What is balance of power?
Power can be tangible or intangible. Tangible power is a resource that is readily countable, such as infrastructure, and intangible power is untouchable, such as leadership, will-power, wisdom, and morale.

The word "balance" evokes the image of a pair of scales with weights on either pan in such amounts that the scale is poised in equilibrium. Balance of power means a situation in which two states, or two groups of states, or all states of the world grouped around two centers, are seen to display roughly the same amount of military power.

Balance of power is the distribution of power in states, and power is measured in relation to that of the opponent. One is expected to make an assessment of one's own power, as well as that of a potential opponent. Furthermore, in assessing power one has to take into account actual, and potential, power. Standing military forces are the most obvious example of actual power. Potential power is one that will be available at a future date.

By one estimate, the five-power structure seems to be the ideal number of states keeping a balance of power. Five states will bring a stable balance of power because one state will be able to play the role of a balancer by joining with other states. The 19thcentury provides an illustration of maintenance of balance of power among five European countries, namely Britain, France, Prussia (Germany), Austria, and Russia. At first Britain and France were kept apart by colonial rivalry, Britain and Russia by mutual suspicion over Central Asia, Russia and France by monarchy-republican animosities. Napoleon wanted to change the balance of power among the five states in Europe but he was defeated.

By 1907, France, Britain, and Russia held the balance of power against Germany and Austria. The First World War in 1914 began to change this balance of power, but not because of any ideological fight against each other. It was simply to upset the prevailing balance of power in Europe.

It was only during the Cold War that enforced peace prevailed, because two super-powers held the balance of power. Some say balance of terror because each power knew that it could be annihilated if it attacked the opponent. This is known as deterrent system.

The balance of power was based on sheer terror during the Cold War, and this doctrine is known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In many ways MAD doctrine is applicable to India and Pakistan, and if Pakistan had nuclear weapons in 1971 many military analysts believe that the 1971 war would not have occurred.

Neither the US, nor Soviet Union, used nuclear weapons in the knowledge that a nuclear attack by one side would immediately invite a retaliatory nuclear attack from the other, because of the fact that both had second strike capability. Furthermore, the two super-powers had implicit agreement about their "no-go-areas" -- for example for Moscow it was Latin America, and for Washington it was Eastern Europe.

Military spending
It cannot be denied that the development of nuclear weapons brought enormous risks for humanity while absorbing money that could have supported worthier life-enhancing purposes. The destruction in Hiroshima, in 1945, by one small and primitive bomb, was staggering.

Nuclear weapons came to be seen as a badge of honour, a kind of power projection. States build nuclear weapons, or acquire conventional weapons, to keep the balance of power in the region, or in the world. The US alone is expected to spend around $400 billion in a year for defence.

Between 1970 and the end of the Cold War in 1989, weapons worth $168 billion were transferred to the Middle East, $65 billion worth went to Africa, $61 billion to the Far East, $50 billion to South Asia (mainly India and Pakistan), and $44 billion to Latin America. The Soviet Union and the US accounted for 69% per cent of the $388 billion total.

During 1993-95 more than $70 billion worth of weapons were exported, including about $32 billion to the Middle East. This figure needs to be put in perspective against other world needs, for example only $6 billion are reportedly required to educate every child in the world. In April 2004, the World Bank president stated that while $900 billion were spent for military use, only US$60 billion were used for aid. None of G-8 rich countries have met the UN targeted 0.7% of their Gross National Income for development assistance.

Who supplies arms to warring nations?
The five permanent members of the Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US) provide 86% per cent of the arms exported to developing countries. They know that at least 30 major civil wars are in progress and the arms exported would be used in these conflicts.

If the flow of arms was stopped many civil wars, or tribal or ethnic conflicts, could not have continued. There is double standard in the conduct of big powers. On the one hand they advocate peace and democracy, on the other hand they continue to provide small arms to warring nations. The warring nations in the Third World have been diverting money for acquiring weapons, rather than spending funds for poverty-reduction.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.