Concept of power in IR

-
In social science, the concept of power is used widely in different contexts. In social relationships, a parent has power over a child, in a remote village in the highlands of Papua New Guinea (PNG) a village chief has the ability to influence the actions of others in the village, and a police officer as a law enforcement agent uses the power vested on him by a nation’s constitution to exercise authority over individuals to ensure there is order in society. 

Furthermore, there are numerous other applications of power in daily life, or in different branches of knowledge, but what is more important in this body of knowledge is the use of power to define the relationship and status of states in the international system, that is power is to international relations like honey is to bees, or like water is to plants. The concept of power is the bedrock on which the study of international relations is built on. 

From this logic, the conventional behavioral definition of power used mainly by analysts and historians can be used in the case of states: State A’s ability to get State B to do what State B would otherwise not do under normal circumstances defines the relationship State A has with State B.[1] This means that because of State A’s power status it has the resources and the capability to influence the actions of State B. Inevitably, demonstrating the fact that even though in an anarchical international system where states are considered as equals, power relations among different states are always asymmetric in nature.

The use of resources in the behavioural definition is extracted from the practical definition of power as interpreted by practical politicians and leaders. For them power possesses certain fundamental physical and meta-physical properties which are to some extent quantifiable and has the ability to control others, this makes it pivotal when discussing international relations.[2] Thus, this body of knowledge will use both definitions interchangeably by redefining power as the ability to influence change in the pattern of behaviour of states with the aid of tangible and intangible resources.

In addition, to have power means to have the capability to force, persuade, coerces, manipulate and use one’s authority to influence events to get the desired outcome.[3] If State A’s foreign policy is based on promoting a certain ideology, then it will either use one or two forms of power to achieve its foreign policy objective. State A will try to influence State B and C to accept its ideology, in which they will do because of State A’s status.    

With this understanding of the concept of power, the next important course of action is to see its role in the conventional theoretical framework of international relations. There are numerous theories that explain the use of power in international relations in different contexts and time periods. For years since the field of international relations emerged scholars have produced a lot of work relating to the concept of power and how it is applied, this is confirmed by Kishore Mabubani’s statement that “international relations is driven by power”.[4]

However, there exist 3 outstanding theories, which can be used as theoretical tools by an analyst to analyze and predict a state’s behavior. According to Burchill, foundational texts in the field of international relations by E. H Carr and Hans Morgenthau sought to provide future analyst with the theoretical tools for understanding general patterns of underlying behavior which in essence is the struggle for power among states.[5] 
Hans Morgenthau argues how power resources, both material and non-material, are important in determining the national power of a nation. It is conventional wisdom to equate high population growth, well prepared military, smart diplomacy, vibrant industrial capacity, abundant natural resources, good government, strong national character and national morale to national power.[6]
 
These elements form the basis of analyzing a state’s power. A state is said to be powerful when it has a strong and well equipped military to defend its territory. In addition, having a good government who looks after the welfare of its citizens, and who properly manages the affairs of the state is a necessary prerequisite to becoming a powerful state. This increases the power of a state by helping it to coordinate the other elements like diplomacy, industrial capacity, and the military.

Interestingly, Morgenthau points out that the material stable factors like natural resources plays a vital part in building up and strengthening a particular nation’s power in comparison to others. But because of the asymmetry in power relations those who do not have a substantial amount of national power cannot convert the natural resources they have in a strategic manner to boost their own power status.  

For instance, PNG with its current mineral boom has in abundance natural resources but on the international stage it is classed as a minnow. It does not have the capacity to engage in downstream processing and manufacturing. It has the potential but due to poor governance reflective of the people’s attitude, it cannot convert the abundance of natural resources into power. Also it can not do so because it does not have the technological and industrial capacity.

This disadvantage of developing states and the scarcity of natural resources needed by great powers to maintain a vibrant industrial capacity led to global competition. Beginning with imperialism, the competition took a different path after decolonization, this time a less radical process known today as international trade is used to solve the problem of resource scarcity.

Regardless, to be competitive in a self-help global system ‘power politics’ is the strategy for survival. The geo-politics of energy has caused a lot of instability in the Gulf region, and shows how America in the 21st century, the hegemon, has used its military might to ensure that its sources of supply and supply routes and points are adequately secured and safe-guarded in consistent with her national interest. From this analysis it is safe to say that every behavior has repercussions, whether a nation over time or spontaneously behaves in a good way towards other nations or behaves badly, that behavior is reciprocated.  
  
On the other hand, national morale is a non-material and less stable factor. Defined by Morgenthau as the “Degree of determination with which a nation supports the foreign policies of its government in war & peace.[7] One can easily put America into the picture to understand the definition, and determine the dynamics at play in boosting national morale after the 9/11 terrorist incident when America declared war on terrorism.

Despite the consequences, China’s national morale is strong because the nation is behind its government’s foreign policy which is centered on peace and development. As such, to maintain the national morale, adhering to constant Western pressure, for instance, to devaluate the Reminbi is not in China’s best interest. This will greatly affect in a negative way Chinese trade and investments, trickling down in the process to domestic politics where the loss of jobs will be a huge burden to the government.


As one of the major proponents of classical realism Morgenthau’s work shows that it is in the nature of states to seek to acquire power for their own survival. During his tenure as a scholar, his experience of the world wars and background as a Jew during the era of Hitler shaped his intellectual thinking. His ideas form the basis of understanding the rise of America to the apex of global power politics and demonstrated the dominance of realism. He was able to distinguish between the 3 types of foreign policy; policy of status quo aimed at the maintenance of power, policy of imperialism aimed at increasing power, and policy of prestige aimed at the demonstration of power.  

A concept that is used vigorously in all international relations literature is BoP. According Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach used descriptively the concept explains the relative distribution of power among states into equal or unequal shares. [8] On that note, the concept can be used as a tool for analysis under the theoretical framework of neo-realism, where Neo-realists who view the anarchic international system as a structure that ensures order when states form alliances to balance an opposing powerful state. This view varies from classical realism in the sense that states are not motivated to pursue their goals of becoming powerful because of human nature, but because of the power structure and survival instincts.

According to Kenneth Waltz, there are two conditions that BoP politics continue to exist in; “that the order be anarchic and that it be populated by units wishing to survive”.[9] However, in a different work by Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach they wrote that all BoP systems have certain conditions in common: “a multiplicity of sovereign states unconstrained by any legitimate central authority; continuous but controlled competition over scarce resources or conflicting values; an unequal distribution of status, wealth, and power potential among the political actors that make up the system.”[10]

For example, State A is more powerful then State B, C, D and E. As a result, the next powerful state on the power hierarchy that is State B will enter into an alliance with less powerful States like C, D, and E in order to balance the power of State A. The reason why States C, D and E become an ally of State B is because they wish to survive as a state. 

In addition, according to Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach, “ Inequality and ever-present threat of violence combine to give the dominant and the subordinate states a share but unequal interest in preserving the order of the system, whose equilibrium protects their sovereignty. The balance of power is a kind of compromise among states that find its order preferable to absolute chaos, even though it is a system that favours the stronger and more prosperous states at the expense of sovereign equality for all of them.”[11]
 
The more powerful a state is, the more it becomes a threat to other states, constructing a security dilemma. This is the main logic behind forming alliances: less powerful states’ need to feel secure, if they cannot attain that sense of feeling secured on their own then they need to cooperate and compete with other states to achieve a desirable outcome.

The theory can be used to understand the Cold War alliance system. The US was on one side of the scale, and the Soviet Union with its allies tried to balance that scale. During that struggle they created a bipolar system where two opposing powers competed against each other. Both the US and the Soviet Union aimed to balance each other by influencing other states to become their allies. Less powerful states in the process helped maximize the power of either the US or the Soviet Union, not materially but morally.

The case of NATO describes how according to the treaty, if one state is attacked then the attack is upon all members. The member states in retaliation will either act collectively or individually to contain or deter the threat to its security. To counter the alliance, after West Germany’s entry into the NATO, East European communist states in 1955 formed the Warsaw Pact. 

However, in the post-Cold War era, the theory as a tool for analyzing the behavior of states became unpopular. The unipolar order created by the US as the world hegemon made it difficult for other states to rise up and compete against her. The difference between other great and small or lesser powers in the third world in comparison to the US has quite substantially grown out of proportion; or rather all other states are operating submissively under the international order constructed by the US. As a result, it will be very dangerous to balance the power of the US openly because it could possibly lead to hegemonic war.

Importantly, the theory helps to distinguish between a multi, bi and unipolar power system. A multipolar order is constituted by the existence of several power actors; a good example is the European system before the First World War composing of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Russia, France, and Britain. A bipolar order as shown in the Cold War era composed of two power actors namely the Soviet Union and the US. Finally, the current unipolar order is ruled by the hegemon, the US. These structures shape the behaviours of different states in the international system through the act of balancing to address their security needs.

To Nye “BoP is a useful predictor of how states will behave; that is, states will align in a manner that will prevent any one state from developing a preponderance of power. This is based on two assumptions: that states exist in an anarchic system with no higher government and that political leaders will act first to reduce risks to the independence of their states. The policy of balance of power helps to explain why in modern times a large state cannot grow forever into a world empire. States seek to increase their power through internal growth and external alliances. Balance of power predicts that if one state appears to grow too strong, others will ally against it so as to avoid threats to their independence. This behavior, then, will preserve the structure of the system of states.”[12]
 
Thus, in contemporary international relations there is a global power shift, the world is dramatically transforming into a multipolar system. The rise of emerging economies like Brazil, Russia, India and China is seen as a challenge to American dominance. These countries have called on developed countries especially America to be more accommodating to the rise of emerging economies as shown by Chinese Foreign Minster Yang Jiechi’s address to the media in the 2011 plenary annual session of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in Beijing. He also stated that China will play an active role in the global power shift.[13]

[1] MCLEAN I, MCMILLAN A. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. New York, Oxford Press, 2003: 431.
[2] NYE J S. The Changing Nature of World Power [J] Political Science Quarterly, 1990, 2: 177-192.
[3] MCLEAN I, MCMILLAN A. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. New York, Oxford Press, 2003: 433.
[5] BURCHILL S, LINKLATER A, DEVETAK R, DONNELLY J, PATERSON M, REUS-SMIT C, TRU J. Theories of International Relations [c] 3rd ed. New York, Palgrave MacMillian, 2005: 1. 
[6]MORGENTHAU H J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace [M]. 7th ed. McGraw Hill, 1948: 122-162. 
[7] MORGENTHAU H J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace [M]. 7th ed. McGraw Hill, 1946: 147.
[8] GRIFFITHS M, O’CALLAGHAN, ROACH S C. International Relations The Key Concepts (M). 2nd ed. New York, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008: 17.
[9] GRIFFITHS M, ROACH S C, SOLOMON M S. Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations (M). 2nd ed. New York, Taylor & Francis Group, 2009: 60. 
[10] GRIFFITHS M, O’CALLAGHAN, ROACH S C. International Relations The Key Concepts (M). 2nd ed. New York, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008: 18.
[11] Ibid.
[12] NYE J S. The Changing Nature of Power [J]. Political Science Quarterly, 1990, 2: 184.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FPA: Organizational Process Model

-
This model centers on the fact that different bureaucracies have different standard operating procedures. These procedures are made in order to allow day to day operations to be carried out. Thus, a foreign policy decision is made based on these standard operating procedures. It is hard for a bureaucracy to make a decision or let alone function out of character or contrary to their standard operating procedure. The reading Chapter 4: Foreign policy shares a straight forward explanation of the OPM: "An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department everyday receives more than a thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a
Read more

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

-
Image
Liberal internationalism is defined by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, p.190) as a project to transform international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies. The same scholars go further by dividing liberalism into three distinct groups. They say these are the three ways to implement the project. The way they present liberal internationalism as a project makes their work interesting. Three distinct groups Firstly, commercial liberalism is about free trade between states. States bilaterally or multilaterally via a platform like APEC pursue the goal of trade liberalization. Griffiths, O'Callagahan and Roach (ibid.) argued that economic interdependence would decrease the likelihood of going to war. Republican liberalism is about democratic peace. The scholars argued that the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to their citizens makes it di
Read more

Rise and fall realism

-
Image
By Colin Elman and Michael A. Jensen Source: Williams, P. D. (Ed.). (2008). Security studies: an introduction . London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. What is rise and fall realism? Rise and fall realism remerge as a powerful alternative to the balance of power theories that predominated international relations scholarship during the 1950’s. Central theme Hegemony is the foundation for peace while balance is often associated with war (Organski). Dynamics Rise and fall realism emphasizes that war between major powers is least likely when the international system is dominated by a single state and when there are no rising challengers vying for system leadership. Given its privileged position, a dominant state is capable of shaping the rules and practices of the international system in such a way as to satisfy its selfish interest. Stability is a product of this hegemonic order, as states which are dissatisfied with the status quo lack the capabilities to change it.
Read more