Power and sovereignty are inseparable components of the state system and, by extension, the international system. Every state pursues power because according to the realists, it is the best defence against aggression both form internal and external quarters. Thus, it is the best guarantor to the inviolability, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation-state. Abyssinia, (Ethiopia) world not have had any need for the league of nations’ intervention in its invasion by Italy in 1935 if it had preponderant or at least power parity with Italy.
In the same vein, the US would have spared itself the burden of mobilizing world opinion and armaments, including UN resolutions to drive Iraq from Kuwait in 1990 if Kuwait were in a position to discourage the Iraqi invasion by its power potentials. From these examples and hundreds, if not thousands more of like manner, it is axiomatic that the greatest threat to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of any nation-sate remains a diminutive national power potential.
What then is power? As a central theme in international political relations analysis, the concept of power has received a variety of conceptualization by the varied commentators in the field. It thus haws no generally accepted definition. Some can however be highlighted as capturing the major essence of the concept. Hans Morgenthau conceives of it is “ the power of man over the minds of other men”. Emphasizing the coercive potentials of the concept George Sschwarzenberger see it as the “capacity of impose one’s will on others by reliance on effective sanctions in case of non-compliance”.2 In defining power as “the production o f intended effects”.3 Bertrend Russell may have conceived power exclusively on military terms, as he goes on to argue that “nothing but lack of military force limits the power of one state over another”.4
Before we are stampeded into discussing the various forms or elements of national power following Russell’s lead it is imperative that we distinguish between power and influence or force. The major distinguishing characteristic of power and influence is the lack of the coercive machinery or the threat of its use in influence as in power. This is what Morgenthau refers to as “reliance on effective sanctions” to compel compliance. This is seen to be absent in influence which is achieved by persuasion and other forms of subtle pressure.
It is more difficult to distinguish force from power since in the final analysis, the so-called effective sanctions could be a euphemism for force. Force can however be conceived from different perspectives. But to the students of international relations the notion of force easily connotes military action. Notwithstanding, force conceived in the military context is more of a component of national power than being synonymous with it. These distinctions must however be recognized for what they are meant to achieve analytical brevity.
For practical purposes, it is quite difficult, if not a near impossibility to observe them individually, as a whole range of “pressure on thought and conduct” come under and are influenced by power.
Related Posts: HISTORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATION (H.I.R)
Be the first to comment