Power has been described as an “indivisible whole”. By that
is meant that though
there could be components or forms of national power, those components only complement
one another; such that no nation can for any length of time, parade any one form of power exclusive of the
others. Thus a grate industrial establishment will operate to complement
the military power of a state, while also enhancing the
economic power potentials of that same state.
All of them will work in concert to
imbue the state in question with a great political, and by extension,
national power.
For
instance, the “military industrial complex” in the United State is able to function as an index
of US power because it is able to induce
and receive inducement(complementarity) from a strong national economy. If for
any reason, the military industrial
complex is made to function exclusive of other forms of power, what would
be masquerading as US power
will be a façade, which will be
exposed in the form of a collapse of the US power in the long run. This was the fate that befell Soviet power in the
communist era. The military industrial
complex was not only made to operate exclusive of other forms of power, but it was the façade that
was projected to the world as an
index of
Soviet power. Because it had no
complementarity with other forms of power
in the state, it had to collapse in the long-run, and with it,
the Soviet state itself.
Inspite of this
indivisibility or complementarity,
national power for purposes of analysis may be divided in a
number of ways. This is usually done in a more or less arbitrary manner.
According to E.H Carr,
three categories can be delineated: military power, economic power (which include industrial power ) and
power over opinion.6 The case for military power has
already been made as “The
end argument “. For
Patmer and Perkins, “national power is in the final analysis , military power”, though it is rightly observed that “military power is a complex of many
elements”.
In the overall power potential of a state, the case for economic power can never be over –emphasized. Economic power has become increasingly inseparable form both military power and other forms of power in a modern state. It is common knowledge that in modern warfare, economics play as much role as military or troops deployment. The German state emerged in the 19th century as a great power in Europe largely as a result of its great leap as an industrial state. On the other hand, the Russian Roman empire suffered a humiliating diminution of its power and prestige in the early 20th century Russo-Japanese war due essentially to the comparative backwardness of the Russian society and economy to that of western Europe and Japan. The example could be multiplied over and over again.
In the overall power potential of a state, the case for economic power can never be over –emphasized. Economic power has become increasingly inseparable form both military power and other forms of power in a modern state. It is common knowledge that in modern warfare, economics play as much role as military or troops deployment. The German state emerged in the 19th century as a great power in Europe largely as a result of its great leap as an industrial state. On the other hand, the Russian Roman empire suffered a humiliating diminution of its power and prestige in the early 20th century Russo-Japanese war due essentially to the comparative backwardness of the Russian society and economy to that of western Europe and Japan. The example could be multiplied over and over again.
As
for the third category, some may be
tempted to accord it a less
significant status in the power
apparatus of a state. But this would be a mistake. Power over opinion, or propaganda, as some prefer
to it, is a veritable form of
national power. It must be recognized that the ability to control or influence a man’s opinions or
ideas is more effective in controlling
that man than all the military arsenals
devised by man. At home, it helps
to build and sustain national morale, abroad, it manifests as a weapon of
psychological warfare which may be no
less effective than the physical
weaponry and other war materials. It is
also used to recruit allies abroad, and
to galvanize world opinion in support of ones cause, we may cite the case
of CARITAS and some international media organizations in
galvanizing world opinion in support and
sympathy for the Biafrans during
the Nigerian/Biafran civil war in the
1960s. In recent times, we
could also recount the role of American international media
organizations and their affiliate,
CNN, VOA, SKYNEWS, etc. in getting world
opinion to support America’s interventions in Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan
The conception of diplomacy as a form of national
power has remained controversial, hence its
exclusion by E.H. Carr in his ‘categories of national power’.
Some would rather prefer that is be considered an element of national
power, even though we do not seem to see any much difference between form, categories or elements of national
power. However, some have tended to describe
elements as tantamount to ‘ingredient’, 8 while others prefer the
term “attributes”
In
any case, diplomacy has been observed to play a vital role in the power
portfolio of a state. Through astute
diplomacy, states have been known to achieve foreign policy objective far out
of proportion to their power potentials. For instance, though diplomacy of
non-alignment, some supposedly weak and
small states acquired some strategic importance which worked to augement their
national power. A good example
could be cited as former Yugoslavia. Through astute diplomacy also, Great Britain was able
to acquire, sustain and even augment its
colonial possessions in the 19th
and early 20th centuries,
which made it the foremost imperial
power of that era. Small states such as Austria, Switzerland,
Tanzania, Corte D’voire, etc have
had their national power and prestige rejuvenated by either the diplomacy or
personal standing of their leaders or
both.