The Concept of Power - Essay Example

1 Overview The concept of power has changed its meaning over a period. Once considered in terms of political power, it now conveys the meaning ofmilitary might of countries. It has gradually lost its positive sense or meaning of constructive action. Frankly speaking, people are using the word 'power', formally and informally, to indicate the destructive power of nations through their military might. The twentieth century had seen aggressive colonisation activity in Asia and Africa and in the process, European countries competed with each other trying to dominate and show their strength in international relations. It had obviously led to the arms race in the world creating regional and super powers. Mistrust among nations, fear of attack by other nations, breaking of international agreements by some nations and urge to establish supremacy over other countries had continued unabated even after the Second World War leading to cold war among nations. The most unwanted result of this mad military race among nations was the diversion of public welfare funds to create nuclear weapons. Now, the concept of power had crossed all boundaries and reached the ultimate to convey the special meaning of an irrepressible nuclear power. More power means nature that is more destructive. All most all countries are afraid of USA. Why The answer lies in the naked truth that this country possesses most of the world's nuclear bombs and weapons indicating that it is more destructive than any other country. Unfortunately, the concept of power had also taken away the discretionary powers of these nuclear powers due to their 2 negligence of the non-military forms of power and pushed them to a state where they cannot decide when to use and where to use their military power. The concept of power "Power is something of which I am convinced there is no innocence this side of the womb," says Nadine Gordimer, South Africa's well-acclaimed novelist (Internet, quotations). Russian socialist theoretician Mikhail Bakunin comes out very strong on the concept of power: "The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle" (Internet, Mikhail ). People normally talk about the concept of power in terms of theoretical sense. Practically speaking, power is nothing but a state of commanding others to do certain things, though the methods of commanding vary from person to person and from country to country. When it comes to international relations, the meaning of power assumes serious dimensions. In the international arena, power is interpreted as the capacity of a country to dictate terms to other 3 countries. The Great Britain used its power once and ruled most of the world for more than two centuries. Now USA has been using its power to dominate and control most of the world. The great Mahabharata war occurred centuries ago because of the power struggle among Pandava and Kaurava brothers. Nowadays, in most of the third world countries, joint families are breaking up due to power struggle between brothers for controlling the family properties. The break up of the Ambani family controlling India's number one industrial empire, known as the Reliance Group, is the most recent example of a power struggle. The source for any power struggle normally generates in the people's urge to dominate others and control things at their will and pleasure. When you extend this analogy to countries in international relations, the comparison throws up innumerable similarities. A country is no different from a family except that the former is headed by a President or Prime Minister aided by a Cabinet of Ministers. At any point of time, countries with mighty power use their abilities to dominate other countries for meeting their selfish ends. But remember, power always flows from wealth. Lack of wealth is lack of power and more wealth means more power. In a village or town, the rich dominate the poor and in a country, the developed areas dominate the backward areas. When it comes to the world and international affairs, the industrially advanced countries naturally dominate the poorer countries and the word of the former is final in international matters. 4 Gradual change Beginning from the 16th century until the end of the 19th century, the concept of power had a profound meaning in the sense that people talked about it more in terms of political meaning than anything else. Every one knew the Great Britain as a great power because it ruled most of the world countries with its ever-increasing intellectual power. However, during the first decade in the 20th century, the concept of 'power' found many changes in its meanings. Countries that tried to dominate the others to protect their self-interests were highlighted as emerging powers. Before the First World War, there was a heavy scramble among European nations to run towards the illiterate Africa to colonise it and exploit its natural resources. In this particular aspect, several European countries competed with each other and wanted to show their ability and dominance over others. If you go back into the history, Germany and France fought several verbal wars about the occupation of Morocco (Internet, The scramble for Africa). In fact, the special urge to show their ability and dominate other countries in the run-up to occupying and colonising the weak states in Asia and Africa began much earlier among European countries. To show their power on international platforms, these countries wanted to equip themselves with sufficient military might, which they thought, was a symbol of power. In Europe, this showing of strength began with Germany attacking France in 1871 and taking away the regions of Alsace and Lorraine that belonged to France originally (Internet, The dispute over Alsace and Lorraine). 5 This had led France to develop suspicions about Germany's future intentions and raise a powerful military to face the possible onslaughts of its neighbouring power. Simultaneously, Germany had also suspected the France's moves for military build- up and enhanced its military power. With these developments, countries began understanding the meaning of power in different terms and accordingly equipped themselves. Naval power As already explained, the concept of power had undergone appropriate changes in international relations as the times went by. In the first decade of the 20th century, Britain was at the helm of affairs in international relations as a global power ruling many countries. As part of its strategy to enhance its military power and to protect its international waters, Britain had developed its naval power by building mighty warships. Very soon, it had transformed its navy as the largest in the world. Germany, involved in frequent skirmishes with France, developed a hatred for the naval power of the UK. It had made the Kaiser William II of Germany spend huge public funds for the build up of more naval ships and submarines for establishing its supremacy against the Britain. It had in turn provoked the latter to indulge in more build up of naval power. This race for supremacy of naval power had of course resulted in the build up for prelude to the First World War. (Internet, second Para, The causes of World War I) Additionally, Europe divided at that period into two alliances, known as the Triple Entente 6 consisting of Great Britain, France, and Russia and the Triple Alliance consisting of the Central Powers of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and the Ottoman Turkish Empire. It had greatly spurred several other countries either to grow as independent military powers or to align with other great military powers to establish their identities in international relations. The First World War had thrown up several opportunities and challenges for most of the countries to enhance their military power to keep themselves protected from possible future aggressions and grow as independent powers. The main reason was that Germany, crossing all humanitarian limitations, for the first time used poisonous gas in the World War I provoking the rest of the countries into war, especially USA and widening its scope (Internet, six Para, The causes of World War I) As a prelude to the Second World War, most of the countries had emerged as great military powers to show their supremacy in international relations. As Germany was defeated in the First World War and forced to sign in humiliation the Treaty of Versailles by the greatest combine of US, UK and France, it had specifically embarked upon a massive military build up for fully preparing itself to meet future wars and grown up into a military power in Europe. Clemenceau, Prime Minister of France, Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain, and Woodrow Wilson, President of the U.S.A were referred to as the Big Three powers in those days (Internet, The big three). Such was the military power of the three countries ruled by them that it-provoked 7 Germany to build up its defences to its fullest capacity. To balance the power equations in Europe, USA sided with France and UK. The main objective of US in forming the alliance with these countries was to suppress Germany and to prevent its growth as a great military power. Obviously, the minds of UK and France also toyed with the idea of suppressing the German military power, which would have otherwise posed a threat to their dominating power in Europe in particular and in the world in general. Stress on military power Actually, power is of different types and shows up in political, technical, economic, military, industrial, diplomatic and intellectual matters. When a country is conveniently and comfortably equipped with all these powers, it becomes a super power and all other countries, handicapped by the lack of these powers, would naturally obey the word of the super power. Unfortunately, most of the countries in the latter part of the 20th century had opted to grow as military powers while neglecting the non-military forms of power such as the diplomatic power, economic power and intellectual power. Baldwin, in his article 'Power and international relations', points out that the neglect of these non military forms of power has drastically reduced the countries' ability to assess the situations and requirements where military power should be sparingly used (Baldwin , 2005, p 184). As the countries have been going by their preconceived notions of finding solutions through military power to several problems on the international arena, the non-military forms of power are on the verge of losing their importance. 8 Growth of nuclear powers Second World War saw the emergence of a nuclear power in US when it exploded atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From then on, the mad rush for manufacturing and accumulating nuclear bombs and conventional arms as well on a greater scale had begun. At the end of World War II, relations between former USSR and US strained severely resulting in the cold war between the two countries and their allies. (Internet, Cold war) The cold war started with the former USSR leadership desiring to establish its military supremacy over US. Soviet scientists conducted their country's first nuclear test by exploding a plutonium bomb on August 29, 1949 (Internet, first lightening/ "Joe-1" : The first soviet atomic explosion ). With this, the world saw the birth of another super power, the US already being the first super power. During the cold war that took place between the two countries, each one had relentlessly tried to dominate the other by encouraging military coups and aiding the rebellions wherever possible. The Korean war, Hungarian revolution, Bay of Pigs invasion, Cuban Missile crisis, Vietnam war , Afghan war, military coups in Iran (1953) and Guatemala ( 1954), civil wars in Angola, El Salvador and Nicaragua were all the direct results of the ferocious cold war raged between the two super powers. In order to show their power and supremacy in international arena and to keep the weak countries under their control, the super powers had overthrown unfavourable Governments and installed regimes favourable to them to see that their power and domination continued uninterrupted wherever possible. The antagonism was such between the two super 9 powers that each one took advantage of every opportunity that came their way. When Fidel Castro had overthrown the US supported dictatorship regime of Cuba in 1959 and established his communist regime, US imposed severe economic sanctions on Cuba. However, to the detriment of US, USSR came to his rescue by concluding agreements for aiding the Castro Government. ( Painter, 1999, P 51) The show of power through proxies had continued unabated until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, leaving behind only one super power to the humankind. Before the disappearance of former USSR as a super power, it took enough steps to see that nuclear technology had proliferated to some other countries like India, which is certainly a nuclear power now, though not on par with USA. The possible threat from India had provoked Pakistan to acquire nuclear capability. The proliferation has spread to some other countries including Iran and this development has been worrying the USA presently. Iraq, Iran and the use of power Think of the combined war of US, UK and France on a weak Iraq. It is quite true that Iraq's military power is peanuts before the supremacy of these countries. Still, these countries have neglected the fact that the tactful use of non-military forms of power like stringent economic sanctions and food embargos coupled with overt and covert use of their diplomatic power could also bring Iraq under their grip. As experience has shown, the mindset of these countries has 10 addicted to thinking in terms of using their military power for big and small things alike, whether necessary or not. The US and its allies could have saved the Iraqi property worth hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of lives of their soldiers and Iraq citizens by avoiding war and by using their economic and diplomatic power to bring Saddam Hussein to his knees. USA and its allies had thought of permanently eliminating the threat of international terrorism by unilaterally attacking Iraq. But, did they effectively realise their goals The answer is an emphatic 'no' as witnessed by the recent London blasts and the continuing conflict with terrorism in an already war-battered Iraq. In addition, the terrorist organisations continue to send their signals to the world countries. As recently as on October 22, 2005, the Taliban Terrorists killed M.R.Kutti, an Indian driver working in Afghanistan for its reconstruction. These countries should introspect of their achievements in Iraq after all this much bravado of using their irrepressible military power. There is nothing to boast of as there is no particular achievement to mention except that the US and its allies have succeeded in establishing a puppet regime there and taking control of the country's oil wells, besides taking into custody its ruler Saddam Hussein. Too much stress and dependence on military power in international relations has become the order of the day for these countries. It had robbed off their discretionary abilities of using their military power in the most needed circumstances only. 11 In international relations, the use of military power should be the last resort to find solutions to the vexed and mind- boggling issues. Before resorting to the use of military power, countries should relentlessly explore the non-military forms of power with a view to avoiding possible loss of life and property. But surprisingly, what the Big Brother USA and its allies indulge in is peculiarly different. They use these non- military forms of power not to find direct solutions but to prepare the necessary ground for a possible use of their military power at a later stage. And this was what actually happened in case of Iraq. After Iraq, USA and its allies seem to be making their moves very shrewdly in international relations to prepare ground for making a case against Iran now. Entire world knows how these countries had prepared the ground to make a case against Iraq before they attacked that country. In spite of the UN inspectors' reports that Iraq has not been in possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the military powers have succeeded in creating mass information hysteria in international arena to convince the world that Baghdad was in possession of those WMDs. However, it became very clear after the war that Iraq did not posses any type of WMDs. In international relations, convincing and diplomatic abilities play a major role in moulding public opinion in favour of a particular argument and making it a prelude to the possible use of military power afterwards. The war on Iraq stands as one of the best examples for this. If one 12 keenly observes the present goings-on with regard to IAEA versus Iran, US has certainly succeeded in moulding international public opinion and building up a case against Iran on the issue of enriching uranium. The IAEA is dealing with Iran but ultimately the US and its allies will take a final decision against Iran. The intentions of its allies and US are very clear. They fear that Iran has been using the uranium for making nuclear bombs and if it succeeds in its objective, it will grow as a nuclear power and can pose a threat to the western as well as the European powers. The US never wishes challenges for its supremacy and therefore is determined to eliminate all potential threats to its authority as an irrepressible nuclear power. On the face of it, the nuclear powers are not ready to accept Iran's argument that it was not using uranium for making weapons. With Russia offering to enrich uranium on its soil for Iran, the crisis is over temporarily. But, the US and its allies are not going to keep quiet over the issue. The ultimate aim of US is to blow the issue out of proportions to take it to a peak so that it finds an excuse to use its military power against Iran. Indian sub-continent and US dual policy When India has shown evidence to US to prove that Pakistan has been sponsoring terrorism on the Indian soil, it has advised India to open a dialogue with its neighbour and not to fight. As the ultimate super power of the planet earth, the US has been advocating a dual policy in dealing with similar issues around the globe. Here the main aim of the US is that it does not want another country to exhibit its military power anywhere and at any point of time except for itself. 13 Bibliography Quotations, "Welcome quotations", http://www.enemies.com/html/quotes/quotes-p.html (accessed 26/ 11/2005). Mikhail Bakunin, "Power" http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/power.html (accessed 26/ 11/2005). The scramble for Africa, "causes of the first world war", http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/causesofworldwarone.htm (accessed 26/ 11/2005). The dispute over Alsace and Lorraine, "causes of the first world war", http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/alsacelorraine.htm (accessed 26/ 11/2005). The causes of the world war I, http://www.cyberessays.com/History/21.htm (accessed 26/ 11/2005). The big three, "The treaty of Versailles 1919", http://pmaci.customer.netspace.net.au/versailles.htm (accessed 27/ 11/2005). Baldwin, David A (2005) "Power and international relations" in Simmons, Beth A, Walter Carl Snaes and Thomas Risse (eds) Handbook of international relations, Sage Publications, London, PP 177-191 Cold war, "article", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War (accessed 27/ 11/2005). 14 first lightening/ "Joe-1" : The first soviet atomic explosion, "The soviet atomic bomb: 1939-1949", "The Soviet Nuclear Weapons Program" , http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html (accessed 27/ 11/2005). Painter, David S (1999) The cold war: an international history , Routledge (UK) Read More