S. Kalyanaraman replies: Polarity of Power and Balance of Power are not contrasting explanatory or theoretical perspectives.

Polarity of Power refers to the structure of international systems, whether they are dominated by a single Great (Super) Power [unipolar system] or two Great Powers [bipolar system] or multiple Great Powers [multipolar system].

Balance of Power is the attempt by each Great Power in an international system to ensure itself against rivals or adversaries through a combination of alliance formation (external balancing) and building up its own capabilities (internal balancing). The efforts made in this regard by the various countries inhabiting an international system are referred to as Balance of Power politics.

Theoretically, it can be argued that Balance of Power politics ceases to operate in a unipolar international system. A good recent example is America's 'unipolar moment' which dawned after the demise of the Soviet Union. Contrary to the expectations of many theorists of a realist persuasion, no other power or combination of powers (for instance, Western Europe) automatically rose to balance against American power or challenge American hegemony. And contrary to Paul Tsongas' cryptic judgement (The Cold War is over; Japan won.), and Paul Kennedy's prediction that Japan would supplant the United States as the new superpower, Japan in fact entered a period of stagnation from which it has still not completely recovered. However, since international politics is a human endeavour and not a mathematical equation, 'History' did not 'End' with the triumph of a liberal democratic United States and the international system did not freeze into unipolarity forever.

Over the last 25 years, China has steadily risen to Great Power status and a nascent bipolar international system can be discerned. Notwithstanding dire predictions of a terminal American decline, there are indications that the United States may actually spring back from the consequences of its recent imperial overstretch thanks to the shale gas revolution, the domestic backlash against globalisation and the shrinking of the cost differential between domestic and overseas manufacturing. The belief that the international system may actually become multipolar in character with the Rise of the Rest (including India) no longer appears to be a certainty and may well prove to be a distant mirage. Be that as it may, it is in the context of the return of bipolarity or multipolarity that the practice of Balance of Power has returned to the international system.

None of this means that Balance of Power as state practice fell into disuse in the context of relationships between regional powers. The 50-year old China-Pakistan entente cordiale is a good example in this regard.

Posted on February 11, 2014

Saroj Bishoyi replies: The Monroe Doctrine is a foreign policy statement made by former US President James Monroe in his 7th annual address to the Congress on December 02, 1823. The ideas spelt out in the address became a longstanding tenet of the US foreign policy, and it remains so even today. President Monroe in his address had asserted: “American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” He further stated: “we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.” Thus, President Monroe made three important points to the European powers in his address: First, the Western hemisphere is no longer an open area for influence or colonisation by any external power; second, the US has no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of the European nations and, therefore, Europe should keep away from the internal affairs of the Western hemisphere nations; and lastly, America would consider any attempt by European powers to control newly independent nations of the Western hemisphere as a hostile act against the US.

At this time, however, the US was not either economically or militarily powerful enough to implement Monroe’s assertion. The doctrine could have proved ineffective without support from the UK, whose interests converged with that of the US in keeping away other powers, i.e., Spain, Portugal and Russia, from dominating the continent. The UK supported the doctrine because it not only helped in promoting its commercial interests in the area, but also established a special relationship with the US which continues till date. In addition, newly independent countries of Latin America supported this policy believing that it would help protect their sovereignty and national interests. The doctrine was used by the US along with its ideas of “manifest destiny” for increasing its influence in the region as well as developing trade relationship with the new countries of the hemisphere or the “New World.” It was also used by successive American administrations as justification for further adding territories like Texas (1845), Oregon Territory (1846), Mexican Cession (1848), California (1850) and others.

The Monroe Doctrine subsequently contributed to the emergence of the US as a world power by early 20th century, certainly the sole power in the North and South America. The US thereafter began to play a lead role in the foreign affairs of the Americas and began influencing the European nations too. The doctrine was also used to justify American power projection in the Western hemisphere and to further promote its foreign policy interests. President Theodore Roosevelt added the “Roosevelt Corollary” or “Big Stick” to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, which sought legitimate right to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American countries for their recalcitrance or refusal to pay their debts and to keep the European powers out. Thereafter, President Franklin D. Roosevelt announced his intention to replace the “Big Stick” with the “Good Neighbour” policy for improving American relationship with Latin American countries. Moreover, President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and President Ronald Reagan during Iran-contra affair in the late 1980s used the doctrine to defend American interests. 

The doctrine, therefore, not only helped the US in defending new nations of the Western hemisphere from the influence of the then European powers, it also accelerated its own presence and influence in the entire region. Subsequently, with the increase in its economic and military might, US became the most powerful country in the entire Western hemisphere. Interestingly, what started in 1823 as an attempt to check the growing influence of the European powers, has since become a rationale for American unilateralism and interventionism in various countries including on humanitarian grounds. Thus, the Monroe Doctrine has significantly influenced the American foreign policy, and thereby the international relations, for over a century now and, perhaps, will continue to do so for many more years to come.

Also, refer to the following sources on the subject:

“Monroe Doctrine”, Primary Documents in American History, the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

James Monroe, “Seventh Annual Message”, The American President Project, December 02, 1823.

“Monroe Doctrine, 1823”, United States Department of State, Office of the Historian.

P.K. Gautam replies: There is a vast body of literature available on this issue, of which water wars hypothesis and grab for Arctic resources are relatively recent examples. The available literature is along three lines:

1) Neo-Malthusian Model. In this “first wave” body of literature, the sources of environmental scarcities and resultant violent conflict are identified as: (a) Resource depletion and degradation (b) population growth, and c) structural scarcity or uneven distribution. The pattern of interaction due to scarcities manifest in basically two forms: the first is termed ‘resource capture,’ and the second is termed ‘ecological marginalisation.’ The link between scarcity and conflict is at three levels: first is “simple scarcity” conflict, second on group identity, and the third is “relative deprivation.” The conflict may lead to the following:

(i) Technical and social ingenuity to adapt
(ii) Decouple by trading goods and services for environmental resources
(iii) Country may fragment due to warlordism
(iv) State turns into a hard authoritarian regime

2) Resource Nationalism. This is about non renewable resources like oil and diamonds. Critical resource scarcity will increasingly motivate military intervention as markets and technology fails to address perceived threats of supply.  The three interrelated factors that introduce stress in the international system are:

(i) Insatiable demand due to growth of population;     
(ii) The looming risk of shortages of fossil fuel and also water; and         
(iii) Contested source of supply, for example oil and gas. 

3) Political Economy. Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler and others of the World Bank have done work on the link of resources with conflict. The “resource curse” thesis showed that some resource dependent countries were more prone to civil wars.

However, cooperation is often the outcome as wars may not solve the problem. Thus, the Indus Water Treaty is a good example. Sustainable development, controlled demand, reduced consumption, recycle & reuse, and reasonable ‘expectations’ of the growing population and economies with technologies could help minimise the problem.