and
preparedness, either in terms of their follows peaceful methods to preserve the balance. Unlike Germany, France and
of one state makes it a nece sityvfor
Thefact is that militarypreparedness Britain followed the policy of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War.
to a perilous and unendin arms race
anotherstateto follow the suit. This leads 6. Divide and Rule: This had been a policy pursued for long to preserve the
as it had happened in the post-
andintensifiedrivalriesamong the major powers, balance of power by making_the competitors divide among themselves. It had
Union, and as it happens in
Warera betweenthe United States and the Soviet been used by the Romans to maintain their control over the scatteredpeople.
in the South
everypart of the globe. India and Pakistan are again contenders The French had prominently used this policy towards Germanyever since the
the balance in the
Asianregionand armsrace between them tends to disturb seventÄitFGntury. The British had historically pursued this policy toWåFdS
prowess, pursues a
region.India,visa-vis its neighbourto match the Chinese the the post-War period, when the world politics was ripped apart
policy of improvisingand adding to its military arsenal, conventional and
by the tensions between the two superpowers, generally known as Cold War,
nucleararmaments,which again is most likely to send shocks to her South
this policy again came to feature in the foreign policy orientations of the
Asianneighbours, especiallyPakistan,and escalate an arms race in the region.
superpowers. Both the superpowers aimed at keeping the rival camps, i.e.,
But constantarms race increases the fear of destruction. Therefore, in in order to retain a
theory,a more stable balance of power can e attaine y ending the armament
Western and Eastern Europe disintegrated and divided [13]
race and proportionatelyreducing the armaments. The first effort towards balance as well as preserve their spheres of influence.
disarmament was the Treaty of Versaillesof 1919 and then the Washington
NavalTreatyof 1922.Following the reduction Criticism
of tension between the two
superpowers, both have attemptedto reduce their armament efforts and have of some of the
signedmanyaccord in this regard The balance of power theory was an attempt on the part
like the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) Of international politics like
1963,StrategicArms Limitation international relations scholars to devise a law for
Treaty (SALT-I) of 1972 and SALT-Il Of the field of international
1979,IntermediateRange Other sciences. But the greatest difficulty one faces in
NuclearForce (INF) Treaty of 1987 and the Strategic from other disciplines.
Arms ReductionTreaty relations is in the application of the theories derived
(START) of 1991. Globally, of balance of power just
efforts have also been
taken up by the United
several disarmament Therefore, it becomes difficult to accept the idea
ProliferationTreaty Nations, such as the Non because it is old and a respectable theory.
(NPT), Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the
 Relevance of Balance
the principles of of Power
of Power
Balance suggestions that 93
their 1. Uncertainty: Morgenthau points out that
92
come up with prevent the balance of power if balance of power
have conditions mechanically, it would require an easily recognizable is conceived
altered pointed out
Mostscholars but the Morgenthau power of a number of nations can quantitativecriterionby
are correct As manifestation of a general which the relative be measuredand
the theory operatingcorrectly. only a panicular number of autonomous It is only by means of such a criterion it can be ascertained compared.
systemfrom affairsis composed of a that
a particular
international societies policies aiming at its nation tends to be more powerful than another or they tend to maintain
powerin whichall of power and a balance
to the balance
stabilizing factor in a society of power among themselves. But in reality, it is difficult to make
socialprincipleautonomy;that are an essential quantitative
unitsowe
their but international balance of measurement of power, and national power is composed of so many
not inevitable the instability of the elements
that the quality of these components is also subjected to constantchange.Thus,
preservationare that but to the particular conditions
sovereign nations;and of the principle rational calculation of the relative strength of several nations becomes a series
of faultiness of sovereign states"
is due not to the operate in a society of guesses, the correctness of which is doubtful. The uncertaintyof power
power
the principle
must concept. To him, the concept
underwhich several drawbacksof the calculation is inherent in the nature of national power itself. This uncertaintyis,
out fundamentally static units
organskipoints assumptionsthat nations are however, magnified when the weights in one or the other or in both scales are
assumption that nations
is basedon from within and also the composed not only of single units but also of several nations forming alliances.
not changed freely, motivated primarily by
whosepoweris other but move
ties with each are not static units that increase 2. Unreality: The uncertainty of power calculations incapacitates the balance
haveno He says that nations
of power. aggrandizements and of power system from operating and also leads to its very negation in practice.
consideration aggressions, territorial
power only throughmilitary of international relations, Since nations are incapable of calculating the distributionof nationalpower,
their the pattern
modernchanges in
alliances.Giventhe sentiments, improving the efficiency they will at least attempt to make sure that whatever error they might commit in
by mobilizing national
nationscan change Such increase and shifts in calculation, these will not land them in serious disadvantagein the competition
organizations, and by industrialization.
of social
through traditional mechanisms
of the balance of of power and that they have a margin of safety.
powercannotbe counteracted socio-cultural changes Thus, in the struggle for power, nations actually aim not at a balance, which
economic, technological and
powerbecausea variety of another. A theory is equality of power, but a superiority of power in their favour.The limitless
one actor and the emergence of
mayleadto the breakdownof aspiration for power is always present in the mindset of nations and this
national power lies in waging wars and
whichassumesthat the major road to transforms into an armament race which ultimately may cause war. Preventive
developments of modern
formingallianceshas missed the most important war, however, abhorred in diplomatic language and abhorrent to
democratic
power. The First
times.
alliances at public opinion is, in fact, a natural outgrowth of the balance of
Hefurthercontendsthat nations are not free to make and break of power as an
a World War is a pointer in that direction. The use of balance
willfor powerconsiderationsalone. Even the 'balancer' is often not in inherent in the mechanics of the
changes. The truth ideology aggravates difficulties and dangers
positionto changesideswheneverthe distribution of power
balance of power.
is thata nationselectsits friends and foes depending upon its national interest,
contribution made by
whichmayrangefrom purely military-strategic to political, economic, cultural, 3. Inadequacy: Morgenthau observed that the actual
eighteenth and nineteenth
It supportsa nation as long as its national interest is
andevenpsychological. the balance of power system in the seventeenth,
of the modern state system
best servedfrom the preservation of the present international order and opposes centuries had helped in the establishment of stability
members.But it was not the
those,whotend to disturbor seek a change in status
quo. and the preservation of the independence of its were
Organskialsopointsout that there is no in achieving these things; there
such thing as a 'balancer' and never balance of power system alone that helped consensus present in
has been so. England, which of moral
was long thought to be playing a role of a balancer, Other factors such as the restraining influence thus assumes a
actuallywasmotivatedby its the balance of power
self-interestand acted in world politics in such a Europe. Morgenthau also observed that therefore, tends to
wayto uphold not have and
her preponderanceof
power, and not a balance at all.[15] reality and function that it actually does
The othertruthlies in politics as it actually is.
On the contrary,almost
the fact that balance of
power does not ensure peace• disguise, rationalize and justify international
all greatest wars recorded
occurredat timeswhen in modern history have
or when,through one of the challengers balanced the preponderant power
miscalculation, a challenger thought RELEVANCE OF BALANCE OF POWER scholars of
that its power was as Organski has asked the concepts
Based on the criticisms and shortcomings, because its
Morgenthau[161
has forwardeda reject the balance of power theory
of the concept of
balanceof power. threefoldcriticism international relations to
He has pointed
out the uncertainty,
unreality and inadequacy
 of power inconsistent with the
Balance contradictions, Collective Security
94 of 95
unsound, fullexplain such events. 2, The sudden increase
in the power of
logically of power is
it is
occurred, and fails
to
"The balance and the character and
the frightening
the offensive over the defensive
commented. is an undescribed
events that
have (1867) imposture—it 3. Ideological considerations implicationsof total war
Richard mistake.an words, conveying to the mind
and other
fallacy,a 4. The increasing disparities tangible elements of power
is not a nothing:mere in the power of the
incomprehensible superpowers becoming more states, with the
balance of power powerful
sounds' propounded by the weaker, at least in relative terms.(lhl and the lesser states becoming
ideas, but principles of international
not or the basic ever-changing scenario
Eventhe rulesapplicablein the Morton Kaplan in 1957 Presently, with the dissolution of
propounded by one of the superpowers,the
theoristsare not principles should or ought to War situation drastically changed the post-Cold
example, the how the statesmen power equation between the two
relations.For prescribed 6, "treat all major There was no such power transition as poles.
He had Further, his rule suggested by Organski when he said
hardlyhold today. theyactuallybehave. in the present context, "if great change occurs within a single that
how because, lifetime, both challenger and dominant
behaveratherthan partners" is hardly tenable nation may find it difficult to estimate their relative
simultaneous increase in power correctly. and may
powersas acceptable of public opinion and a stumble into a war that would never have been fought
disregarding these
given the importance possible for a state
to ally with another where the victory would lie". Systemic changes took place
if both sides had foreseen
nationalism, it is not cold war it was witnessed that Withouta general
factors. Further. during the between the United States
war. The changes in relative strength came from the differing
economic growth
restraining
differences delayed the rapprochement rate and from the loss of allies of the Soviet Union. This left the United
States as
ideological the unchallenged dominant actor in world politics. But again, another
and China for long. question
to be valid in contemporary international seems to be coming up whether a united Western Europe will be an ally or
Neitherof the rules seems and any unsuccessful
now might lead to extremes become a competitor of the United States. Although the United States at present
relations.A total all-out war US
popular support as happened in the case of seems to be the unchallenged power, there are also several power centres and
venturemightlead to loss of opinion swings between
if public the international system tends to become multipolar. Therefore, the functioning
during the VietnamWar. Moreover, a state to oppose a
and isolationism,it becomes difficult for
interventionism
of the balance of power system in such a multipolar world cannot be ruled out
change without a
dangerouslygrowingopponent.There can also be a system completely. As US Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger proclaimed in
1989 that "We are now moving into... a world in which pov.er and influence
great war as it had occurred in the Soviet Union.
Moreover,the spreadof weapons of mass destruction, for example, the [are] diffused among a multiplicity of states —[al multipolarworld" Scholars
nuclearweapons,has created situations which are quite different from the pre- suggest that such multipolar system is more likely to consist of the United
nuclearinternationalscenario.The possession of nuclear weapons may work as States, China, Germany, Japan, Russia and a consolidated European Union.
a deterrentand inducethe leaders to use the force with restraint and prevent They envisage that such multipolarity will result in an enlarged global
escalationof small wars to big ones. Nevertheless, this situation, commonly chessboard of multiple bilateral geo-strategic relationships.
knownas mutuallyassured destruction, also creates a kind of balance of
powerwherethe nuclearmight of a state matches with that of its adversaries.
Thisis, however,a balanceof terror, and not of power, as it was evidenced
COLLECTIVE SECURITY
duringthe Cold War days between the United States Balance of power, as a method of crisis management, is a lesser used method,
and the Soviet Union, community, has become
whichreached a climax during the
Cuban even and a modern device of collective action
Missile Crisis in 1962. However,
duringthe climax, both powers a more viable option. Collective security, as it is popularly knossn, has become a
restrained from using nuclear power though with
usagewouldhavegiven a lead device that seeks to confront the
to one over the other. Therefore, even if major
wars are less frequent in a nuclear world concerted power of states, determined to k'eep peace. Collective security, though
than in a conventional system, the high
intensityof such wars
probably cancels out the at a glance might seem simplistic and self-explanatory, is difficult to define.
gains from the wars. This balance of power
situationis sometimes
referred to as Pax As Quincy Wright (1942) observed: "The relations of the
Prof.Palmerand Atomica. and
Perkinspointed out to collective security have,..been at the same
faced in a bipolarized the difficulties that balance of power and "International
world: It is not antithetic but supplementary
1. The confusing organization to promotesolleccivesequrityås . only a
and, again, the basic
disappearanceof abipolar-multipoiar pattern of power and the the naturauendeney of balance of power policies",collectiyegcurityjsnhe
of
balancer assumptions of the two are different. The substance
96 Of
and that of balance of
front fronts, But
creationof a equal gheeopposing
systctnatization than balance of power, As
degccc of
involves a far is systcnt only by courteey; while the
"Balance
Claudeobsctvcd: anarchy too 'ktcong,it is assuredly a
accusation that it amount•
to
secutltys 00 other hand. representsthe
of international
urge for on the principle that any
is an
O)eonternational community by
jscaccanasce.unlys As such it has to be met collective effort,
intctnauonal
the oauone•« It stands for "One for-AllÅxndAlLfor-C)ne"
alt security system should be strong enough and
An cffectts• collective any power or combination of
any aggression from
earat'le to meet George Schwarzenberger (an eminent
as soon as aggression occurs.
as a "machinery
collective security for joint
scholar on power politics) observed
action in order or counter any attack against an established
order". Organski1211 stated that collective security is not a scheme
international
nations in check and not others. Rather, it is a plan by which any
to keep some
Organski underlined the five basic
nation that uses force illegally is defeated.
assumptionsof collective security:
on which combatant is the
1. In any armed combat, all nations will agree
aggressor.
All nations are equally aggression from
whatever source it comes.
3. All nations are equally free and able to join in action againstthe
agoressor.
4. The great enough to&feat
the aggressor.
5. Knowing that overwhelming power stands ready to be used againstit
an aggressor nation will either sheathe its sword or go down in defeat.
Morgenthau[22Jhighlights three basic conditions that must be fulfilledfor
successful operation of collective security as a device to prevent war:
L The collective security system must be able to gather, at all times,such
overahelming strength against any potential aggressor or coalition
aggressors that the latter would not dare to challenge the
defended by the collective system.
the
2. At least those nations whose combined strength would meet
requirements under the first principle must have the same conception
security which they are supposed to defend.

*GeorgeSchwarzxnbergertPower Politics, 2nd rev, ed. (New York: Frederick A.

 Collective Security 97
3. Those nations must be
willing to subordinate their conflicting political
interests to the common good defined in
terms of the collective defence
of all member states.
Under the League of Nations, the sanctions against Italy
following the
Italo—Ethio ia War in 193521936 and the United Nations intervention, in
de ence of the territorial integrity of South KoréCföTlOWing an invasion from
North Korea in 1950 and 1953Vareexamples of appligationof the principle of
collective security.
The League of Nations failed drasticallyto implementthe provisionsof
collective-security as contained in Article 16 of the Covenant of the League. It
was never implemented. The League was impaired from the beginning due to
the abstention of the superpowers like the United States to join it and also due to
mutual rivalries among the member states, each zealously guarding its national
interest. The League failed to take effective measures either during the
Manchurian crisis or against the acts of aggression by Nazi Germany,
culminating in the attack of Poland. It was only during the Italo—Ethiopiancrisis
that the League, for once, made extensive effort to implement the collective
security provisions. As Claude observed, "The league experience might be
summarized as an abortive attempt to translate the collective security idea into a
working system. The failure of collective security in this period was not so
much the failure of the system to operate successfullyas its failure to be
established". [23]
The Charter of the United Nations contains provisions relating@.gollective
UN,
security. Article I of the Charter stating the purposes and principles of the
and, to
aims at maintaining international peace and security as its top priority
prevention and
that end declares to take effective collective measures for the
regard to Action
removal of threats to peace. Chapter VIl of the Charter with
and Acts of
with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace,
to the collective
Aggression contains provisions from Articles 39—51relating
on the Securi Cou cil to
security system. The Charter invests su reme power
o In ernational peace of
initiate collective securit action in cases of reac
secyitymeasures during the
security. e United Nations evoked the co lective
security system came
Korean crisis of 1950. Another test of the collective
current operation includes the one
during t e Congo crisis of 1960. The more
it was more so on the insistence
during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991. But
that the collective actions were taken.
and preponderance o t
States on the plea of eliminating
The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United
of mass destruction, and USA's War on Terror against Afghanistan,
weapons bypassed in these cases of
and the United Nations was
were unilateral decisions
This has undermined the credibility of collective action measures
intervention.
the United Nations. Further, during the heydays of Cold
under the auspices of
relations affected the operation of Security Council and
War, the superpower security system. The international
implementation of collective
hence the
 collective security for the
system of
a workable
to evolve active initiatives among
has failed there were
community
First World War, security. But the machinery of
end of the system of collective effectively. Hence, the success
Sincethe the
statesto develop never been developed vague principle underlying the
the is a
securityhas is low. It vague obligations
principle uphold some and
operationof the to
rateOf together
of states coming to hypothetical events brought out by
obligation actions in response
performunspecified
talked about, persistently advocated and
has been much developing this as a
security
collective criticized, but efforts towards
defended
attacked, and relations have often been thwarted.
international
inmanaging
principle
working experiences has revealed that the nature of
A surveyof historic conflicts of interest would continue and this
politicsis such that
international
obstructionin banding together of states. Furthermore, under the
wouldcreate
anywhere in the world assumes the
of collectivesecurity,any war
assumptions
of localizing an actual or
statureof theNorld War. Therefore,instead
conflictbetweentwo or more states, the collective security system
threatened
has e potentialto makgyaruniversal. It is a dangerous principle to operate, as
Morgen aupointsout,and it is bound to destroy peace among all states.
Therefore,collectivesecurityin essence has not been totally disbanded but,
as operationof theprinciplebecomesdifficult, the United Nations has its own
peacekeeping
mechanisms
whichin essencecontain the principle of collective
action in order to ensure international peace and
security.

EXERCISES
1. Explainthe concept
of balance of power
features.Discuss the pointing out its characteristic
different techniques of
maintaining balance Of
2. What
meanby Balance
of balanceof of Power? What
power?Discuss are the various techniques
whether the concept
is still relevant in the
3. Analyze
theconceptof
collectivesecurity.
Is it a substitute
for balance of

Brown,Chris, REFERENCES
Understanding
[2] organski, International
Relations, Macmillan Press'
A.F.K.,
world
Politics,
Alfred A.
Knopf, New York, 1960'