“By thus abandoning reason, they split mankind into friend and foes”.
The forces that shape international alliances are among the most important in international politics. The belief that, states form alliances in order to prevent stronger power from dominating them lies at the heart of traditional balance of power theory.1 States joins alliances to protect themselves from states or collation’s whose superior resources could pose a threat.2 States will also be tempted to Bandwagon when alliances are not avaible.3
More recently, ‘Balance of Threat’ theory is purposed as a refinement of traditional ‘Balance of power’ theory. Balance of threat theory explains choices of alliances when states potential allies are roughly equal in power.
An imbalance of threat occurs when the most threatening state or coalition is significantly more dangerous than the second most threatening state or coalition. The degree to which a state threatens others is the product of its aggregate power, its geographic proximity, its offensive capability and the aggressiveness of its intentions.
Balance of power versus Balance of threat theory
It is imperative therefore that are focuses on threat emanating from power.5
Therefore, it is important that the dynamics between U.S., India, China and Japan is seen as an effort to acquire and project power in order to balance the threat. A significant change in strategic purpose and will to pursue national strategy, during Trump Administration has changed the dynamics of perceived power.
The Grand Strategy perspective changes to conservative nationalism instead of internationalism, military strength employed unilaterally instead of an behalf of the liberal order and protectionist trade policies.
Trump administration first national security strategy, released in 2017 portrays China as a revisionist power that ‘Seeks to displace US in the Indo – Pacific region’. The 2018 National Defence Strategy states that, China is a ‘Strategic Competitors using predatory economics.
Thus various policies of Trump administration in the above stated region have been analysed as an act of balancing as per ‘Balance of threat’ theory.
Also, 2014, quadrennial Defence Review states National Security threats on
1. Use of weapon of mass destruction against home land
2. Economic disruption from
3. Rise of a hostile peer competitor
4. Divert challenge to key allies
Here is a requirement for ‘Balance of threat.’
At this juncture the paper is divided into two parts
1. Quantification of National Power based on ‘Quantification of National Power , Power cycle theory and China challenge – FINS Journal of Strategy & Diplomacy To understand alliances structure in indo – Pacific region.
2. Agent based simulation to understand system stability in Indo – Pacific region
Power’s definition and role it plays in international relations can be seen in different ways by various international relations theories. Hans J. Morganthau and Robert Strausz saw international politics itself as the “Struggle for power”; Charles Kindleberger saw power as “Strength capable of being used efficiently “(Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff1990)6 A.F.K. Organski suggests that one of the most important characteristics of a nation is its power: for power is a major determinant of the role a nation play in the international system. He defines power as the “ability to influence the behavior of others in accordance with the one’s own ends” and warns against defining power as the use of force or violence alone (Organski 1968)
Power has figured importantly in discussions in international relations since time of Thucydides. Two principle approaches to power analysis in international interactions has been the ‘Power as resource’ approach and the ‘relational power’ approach.7
Since Joseph Nye’s three dimension chess board – military power, economic power and soft power dimension are taken into account while defining the strategic impetus. A number of efforts have been made by various scholars to quantify soft power using the published as well as primary source indicators like diplomacy sub index, government sub index, culture sub index, education sub – index, innovation sub – index etc. Rand Corporation sought to bring in non – state actors into power calculation.
Before one can measures power, one must first have a concept of power. In the field of international relations, the desire to measure power on a single dimension that would allow states to be ranked often gets in the way of – or even precedes conceptual analysis. Frey (1989) has pointed out that the difficulty of measuring power often leads researchers to redefine it so as to make operationalization easier. ‘In this fashion, power has frequently been defined in terms of supposed resource – e.g. the ability to mobilize resources, possession of resources, and other forms of what Elster (1976:252) calls “generalized fetichist theories,” that is, theories that attempt to regard relations as properties’ (Frey, 1989:7-8). Dahl (1984:21) identifies ‘confounding power with resources’ as a fallacy in power analysis, and another writer labels it as ‘the vehicle fallacy’ (Morriss, 2002:18-19).8
Here, according to Baldwin, the methodology of measurement of power would depend upon the purpose of measurement.
There have previously, various attempts, being made to measure power.
In measuring the size of a nation, this study adopts Cline’s framework, which includes critical mass (territory and population), economic strength, and military strength. More specifically, a nation’s GNP and military expenditures are used to represent its economic and military strength. In addition, in measuring the degree of modernization, this study employs energy consumption per capita.
The results of cline’s power assessment are problematic, in part because his evaluation of intangible factors such as strategic purpose and national will relies heavily on subjective perception, and in part because his method of assigning weights to variables is too arbitrary to duplicate the outcome or obtain consistent result. Singer and Small’s method, which is consistent and duplicable, is used here instead to aggregate individual component into a power index. The composite method is as follows:
• Use yearly aggregate statistics. Calculate the percentage share of the world sum for each variable item (except energy consumption per capita) for every country.
• For the additive components, assign a total score of 200 to critical mass (evenly divided for territory and population, i.e. a score of 100 for each), economic strength and military strength. The assigning of 200 as a total score is for calculation convenience.
• In the interactive model, construct an index of capacity, which serves as a power multiplier, by subtracting individual nation’s energy consumption per capita over the world average energy consumption per capita.
• Subtract the power score of the target nation over the power score of the sender (here, the United States) to generate a ratio index for relative capabilities.
More specifically, three measures for national power are formulated as:
For the analysis using Power Cycle theory, Cline’s method may be the most appropriate one.0
Which states,
PP = (C + E +M) X (St+ W)
Where,
PP = Perceived Power,
C = Critical Mass, Population, Territory
E = Economic Power
M = Military Capability
St = Strategic Purpose
W = Will to pursue National Strategy
The author feels Soft Power may also be included in this relationship and notes that, various attempts have been made successfully to quantify Soft Power in part, like the Soft Power 30 11 and New persuaders III. 12
Thus, the modified formula,
Pp = (aC +b E + c M +d S) X (St + w)
Has been used, where a,b,c,d are the constants and S = Soft Power.
A. Measurement
i. Using Delphi method, the values of constants were found to be a=1.31,
b = 3.30, c = 4.21, d = 1.18
ii C: is a factor of population, literacy, economic 13 power has been used.
According to this, Economic Power is a factor of
1. Revenue earned
2. (a) Foreign Exchange Reserves
(b) Export of goods and services
iii. Measure of aggregate human capital.
Then,
iv. Sunmarines.
v. Soft Power : Various attempt have been made to calculate & quantify Soft Power. The author here has used regression analysis and sub components and weightages have been derived using Delphi Technique.
vi. Strategy purpose & will to Pursue strategy is based on expert opinions.
Based on this perceived power has been calculated.
• Power Cycle Theory: The foundation of state power, which power cycle theory stresses is National Capability relative to other states in the system.14 According to this theory, Structural uncertainty catalysis was at critical point. Major shifts of power between status occur infrequently and are rarely peaceful.15 In ‘Causes of war’, Evera states 16 a very specialized version of power shift : windows of opportunity where, relative Power shifts cause conflict. According to this literature, explaination for major wars lies in general rise and decline of states.17 For Doran passage through critical points provides a more robust explanation than power shifts for the onset of war.18
• Observation:
• Accordingly National Power has been computed and relative power is considered when system consists of U.S., China, India and Japan.
• U.S. score in especially power, from 2013 till 2016 due to lack of willingness of persuing national purpose.
• 2016 becomes a critical year and extrapolation would show, by 2018, major conflicts between US –China, India – China will erupt though not war.
Conclusion
• Japan has already peaked in relative Power terms, China will pass through an inflection point of slowing relative power growth.19 India would bridge the gap and U.S. would face relative decline as compared to China.
• For China to enjoy ‘Peaceful rise’, it must contend with challenges of future systems transformation just as the other members of the system had in the past. Other government must learn to preserve their security and interests while assisting China to trans this projected and particularly streeful interval future history.20
Limitations:
• Ideally there should have been long cycles
• Only power cycle theory has been considered.
Agent based Simulation:
Using Net logo software of complexity Science, Heros and Cowards Game. The nations is Indo pacific region are divided into
Heros (Blue turtles)
Cowards (Red turtles)
Friends (Green Link)
Enemy(Red Link)
Findings:
1. At the stage, the pattern emerges is of Yo-Yo; unstable.
2. If more cowards are converted into Heros, Frozen Sparrow, Stable structure emerges
3. If more of Heros, then unstable dot structure in the center emerges.
Discussions:
1. India, US, Japan are Balancing of threat where are many smaller nations including Pak, Sri Lanka, Brunei, Philippines, Maldives, Thailand are Bandwagoning
2. Last two years, the perceived power and power projection of US has increased substantially, due to willingness to pursue National Strategic purpose
3. This also means, there is an inflection point and possibility of conduct including Trade wars
4. Agent Based Modeling suggests that, in order to the system to be stable, move small nations have to be persuaded to take a stronger stand, especially in South China sea. It would depend upon how India, US, Japan would play diplomacy especially economic diplomacy.
After all, “Sheep can befriend hungry wolf only for briefly” says Jim Butcher”.
1. Gullick, Edward. ‘European Classical balance of power’. New York, 1955
2. Claude, Inis. ”Power and international relations.’ New York, 1962
3. Lowe, C.J. ‘Reluctant imperialists.’ New York, 1967
4. Glen, Snyder. ’Conflict among Nations’, New York
5. Walt, Stephen. ‘The origins of alliance.’ Carnell University press, London, 1987
6. Overgaard, Jacob. ’Can soft power be measured and what it means to US’ –Bemidji State
7. Baldwin, David. “Power and international Relations’. Princeton education, 2016
8. Ibid
9. Chin – Lung Chang. ‘A measure of National Power’. Fo – guang University. 2014
10. Ray S. Cline, ‘Power Trends & US foreign policy’. Wiley com.2012
11. McClory, Jonathan. ‘Soft Power 30 Report’. Info @portland-communication Ltd.2015
12. McClory, Jonathan. ‘The new persuaders III’. Institute for Government, US. 2012
13. Kaushik Basu et al. ‘Evolving dynamics of global economic power in post crisis world’. International Institute Arrangements. 2011
14. Charles Doray. ‘System in Crisis’. Cambridge studies. 1991
15. James Hoge Jr. ‘Global Pwer shift in the making’. Foreign Affairs. 2004
16. Stephan Van Evera. ‘Causes of War’. Cornell University Press. 1999
17. Woosang Kim, James Marrao. ‘Why do power shifts lead to war’. American Journal of Political Science. 1992
18. Charls F. Dorani. ‘Power cycles or Power Shifts’. Internation Political Science Association, Chile.2009
19. Charles Doran. ‘Interpreting Chinas Rise’. The SAIS Journal of Global affairs. 2012
20. Zbigniew Brezinski. ‘Strategic Vision: American and the crisis of Global power’. Basic books, New York. 2011
