In strict legal
consideration, the states of the international system are said to be equal one to another.
This is
what is normally referred to
as “sovereign equality” as
provided for in article 2 of the charter of the united nations in reality, however, vast inequality exists
among the states of the international
system.
As already pointed out, differences or inequality could be observed
in various areas ranging from population size, geographical expanse, natural resource
endowment, economic buoyancy, patriotic
zeal and nationalism; to military capability
and national morale. In this section, we are
concerned with
categorizing and classifying the state
system in the power political context.
This presents a number of problems. As was noted
during the consideration of national
power, the power position of a state is
the result of many variable- tangible and intangibles. However, certain general yardsticks can be employed in determining the various cadres
into which states may be categorized in their power index.
Before
attempting the categorizations, it is necessary to determine how many such
categories exist. States have been classified into great powers or major powers and small powers
or lesser powers, we do also speak of
“world pwers”, “super powers”, “middle powers” and what Palmer and Perkins refer to as ‘powers
of uncertain status’.22
These classifications would l
appear more historical than
contemporary. The state system in the contemporary period (at least since 1945) can be delineated or categorize into
four main groups –super powers, great
powers or major powers, medium powers
and small or nominal powers.
In deciding
which state falls under which category , certain are usually used. This brings us back to the national power paradigm. Thus the ability/inability of a state
to impose its will with a
credible measure of coercive sanction to compel compliance from the greatest number of states and non-state actors in the
international environment , remains a
clear determinant to its positioning in the various categorizations mentioned
above.
Using the above
criteria, it is thus axiomatic that
the super powers are at the apex of a
pyramidal configuration of the states system in the power political context.
This is
because they are well –placed and endowed with
requisite national power to
compel compliance from the greatest
number of states to either do their will or refrain from openly opposing
them in international political arena.
Some writers refer to super power
as those states that had or have ‘worldwide possessions and interests”.
This is not saying anything different from our previous contention, retaining
the ability to be considered as have worldwide possessions and interests is a
function of a states national power.
Between 1945 and
1989, the world played host to two super
powers – the untied states of America (USA)
and the Union of Soviet socialist
republics (USSR). In the period
before 1945, the term super power had not come into general use, it was not that there were no powers that came close
to meeting the general requirements of that status, commentators
of that period preferred to refer to them as ‘world powers”. Colonial great Britain, France, Portugal,
Belgium, Spain, including the Netherlands could be included in this
categorization in descending order of importance
A more
appropriate terminology and one ‘sanctified by long historical usage’ is the
great power or major power. The nation
–building careers of Otto Von Bismack
in Prussia and Carvour in Italy, saw the emergence of Germany and Italy
as great powers. The duo joined great Britain, France, Russia and later Japan in the rank of the
great powers of the 19th century international system.
With the advent
in 1945 of the UN system the
international system began to
experience some metamorphosis –the two super powers (already referred to ) fused with three other powers –France ,
Britain and china to form the five permanent members of the
security council with vetores or casting
vote. Thus as part of the “dividends” of their roles in World War II, Germany and
Japan lost their status as great pwers of the post –war international system.
This was, of course, a direct consequence of the victory of the allies against
the axis powers in World War II. It is necessary to note that Germany
effectively joined the rank for the great power following its victory in the
Franco-Prussian war of 1871. In the same vein, Japan almost completely eclipsed
Russia’s claim to great power status
following its decisive victory in
the 1904/05 Russia-Japanese war.
While one can declare with some measure of confidence that in the 19th century international
system, victory in major conflicts remained one of the clearest determinants in upward mobility of states on
power categorizations. The opposite also remained a sure way of losing such
status, the contemporary international system does not appear to have shown any
marked departure from the above
scenario. It is obvious, for instance, that if Iraq had defeated the world coalition thrown against
it, thereby making good its claim
or Kuwait as its 19th province, it would have emerged not only a
major power within the Middle-East , but more
importantly, a major world player in energy politics and the armaments that would
be needed to advance and protect
its interests ion those
areas. The fluidity of power and the
vicissitudes that attend its deployment and management make precise
categorizations of states in the power political context problematic. A great
power today could became a medium or
nominal power tomorrow, and vice versa.
The situation
became peculiarly hazy following the post world war ii emergence of the US and
the USSR as super power as indicated earlier. With the
emergence of the untied states as
the sole superpower following the
diminution of soviet power in 1989,
the situation appear a bit
clearer, the seven most industrialized
states – Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, U,S,A Canada could be considered as the great powers of the contemporary era. The medium
powers would then be the regional influential. That is
those states whose influence is preponderant in their various regions –India, Pakistan in West Asia ; Japan
and China in North Asia, Indonesia, South East Asia, Brazil,
Argentina Chile, South America,
Israel , Saudi Arabia, Middle East; Nigeria, West Africa, Egypt, North Africa,
South Africa , Southern Africa; Kanya,
Tanzania, East Africa ; etc.
The small powers or normal state have been described as “powers with the means of defending only limited
interests”.23 With this categorization, small states will
include all the state of the international system except the great and medium powers, perhaps we may state
for purposes of emphasis that most of
the categorization indicated above are
made purely for analytical purposes and they
do not in any
way represent it closed case of taxonomical classification of the entire
state system in their power index.