Power has been described as an “indivisible whole”.5 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”.7
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”9.
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.