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.