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.