Omnibalancing

In 1991, Steven R. David contended that the established balance of power theories are poorly applicable to the Third World, or the part of the world that more recently has been referred to as the Global South. The reason is that many Southern countries share typical characteristics that help to explain the interrelationship between domestic and external threats, against which national leaders seek to balance. As the leader balances against several threats at the same time to various degrees, this strategy is called omnibalancing. Western-centered balance of power theories hold the assumption of strong and stable states in an anarchical international system pursuing their security against external threats by balancing, including external balancing through alliances. But many southern states are artificial constructs based on colonial borders and entities, within which cleavages between ethnic, religious and political groups have never been properly settled. In such countries, ‘the state’ is merely an instrument that provides power and wealth to the political group that controls the capital city. Hence, the foreign alignment strategies of leading elites have more to do with their own political and even physical survival against domestic competitors and insurgents, than with the interests of ‘the state.’ In other words, they not only face the international anarchy, but also need to survive in a domestic anarchical political system without assurance of security. Both governmental regimes and their domestic contenders look for foreign support to strengthen their internal position. Governments are even prepared to make an alliance with a foreign power against the general interest of the state, as long as they can secure their hold on power (David, 1991).