INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BY SAMUEL OKOMI
IS THE CONCEPT OF POWER CENTRAL TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?
The concept of power preoccupied the minds and writings of political thinkers since Plato. This is reflected in the numerous definitions and descriptions given to the subject matter by political scientists and writers of all ages and in all regions of the globe. While some writers see the acquisition of power as the end of international behaviour, others see it as one end among many. And still, others view it as a means to other ends. Invariably, some writers define power as the ability to affect the behaviour of others, while others see it as the ability not to be influenced by others. To some more, it is the ability to resist the influence of others. Daniel S. Papp, in his book, “Contemporary International Relations” defines power as “the ability of any actor to persuade, influence, force, or otherwise induce another actor to undertake an action or change an objective that the latter would otherwise prefer not to do”. Alternatively, Papp continues, “it is the ability of one actor to persuade, influence, force or otherwise induce another actor to refrain from an action that it would prefer to undertake”. But for the fact that understanding the concept of power is critical to the comprehension and analysis of international relations, the definition of power would have been left an inconclusive semantic game.
Donald J. Puchala presented an apt definition of power as stated by George Modelski in his “A theory of Foreign Policy”. Presenting power as being tantamount to having the control over the requisite means for international action, Modelski says, “Power is the capacity to act in international politics”.
Consequently, in order to understand the concept of power, it would be useful to equate power to money (though there are stark differences between the two) as both are assets that could be used to acquire things or achieve objectives. One scholar wrote, “Just as money is the currency of economic life, so power can be thought of as currency of politics” (Deutsch 1978:46). Critically examining the nature of power, one would describe it as a multifaceted, ever changing political resource and a sum of various elements that allow a country to have its interests prevail over the interest of another country. It is the sum of the attributes that enable a state to achieve its goal even when they clash with the goals of other international actors.
Power as a capacity to act on the international stage presents two major distinctions. First, the Gross National Power which is the absolute total of resources available in a given society; and second, the Externally Projectable Power which is the absolute total resources available to the government for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. The Gross National Power comprises the elements of power – geography, size and population, leadership, economy and military.
As well as determining the extent of involvement in international affairs, the geography, which includes location on the globe, influences the economic growth of states. For example, proximity to areas of interest, particularly in the theatre of war, is a key factor that comes into play when state actors consider involvement in certain international affairs. For example, the United States, in trying to force Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait in 1991, had to ally with states that are closer to Iraq and Kuwait. This is not only cost effective, but also favours time. In the same vein, the capacity of a land locked country to act extensively in international politics is being limited by the difficulty or expenses involved in transportation systems. They would other wise have to rely on states that have access to the sea to reduce the cost and time. Again, the cooperation of such states is determined by their own interest.
Though I would like to corroborate the view held by many that the ‘bigness’ of a state does not necessarily connote supremacy in international affairs, yet, it has the potential to become an active participant in world affairs which would be precipitated by growth and development of all variables, such as human resource as well as industrial base and technology. Alternatively, the number of training and expertise of a given state determines its role in international affairs. This is particularly evident in countries that are capable of providing for the welfare of its people irrespective of the number of people living in it. For example, the United States of America, though a big country with a bloated population, yet, its resources are vast enough to enable it engage in myriad of international affairs. This is not true of India, another big country with the second largest population in the world. The resources available to the government of that country are not enough to meet the needs of the people let alone meddle extensively in international politics. This makes the level of industrialisation and technological advancement critical to the enhancement of the capacity of states to act on global issues.
The quality of a country’s government is critical to the capacity of that country to act in international politics. A skilful diplomat or political leader of a small state could influence other states or non-state actors to promote the interest of his state.
Some writers hold the view that economy is the main determinant for the level of both state and non-state actors in international affairs. This view stems from the fact that engagement in international affairs is quite an expensive undertaken which has the potential to drain the economy of a country or to distract states from addressing the domestic socio-economic needs. Therefore, state and non-state actors that have a very strong economic base are likely to be engaged in extensive international relations than those with less economic strength.
The growth of the American economy over the years has, by every indication, increased its level of involvement in international affairs. It uses its economic might to influence other states and non-state actors. Conversely, the weakening of the economy of the Soviet Union coupled with political reforms witnessed the demise of that once powerful state. Though this does not necessarily mean that Russia is no longer a key actor on the international stage, of course it still is, it is however safe to say that the extent of American influence on world politics far outweigh that of Russia. An apt example of America’s economic influence was the disbursement of $40,000,000.00 in aid to Sierra Leone following the ratification of a treaty by parliament that requires Sierra Leone not to turn over any American citizen to the ICJ for trial. It would be recalled that Sierra Leone is a signatory to the ICJ protocol.
Natural resources and industrialisation are key to economic growth. Hence, the greater a country’s self-sufficiency in vital natural resources, the greater its power. The greater a country’s dependency on foreign sources for vital natural resources, the lesser its power. The greater a country’s surplus (over domestic needs) of vital resources needed by other countries, the greater its power. The greater a country’s reserves in terms of ability to meet future (especially emergency) needs, the greater its power.
In power analyses, industrialisation is customarily linked to enhanced capacity to act in international politics by virtue of the relationship between industry, technology, and war-making capabilities. This is true, certainly, but to argue simply that industrialisation builds factories, factories produce arms, and large sophisticated arsenals enhance capacities to act in international politics, is really to miss the pivotal relationship between industrialisation and Externally Projectable Power. The result of increased efficiency in the use of resources that follows from industrialisation and general economic growth is to raise the population of the state above bare subsistence standards, and, in so doing, to provide an assessment base for increased government revenue. While these resources can be used to buy arms, it can also be used to pay soldiers and to train them; to finance, support and expand diplomatic activities; to entice allies with grants and loans; and to provide for simultaneous involvement in overseas ventures. The most important link, then, between industrialisation and enhanced capacity to act in international politics is the link between higher living standards resulting from industrialisation and increased government revenue.
The final determinant of involvement, that I would mention, in international affairs is the military. In fact, there are some schools of thought that hold the view that military capabilities are most important to a nation’s power potential. Events that led to the world wars present a beautiful background for this view. Many countries are scrambling to increase the quantity and quality of the contents of their arsenals.
From the aforementioned, elements of power, which resources, both natural and artificial, play a key role in determining the extent to which a country is involved in world affairs. Only in near the end of a prolonged, intense and ultimate struggle for survival does a state mobilise its total resources into foreign policy, war efforts, for example. This was the case, for example, in the Soviet Union in 1940 and 1941, when almost all human and material resources remaining after the Nazi invasion and plunder were mobilised in the war effort. It was the case too in Germany and Japan in 1945.
Normally however, resources allocated to foreign policy objectives represent only a minute fraction of the a state’s Gross National Power, since the bulk of the resources generally goes into domestic government programmes or into the individual pursuits of the citizens. Puchala gives typical example of the US’s use of resources on foreign policies in 1964, “The Gross National Product (GNP) was approximately 500 billion dollars. The federal budget that year was roughly 98 billion dollars, and 55 billion were allocated to the pursuit foreign policy including defence. Therefore approximately 10.5% of American GNP, or total wealth generated in 1964 was converted to Externally Projectable Power. Looking at human resources, again in 1964 there were approximately 250,000 people employed in the foreign affairs agencies of the United States government, and about 2.5 million in the armed forces, to make about two and three quarters million people working in the pursuit of American foreign policy. This was about 1.5% of the nation’s population. If one adds people employed in full time defence industries, the proportion of total human resources allocated to domestic and individual pursuits rises to perhaps 5 or 6 percent. The point here is that in 1964 the vast proportion of the American economic and human resources were allocated to domestic and individual pursuits. Externally Projectable Power, measured in terms of resources allocated to the service of foreign policy, was only a small fraction of Gross National Power. Moreover, it must be noted that by comparison with other countries, the United States devotes phenomenally large quantities of resources to foreign policy pursuits.
Small resource allocations to foreign policy are in some countries a matter choice, and in other, a matter of necessity. Government and peoples in many countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and contemporary Japan deliberately opt for a passive role in international politics, and consequently channel few resources toward creating Externally Projectable Power. They are mostly satisfied with what they deem as adequate defence and diplomatic establishments and essential commitment – none of which demand huge large resource allocations. Hence, their capacities to act extensively on the world stage are kept limited by their unwillingness to allocate enough resources to do so. To other countries, mostly African countries, the capacity to act in international affairs is limited by the unavailability of the resources that is required to do so. Domestic pressures for economic development programmes coupled with overpopulation drain the resources of the countries to the point that very little, or absolute nothing, is left for allocation to the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Since the 1960s, most African countries have been incapacitated to act extensively in international affairs by weakened economic base. Almost all African countries heavily depend on foreign resources and lack the capacity to meet the needs of their people, hence the reduction of the power of African countries to become active or influential participants in world affairs.
Most multi national corporations in Africa have their bases in foreign countries and they promote foreign interests. African governments are alive to the fact that the activities of most of these companies are inimical to the economic growth of their respective countries but are unable to act against them because of the powerful states supporting them. In Sierra Leone for example, the activities of the Sierra Rutile Mining Company present an ecological hazard to the mining communities but the government is doing nothing to address the situation. This is principally because the government needs the taxes paid by the company and would not want to employ environmental policies that would scare the investors away. Also, company has its headquarters in the United States and other US companies are shareholders. The government would not want to hurt the Americans by imposing environmental corrective measures that would not be in the interest of the companies. The Niger Delta – oil company saga in Nigeria present another typical example of the display of economic power by America as against the economic and social interest of Africa.
While some writers would think that military power is critical to heavy involvement in international affairs, yet, economic power plays a crucial role as well. In fact, it is the strong economic base that enhances military might. A country would be able to develop and maintain sophisticated military hardware and men when it has a very strong economic base. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia all have very powerful militaries. They have the resources to develop and maintain nuclear weapons which are crucial to military might. In fact, the possession of nuclear weapons or Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) has become prominent in military circles in recent years. America and her allies fought Iraq and brought down the government of Saddam Hussein because they considered Iraq as a rogue state and suspected it was developing WMDs. The possession of WMDs, as far as the Americans (World Police) were concerned, poses a threat to world peace.
Though the war on Iraq is costly, yet, the USA and UK were willing to allocate their resources to prosecuting it to its logical conclusion. They defied the United Nations including other permanent members of the UN Security Council to go to war with Iraq. This singular act by USA and UK together with some other European and Arab countries like Spain and Qatar, proved that economic power, in addition to military might, present an overwhelming capacity to act in international affairs.
As already mentioned, the dismal economic state of most African states limits their involvement in international affairs. However, it suffices to state that some African countries such as Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Ghana etc. carry significant influence in world affairs. This is so because the economy of these countries though weak, yet, they rank among the strongest on the African continent.
Within Africa, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Libya and Kenya have strong influence in the continent’s affairs. Nigeria, for example, demonstrated its power in West Africa through its involvement in the restoration of peace in war ravaged countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone. It funded and led a peace keeping mission to Liberia and Sierra Leone and continues to play significant role in the peace processes in those countries. The Nigerian ECOMOG intervention to oust the AFRC and protection of the Tejan Kabbah government from demise in January 1999, the persuasion of former President Taylor of Liberia to relinquish power and go into exile in Nigeria, are all indications of its economic and military superiority in West Africa. Though the country’s Gross National Power is not very strong, yet, its Externally Projectable Power plays significant role international affairs.
By every indication, the US has proved to be the country with the increased willingness to allocate huge resources to the pursuit of foreign objectives than any other country in the world. It has foreign missions in almost every country of the world and its influence is felt in almost every corner of the globe. This ability to allocate huge resources to foreign policy coupled with its willingness to do so thus makes it a powerful nation.
Power is there a key determinant to engaging in international politics. Understanding the concept and dynamics of power is certainly crucial to the study of international relations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Johari, J. C.: Contemporary Political Theory
Sterling Publishers Private Limited
G10 Green Park Extension
New Delhi – India
(2001)
Papp, Daniel S.: Contemporary International Relations
Macmillan Publishing Company
New York
Second Edition (1988)
Puchala, Donald J.: International Politics Today
Dodd, Mead and Company
New York
(1971)
Rourke John T. and
Boyei, Mark A.: International Politics on the World Stage
Dushkin/McGraw-Hill
(1996)
