Power and Drivers of Power - Literature review Example

Part A Essay Name Institution Date Course Power and Drivers of Power According to Tellis (2001), national power simply refers to a country’s ability to pursue strategic goals by means of purposeful action. This description brings out two distinct but closely related capacity dimensions: the external capacity which refers to the nation’s ability to influence the global environment by means of political, economic, and military potential as well as an internal dimensions that refers to the nation’s capacity to carry out transformations of its resources within the society into actionable knowledge to achieve the best military and civilian technologies. Any nation keen on developing a useful national power profile, therefore, needs to incorporate variables that incorporate the two dimensions. As shown in the revised view of national power diagram below, it can be assessed by observing the following three realms: national resources, national performance and military capability. Natural resources identify a country’s building blocks needed for the development of modes of production that will enable it overcome the cycles of innovation within the global economy and enhance its potential. National performance includes the mechanisms that enable countries to transform the natural resources into tangible forms of utilizable power. Military capability, finally, captures the indications of national power that are personified by the military’s proficiency (Tellis, 2001). Fig: revised a revised view of national power (Source: Tellis, 2001) As Gaventa, John, (2007) points out, globalization has challenged the understanding of power and previously held assumption of how citizens can mobilize to enhance the accountability of states as well as none state actors. The globalization of power has led to the creation of a wide range of political opportunities through which civil societies can engage to demand better transparency and accountability, participate in policy formulation and development of monitoring channels, means of redress or through regional bodies and partnerships. Global power polarity Wohlforth (2009) wonder whether unipolarity plays a significant role in the promotion of peace among the super powers of the world. He also investigates whether the return of multi-polarity would increase the prospects of war. Even though unipolarity has been associated with significantly reduced levels of militarized competition among the globes major powers, several scholars are not sure that the association is causal. Many scholars have given little significance on the notion of any direct relationship between war and polarity, arguing that conflicts emerge as a result of complex interactions between power and dissatisfaction with the status quo. Parity has defined the structural conditions that are likely to cause war, but some of the prominent power theories indicated that greatest motivation among nations to make the decision to go for war is the relative satisfaction with regional and global hierarchy. Nations that experience great dissatisfaction with other nations could motivate them to confront even those with vastly superior powers. According to Wohlforth (2009), therefore, the explanation for the minimal cases of conflict since the 1991, requires considerations beyond simple distribution of capabilities as the reason for the absence of such dissatisfaction. Several scholars believe that the main cause of war has to do with international anarchy that is compounded by security dilemma. As Jervis (2002) further adds, these forces more dominantly affect dominant powers since although they be able to guarantee other nation’s security, they cannot depend on any other nation to guarantee them this escape from the state of nature. Global Power shifts The conclusion of the cold war did not only bring simple adjustments among states, but introduced significant power redistribution among civil societies, states and markets (Mathews, 1997). National governments have increasingly shared power with citizen groups, NGOs, businesses and international organizations, going beyond the simple loss of autonomy within the globalized economy. As Mathews (1997) states, the previously absolute concentration of power at the disposal of states since the 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia has come to an end, at least sor some time to come. China, for instance, has experienced significant transformations in three main areas: changes in the civil-military relations defined by the new post-Deng patterns of PLA-CCP interaction, extensive redesigning of the structure and personnel, and modernization of the force achieved through innovation, capacity development and adoption of new war game plans (Ji, 2014). The world has continued to face a dangerous vacuum with experts estimating that it could last for decades. The vacuum has been developed by Europe and USA’s present phase of relative decline as other nations like India, China and Brazil claim international standing but lacking the capacity to fill this role. There have been witnessed significant changes in world economy and global politics where China, Brazil and Russia have grown to become global actors with increased global influence. These nations now have a bigger say in global energy, trade, development policies, security and climate Such power shifts have driven the formation of alliances that can be analyzed by the power cycle theory framework (Chiu, 2003). The framework is based on unexpected, non-linear changes experienced by states and their cycle of power and role within the global community compared to the roles of other states. These changes have been the driving force behind structural adjustments in the system. States, have therefore come together to build alliances in order to balance power and have purse their combined ideologies that mostly designed against and only derivatively for something or someone. Many alliances have been formed to offer a counter weight against another coalition in an effort to maintain security and enhance stability. Equilibrium is ultimately achieved when there is a balance in the powers of the alliances and when the coalitions are built economically (Chiu, 2003). Again, debates have come up as to whether or not alliances increase the likelihood of war. Certain scholars believe that alliances indicated a polarized system so that highly polarized the system will be, the higher the likelihood that war will erupt. This correlation was noted during the 20th century, but little evidence was reported during the 19th century. But as Doran (1995) argued, even if nations strived to ensure proper implementation of the balance of power, it will not be sufficient to prevent major war. Such a balance could be critical in halting or countering aggressive approaches in the short term, but does not provide guarantees against the rise and fall of states. Since it is created to enhance capacity of the weaker and suppresses that of the stronger nation, the balance of power logic offers the contradictory structure of the strategy that is required for the maintenance of long-term equilibrium within the system. it overlooks the benefits of systemic adjustment of role. Trends and discontinuities The world war experienced a century ago has been seen as one of the most brutal conflicts in human history and its consequences are still experienced today (Colucci, 2015). This conflict was driven by the multipolarity of the great power struggle that started from the 1871. As Italy and Germany rose in 1914 as nation states, many aspects of global alliances, expansion, cultural divides, political philosophy, arms races etc would ultimately collide as the great powers drove their interests across the globe. Mush smaller powers strived to use the greater powers to pursue their won interest including China, Turkey and Spain. But while these interactions may have happened more than 100 years ago, the current international situation shows disquieting resemblance with the occurrence which created great and appalling violence. The globe currently experiences eruptions of conflict and violence like the Euro-Russian frontier, Sea of Japan, South sea of China etc, and many other parts have in one way or the other had to go through growing disquiet in the recent past. As a result of the conflict, the globe continues to witness major changes that will likely result in renewed global conflict. The USA is slowly disengaging from its original dominating role after the war. This can be noticed from its reducing commitments and spending on defense and its retreat from protecting the world order, focusing more on its internal affairs. At the same time, four of the great powers (Japan, China, Russia and India), are conducting a revaluation, amplification and adjustment of their grand strategies similar to the reshuffling experienced in the late 19th C. economic upset caused by China and the rise of India further complicate the mathematics(Colucci, 2015) As Smil (2005) states, the increase in the number of countries in possession of nuclear weapons creates the fear of an accidental launch that will most likely attract retaliation. There has been one more addition to the list every five years since 1945 with North Korea being the latest addition. As the risk of nuclear war growths, the world has terrorism has become a recurrent form of unconventional warfare with suicidal murders being deeply rooted in Muslim history; the 11th September attack elevating such violent acts to the class of catastrophic occurrences. An increase of this kind of attacks is likely to lead to global conflict (Smil, 2005). Constraints After the cold war, there have been efforts to promote what has been known as nuclear deterrence as experts in war determined that the retaliation cost in the event of nuclear attacks could be very high for any given nation to execute. In this sense, it has been argued that nuclear attack cannot be preferred as the traditional means of defense for any nation. As more nations develop their capacities in nuclear weapons and technologies, the only value of these technologies lay (Siracusa & Coleman, 2000). Beyond the nuclear deterrence, there is evidence of change of will as a result of historical lessons that has greatly influenced decision making in matters that threaten global peace and stability and the development of regional state agencies that have been designed to subdue and shape any increasing power rivalries. There has also been emergence of increasing economic interdependence among nations which are keen to protect their interests as well as those of their partners. States have continued to respect other nations not because of their military strength but due to the interdependence on trade, multinational business, and the fact that many citizens of any one country continue to travel and intermix across many other nations in the world (Foot, 2014) List of References Foot, R, 2014, ‘Constraints on conflict in the Asia-Pacific: balancing’, Political science, 66(2), pp. 119 – 142 Siracusa, JM & Coleman, DG, 2000, ‘Scaling the Nuclear Ladder: Deterrence from Truman to Clinton’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 54(3), pp. 277 - 296 Tellis, AJ, 2001, ‘Measuring National Power in the Postindustrial Age’, Cambridge: Rand Corporation Smil, V, 2005, ‘The next 50 years: fatal discontinuities’, Population and Development Review, 31 (2), pp. 201-236 Colucci, L, 2015, ‘Great power conflict’, World Affairs, 177 (5), pp 44-53. Jervis R, 2002, ‘Theories of War in an Era of Leading-Power Peace: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 2001’, American Political Science Review, 91(11) Wohlforth, WC, 2009, ‘Unipolarity, status competition and great power war’, World Politics, 61 (1), pp. 28-57. Gaventa, John, 2007, “Levels, spaces and forms of power: analysing opportunities for change.” in Berenskoetter, Felix & Williams, MJ (eds) 2007, Power in world politics, Routledge, London, pp 204-224 Ji, Y, 2014, ‘Rise of Chinese Military Might and Global Power Shift’, Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 5(1), pp. 1-3 Chiu, DY, 2003, International Alliances in the Power Cycle Theory of state behavior, International Political Science Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 123–136 Mathews, JT, 1997, ‘Power shift’, Foreign affairs, 76(1), pp. 50 - 66 Doran, CF, 1995, “The Power Cycle and Peaceful Change.” In Beyond Confrontation (J.A. Vasquez, et al., eds), 179–208. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Read More