Balance of Power – Peu Ghosh

INTRODUCTION

• The existence of states with varying degrees of power makes it necessary to study the pattern of relationships among them, especially in the context of international politics.

• According to the realist assumption, the international system is unrestrained and unprotected by any international government, so states must safeguard their own national interests and national security, which in turn creates insecurity for other states.

• As a result, the overall situation appears as one where “each is against the other”, reflecting constant competition and suspicion among states.

• Although international relations seem anarchic due to the absence of a world government, this does not mean complete lawlessness or disorder in the international system.

• Realists explain this apparent order through the principle of the Balance of Power, which is considered “a basic principle of international relations and a fundamental law of politics as it is possible to find.”

• The political relations of independent nations, particularly the great powers, have traditionally been understood and explained through the theory of the Balance of Power.

BALANCE OF POWER

• European history witnessed long periods without large-scale conflict, mainly because there was no single sovereign authority and instead many sovereign states, each fiercely protecting its autonomy, and because power was distributed in such a way that every state could balance the others.

• In theory, whenever any state tried to increase its power and thereby pose a threat, all other states would unite to prevent it, and this system came to be known as the Balance of Power.

• The basic assumption of this system is that as long as power exists, it must be met by countervailing power, since relying on the goodwill of powerful neighbours is naive and only matching power can ensure adequate protection under all circumstances, leading to mutual deterrence.

• Any potential aggression is discouraged by the possibility of the combined power of all other states, so balancing power, whether by a single nation or a group of nations, prevents any one state from imposing its will upon others.

• If State A increases its power, State B must try to equalize it, and if B alone cannot match A, it can join with other states to offset A’s power.

• The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe are considered classic examples of Balance of Power systems, where the focus was not on increasing armies but on forming coalitions with other threatened states, so deterrence was achieved by alliances and not by arms races.

• Under such systems, historically, there was no net increase in the power of a single state or of the system as a whole; instead, power was only rearranged to counter aggression, and states followed independent policies without permanent alliances, forming groups only when one state threatened another’s independence.

• The Balance of Power principle operated in Europe between 1740 and 1763, with shifting alliances: in 1740–1743, France, Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria opposed Austria, England, Hanover; in 1744–1745, France, Prussia, Bavaria opposed Austria, England, Hanover, Saxony; and in 1756–1763, Prussia, Hanover opposed Austria, Russia, France, Saxony.

• These arrangements were not foolproof and did not prevent war, but they lacked ideological crusades typical of the twentieth century, such as the absence of any call for “de-Fredericking” Prussia, unlike the US policy of “de-Nazifying” Germany after the Second World War.

• The wars of this period were mainly fought over Silesia and did not cause large-scale civilian casualties, even though many soldiers were killed.