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.