Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad

Concept of national powerAuthor(s): Azhar Ahmad

Source: Strategic Studies , Vol. 32, No. 2/3 (Summer & Autumn 2012), pp. 83-101
Published by: Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48529361

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Strategic Studies

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Concept of national power

Concept of national power

Azhar Ahmad *
All politics, domestic and international, reveal three basic patterns, that is, all
political phenomena can be reduced to one of three basic types. A political
policy seeks either to keep power, to increase power, or to demonstrate power.
(Morgenthau1)

P ower has always been a central concept in the study of international

relations. For students of international relations, it is a must to understand
the nature and dynamics of power; how different philosophers and
strategists have defined and explained this important factor and how it affects the
behaviour of individuals, groups and nations.

Power has been defined in many ways. The simplest of the definitions is
given by Wikipedia: “Power is a measurement of an entity's ability to control its
environment, including the behaviour of other entities.” A more comprehensive
definition applicable to international relations is given by Rosen and Jones2 who
define power as “the ability of an international actor to use its tangible and
intangible resources and assets in such a way as to influence the outcomes of
events in the international system in the direction of improving its own
satisfaction with the system.”
Power is also subject to
This definition points to a relationship
between power and influence. While some growth and decline, both in
writers fail to make a distinction between real and relative terms. If
power and influence, the latter is actually we compare the power of
the carrier of power or the means to use the United States with that
power3 in pursuit of one‟s own objectives. of China, we can see that a
It must be remembered that power is decade back the U.S. was
relative and not absolute. An individual or far more powerful
country possessing power or influence compared to China than
against one may not enjoy the same today. This is despite the
influence against another. In fact, it may fact that the U.S. power
itself be a subject of power and influence
has not declined materially
of another individual or country.
during these days.
Power is also subject to growth and
decline, both in real and relative terms. If we compare the power of the United

*
The writer is a retired naval officer and Distinguished Researcher with the Asia-
Africa Development & Exchange Society of China.
83

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Studies

States with that of China, we can see that a decade back the U.S. was far more
powerful compared to China than today. This is despite the fact that the U.S.
power has not declined materially during these days. In fact, its power and
influence with respect to the rest of the world has increased, but it has decreased
with respect to China because China‟s power has grown in relative terms.
Similarly, while India has grown in military and economic power, it still cannot
match that of China because of China‟s relative growth in both these areas.

According to Alvin Toffler,4 power

can be manifested in three different ways; The highest quality power
that is, violence, wealth and knowledge. comes from the application
Each successive kind of power represents of knowledge. Knowledge
a more flexible kind of power. Violence, can be used to punish,
which he describes as „low-quality power‟ reward, persuade and even
involves coercion or punishment and is transform an enemy into
extremely inflexible. Hence, even when it an ally. It increases
„works‟, it produces resistance. Wealth, by efficiency and also serves
contrast, is a far better tool of power. It is to enhance both, wealth
much more flexible because it can be used
and force.
in a positive way (through rewards,
payments and pay-offs) or in a negative
way (by holding or threatening to hold money). Wealth is thus considered a
medium quality power. The highest quality power comes from the application of
knowledge. Knowledge can be used to punish, reward, persuade and even
transform an enemy into an ally. It increases efficiency and also serves to
enhance both, wealth and force.

Power in society is often determined by the possession of these three

elements. Of course, maximum power is available to those in a position to use all
three of these tools in a clever mix of threat and reward, along with persuasion
and intelligence. A skilled power player knows how (and when) to use and
interrelate available power tools and resources. Toffler argues that the very
nature of power is currently shifting. Throughout history, power has often shifted
from one group to another; however, at this time, the dominant form of power is
changing.

During the Industrial Revolution, power shifted from a „nobility‟ acting

primarily through violence to „industrialists and financiers‟ acting through
wealth. Of course, the nobility used wealth just as the industrial elite used
violence, but the dominant form of power shifted from violence to wealth.
Today, a third wave of shifting power is taking place with wealth being
overtaken by knowledge.

84

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Concept of national power

Kautilya described power as the possession of strength derived from three

elements; knowledge, military might and valour5. And then there is another way
of looking at power, that of Thomas Hobbes who defines power as a “man‟s
present means, to obtain some future apparent good.” Hobbes writes6,

I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire for
power after power, that ceaseth only in death.

As we have noted already, power is the ability to influence the behaviour of

others to get the desired outcome. There are two types of power, hard power,
which is basically reflective of the material prowess of the state and achieves its
objective by coercion and manipulation;
whereas oft Power is based on values, Power does not have to be
culture, policies, institutions, diplomacy used to be effective. It is
etc and their ability to influence through
often enough that the other
cooperation rather than coercion7.
actors acknowledge the
Power does not have to be used to be presence of power, either
effective. It is often enough that the other implicitly or explicitly,
actors acknowledge the presence of since the potential exercise
power, either implicitly or explicitly, since of acknowledged or
the potential exercise of acknowledged or presumed power can be as
presumed power can be as intimidating as intimidating as its actual
its actual use; hence the concept and use; hence the concept and
practice of deterrence. Historically, some practice of deterrence.
international actors have sought power for
power‟s sake; however, most nation states
normally seek and use power to achieve or defend their survival, vital and
important interests, goals, objectives, and expectations8.

Since in international relations we are concerned more with the behaviour of

states rather than individuals, it is also important to understand the concept of
national power; what it means and what it takes. National power or state power
may be described as “a mix of strategic, military, economic, political and
psychological strengths and weaknesses of a country or a state9.” According to
the U.S. Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, “National Power is the
sum of all resources available to a nation in the pursuit of national objectives10.”

It is, however, important to understand that, historically, military strength

was considered as the main criterion of national power of a state or country.
However, to attain and sustain military strength, other factors are also essential.
History has also taught us that militaries alone cannot win, it is only one element
of national strategy and many other factors must act in cohesion for the strategy

85

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Studies

to succeed. While the military strength of a country is an important ingredient of

the national power, there are other vital factors as well which determine the
national power of a state. A mix of these factors, commonly referred to as the
„elements or instruments of national power‟, determine the power of a state.

Elements of national power

National power may, therefore, be regarded as a mix of elements such as

population, size, territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force,
and social stability, etc. Nevertheless, the presence of one or few elements alone
cannot guarantee national power. Similarly, the absence of an element does not
necessarily mean a decline in national power. For example, the huge size of
India, Brazil or Saudi Arabia; the large populations of India, Pakistan, or
Bangladesh, the industrial makeup of Belgium; and the first-class army of
Switzerland do not make them big powers.

Morgenthau calls the mistaken attempt to define national power in terms of

one element of that power the “fallacy of the single factor.11” Another important
factor is to differentiate between possessing the elements of power (potential
power) and converting these elements into actual power. The elements of
national power have been divided into different categories by different scholars.
For example, Organski12 describe these elements in terms of natural (geography,
resources, and population) and social (economic, political, military,
psychological, informational, etc). Morgenthau breaks the elements into two
groups, those which are relatively stable (geography and natural resources) and
those which are subject to constant change (industrial capacity, military
preparedness, population, national character, national morale, quality of
diplomacy, quality of government).13

Similarly, Couloumbis and Wolfe describe national power in tangible

(population, territory, natural resources and industrial capacity, agricultural
capacity, military strength and mobility) and intangible (leadership and
personality, bureaucratic-organizational efficiency, type of government, societal
cohesiveness, reputation, foreign support and diplomacy, accidents) terms.14
Without subscribing to any particular grouping, some important elements of
power are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.

Geography

The Oxford Dictionary defines geography as “the study of the physical

features of the earth and of human activity as it relates to these. 15” In the study of
geography as an instrument of national power, factors such as location, size,
topography and even climate are taken into account. All these factors affect the

86

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Concept of national power

nature of a people and their relationship with other states. Among these factors,
location arguably plays the most vital role in determining interstate relations.
Therefore, all the historians and writers, previous and contemporary, have
elaborated the importance of this element. The value of geography in
international relations can be gauged from the fact that it has resulted in an
extensive new field of study called „geopolitics‟. It is, therefore, no surprise that
geography influences the policies of states towards each other.

Nazi Germany has made a profound geographic influence on world politics.

In doing so, the Germans developed what
they regarded the science of geopolitics.
Pakistan and Iran are on
Geopolitics, to take a convenient
the U.S. wish list for their definition, is the science of the
location (besides natural relationship between space and politics
resources) astride the oil which attempts to put geographical
rich Persian Gulf, access to knowledge at the service of political
Central Asia with its vast leaders. It is more than political
natural resources and geography, which is descriptive. It springs
proximity to China from national aspirations, searches out
facts and principles which can serve
national ends.16

It is primarily the result of its location at the confluence of South Asia, Far
East (China), Central Asia and the Middle East that has dragged a landlocked
country like Afghanistan in the existing geopolitical quagmire. The Afghan state
and nation has always been subjected to invasions, recent examples being the
invasion by the USSR for access to so-called warm waters and more recently by
the U.S. to occupy a vantage position in a region that is growing in strategic
importance and is vital to American interests. Similarly, Pakistan and Iran are on
the U.S. wish list for their location (besides natural resources) astride the oil rich
Persian Gulf, access to Central Asia with its vast natural resources and proximity
to China. The only reason why the foes of the Cold War era, India and the U.S.
have turned strategic allies is the location of India vis-à-vis China. That is
because the United States considers India to be an important counter-weight to
and an ally in the policy of „strategic hedging‟ of China. It is purely the irony of
geography that has allowed absurd terms like „Afpak‟ and „Chindia‟.

Both the UK and USA exploited their strategic location to become great
powerful empires. Having a relative immunity from land attack and vast
coastlines forced them to invest in their navies which became the instruments of
force projection around the world. On the other hand, a tiny state like Singapore
has become an important regional actor and a prosperous nation merely because
of its location besides the strategic Malacca Straits. Not only states but certain
87

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Studies

areas and choke points have also become very important in the power game
because of their geography. There are many such areas as the Straits of Malacca,
the Persian Gulf, Bab-al-Mandab, the Suez Canal, and the Panama, etc, which are
vital for many regional and extra-regional players, albeit for differing reasons.

Besides location, the size (and topography) is also an important factor in

determining the national power of a state. Size makes possible the support of a
large population and the possession of large resources. A large size can be a
blessing, not only because it provides strategic depth and strategy options, but
also because larger size is expected to contain more natural resources and space
for various activities such as agriculture, farming or scientific experiments . The
large size of Russia has on one hand exposed it to incursions from different
directions, but it has also provided it depth and resultant attrition against
invaders. At the same time, the immense size of the USSR perhaps contributed
significantly to its final breakup from within. Similarly, the countries protected
by physical features are less prone to attack than those having exposed borders.
The entire gamut of the Middle East peace process is based on geopolitics.
According to Napoleon, “the policies of all powers are inherent in their
geography”.

As pointed out by Morgenthau, the possibility of nuclear war has further

enhanced the importance of size as a source of national power. A country needs a
large space to disperse its vital assets as well as its population to avoid complete
destruction in case of a nuclear attack. Even the capability of second strike is
only relevant when a country has the capacity to absorb the first. It is in this
context a handicap for countries like UK and Israel and an advantage for
countries like USA, China, Russia and India.

Geography is also related to climate which affects the national power both
directly and indirectly. It is no coincidence that most powerful empires in history
belonged to the temperate zones. Even today, most of the poorest and weakest
states are located outside the temperate zones. Climate not only affects the nature
of people (as you move closer to the equator, people are generally more lethargic
and less laborious) but also provides options for sustenance. Countries are
considered blessed if they can enjoy all the four seasons. That provides them the
opportunity to the populace to involve in all kinds of activities and also helps in
achieving self sufficiency in producing its own food, flora and fauna.

Population

Population in this context does not refer only to the number of people in a
country; it also includes the demographics as well as the nature and quality of the
inhabitants of a particular state or country. That can be described through the use

88

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Concept of national power

of parameters such as size, age distribution, geographic distribution,

ethnic/religious makeup, quality of individuals, etc. The dynamics of population
growth, settlement patterns and movement across the borders will have a major
impact on the power potential of a state. Therefore, demographic factors need to
be viewed as a potentially important contributor to the power of states. A large
population is a key prerequisite, but not an absolute guarantee for national
strength. Quality, quantity, morale, will of people, demographic shifts and
population pressures are all important determinants of national power subject to
varying contexts of geopolitics17.

So, while it is important for a potential great power to have a reasonably

large population, the availability and readiness of these numbers to undertake the
various tasks that make a nation great, is even more important. These tasks may
range from providing food and security (military) to economic and industrial
development, from research and academics to other social activities. It is,
therefore, important to understand why the United States is the sole super power
despite countries like China and India having larger populations. Even countries
like Japan and Singapore with much smaller populations may rate a lot higher on
the national power index than countries with much larger populations.

According to Morgenthau,18 the

historical increase in American power The current shifting of
owes partly to the arrival of more than 100 power from west to east
million immigrants between 1824 and owes, besides other factors,
1924. On the other hand, during the same to the population trends in
century, Canada and Australia, the eastern countries, as
comparable in territory and development well, which have
level but with populations less than a tenth substantial work force
of America‟s, remained secondary powers. available at their disposal.
If the immigration law of 1924, limiting
the number of immigrants to U.S. to
150,000 per year, had been enforced half a century earlier, the United States may
have been deprived of this important factor in its rise to glory. Nations that are
competing against each other for power must, therefore, be cognizant of the size
of, and trends in, population among their rivals. However, like most other factors,
population may have negative connotation as well. Hence, there is need to
maintain a balance between population and resources. Without requisite
resources to feed and sustain, large population may even become a liability.

The current shifting of power from west to east owes, besides other factors,
to the population trends in the eastern countries, as well, which have substantial
work force available at their disposal. One must emphasize though that only
having a large population is not enough, but a potentially useful population, i.e.,
89

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Studies

skilled population in the right age group (between 20 to 45 years of age).

According to some experts, one of the problems in the current financial crisis in
the United States may also be the “baby boomer” generation reaching an age
where it is leaving the work force and claiming overwhelming social
entitlements.

Winston Churchill highlighted the importance of population in his radio

address on March 22, 194319:

One of the most somber anxieties which beset those who look thirty, or forty, or
fifty years ahead, and in this field one can see ahead only too clearly, is the
dwindling birth-rate. In thirty years, unless present trends alter, a smaller
working and fighting population will have to support and protect nearly twice as
many old people; in fifty years the position will be worse still. If this country is
to keep its high place in the leadership of the world, and to survive as a great
power that can hold its own against external pressures, our people must be
encouraged by every means to have larger families.

In the future, global trends also will affect the structure and balance of
national populations, particularly those of the poorest countries. In 1830, the
global population reached one billion for the first time; it required 100 years to
double. It took only 45 more years (1975) for the population to double again to
four billion. In the next 21 years, the population increased almost two billion,
reflecting a growth rate of about 90 million a year. For the next several decades,
90 per cent of this growth will occur in the lesser developed countries, many
already burdened by extreme overpopulation for which there is no remedy in the
form of economic infrastructure, skills, and capital20.

The above explains why China exercises stringent birth-control rules.

However, India which has not been able to control its birth expansion, will soon
take over from China as the most populous country. That may be the biggest
obstacle in India‟s quest for great power status since almost half of India‟s
population is living below poverty. Noting that overpopulation leads to insecurity
and unrest, Aldous Huxley made an interesting prophecy21 in 1958:

Overpopulation leads to economic insecurity and social unrest. Unrest and

insecurity lead to more control by central government and an increase of their
power. Given this fact, the probability of overpopulation leading through unrest
to dictatorship becomes a virtual certainty. It is a pretty safe bet that twenty
years from now, all the world‟s overpopulated and underdeveloped countries
will be under some form of totalitarian rule.

90

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Concept of national power

Natural resources

Some writers distinguish between natural resources and raw materials. For
example, Palmer and Perkins write that natural resources and raw materials are
not the same thing. According to them, natural resources are gifts of nature of
established utility, e.g., most minerals flora and fauna, waterfall and fertility of
soil. Some of these, like minerals and forests, are commonly both natural
resources and raw materials. On the other hand, some raw materials must
themselves be produced, as rubber, hides, and cotton22. However, Morgenthau
and a few others have discussed food and raw materials as sub-categories of
natural resources in their attempt to explain their affect on national power.
Therefore, for the purpose of this study, we should also consider raw materials as
part of natural resources.

The availability of natural resources, in the form of food, minerals, energy,

etc, plays an extremely important role in the relative power structure of nations.
Large amounts of natural resources are essential for a modern nation to wage
war, to operate an industrial base, and to reward other international actors
through trade and aid. Moreover, as in the case of the geopolitical ownership of
strategic places, the physical possession of natural resources is not necessarily a
source of power unless a nation can also develop those resources and maintain
political control over their disposition.23 The dependence of nations on crucial
resources can severely restrict their national power and influence. Conversely,
the dependence of others on a resource held by a particular country or countries
can add to the latter‟s influence and power. The dependence of the world on oil
supplies from the Gulf has exalted the geostrategic importance of this region and
hence provided these states with an instrument of power, which they amply
demonstrated in the oil crisis of the 1970s to the detriment of the West. The
almost complete dependence of Japan on raw materials is a critical issue in the
survival calculations of the Japanese. The importance of natural resources varies
with time and technology. A resource, nevertheless, is a potential element of
power and if the mother country is not in a position to utilize or defend this
resource, it may invite envy or even aggression. So, it is important also to have
the technology and the wherewithal to exploit the gifts of nature. The source of
strength the U.S. enjoys from its abundant natural resources and immense
technological and industrial capability is the cornerstone of U.S. position as the
sole super power of the world.

All humans depend on food, the most basic of these resources, for their
existence. Therefore, the importance of having access to sufficient food for the
population cannot be over-emphasized. A country that is self-sufficient (or nearly
self-sufficient) in food supply has a clear advantage over one which has to import
its foods from others. The deficiency of this important factor may have

91

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Studies

contributed to Britain‟s becoming a major colonial power, since it was forced to

reach out for food and maintain a strong navy to protect its food (among other
valuables) supplies from interruption. It is said that Great Britain only grew 30
per cent of the food consumed in the British Isles, before the Second World War.
Furthermore, the defeat of Germany in the First World War is also attributed to
the Allied blockade, imposing privations upon the German people which sapped
their will to resist.24. Countries deficient in food supplies have to ensure
uninterrupted availability of alternative sources or else they starve. The plight of
many starving Africans dependent partially or sometimes entirely on others to
feed them, is a case in point.

Countries enjoying self-sufficiency, such as the United States, Russia or

China, need not divert their national energies and foreign policies from their
primary objectives in order to make sure that their populations will not starve in
war. Self-sufficiency in food is, therefore, always a source of great strength. On
the other hand, permanent scarcity of food is a source of permanent weakness in
international politics. For an agricultural country like Pakistan, it is, therefore, of
utmost importance that it is able to meet the basic food requirements of its
growing population because growth in population and neglect of agriculture can
adversely affect availability of food. Basic food stuffs such as wheat, rice and
corn are essential for national as well as for individual survival and for economic
and physical development. According to Miller, hunger is the most important
factor in the world today. The real challenge of the century is the race between
men and starvation. Malnourished people cannot perform as well as the well-fed
ones and hence it affects the quality of population which is another important
factor of national power.

Just as food is essential for sustenance of life, other raw materials and
minerals required for industrial production and waging of war are equally
important for the survival of nations. The dependence of human beings on raw
materials has transformed with time. As man learned the techniques to discover,
extract and utilize available natural resources, their importance also increased
exponentially. The UK and USA became great powers because they had iron and
coal, the two most important raw materials of the time, and the technology to
exploit these.

While both iron and coal remain important elements, their importance paled
with the discovery of oil and its usage in transportation, weapons and industry.
The UK and the rest of Europe started losing their strengths to USA and USSR
which were rich in oil resource, besides other elements of power. Japan has
become vulnerable due to its dependence on imported oil. Since the First World
War, oil as a source of energy has become more and more important for industry
and war. Most mechanized weapons and vehicles are driven by oil, and,

92

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Concept of national power

consequently, countries that possess considerable deposits of oil have acquired

influence in international relations which would not have been possible without
this precious possession.

French Prime Minister Clemenceau is quoted to having said during the First
World War that, “One drop of oil is worth one drop of blood of our soldiers.”
OPEC‟s control of oil provided its members influence out of all proportions to
their economic and military power. In October 1973, in retaliation to U.S.
support to Israel during the Yom Kippur war, the Arab countries announced an oil
embargo. That created a rift between the U.S. and its NATO allies and they were
forced to persuade Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. As a result, Israel
vacated some areas of Sinai and Golan heights and the embargo was lifted in
March 1974.

The American presence in the entire Gulf, the two Gulf wars and the
occupation of Iraq (and the recent regime change in Libya) is the result of the
same experience. The U.S. and Europe cannot afford to undergo such a traumatic
experience and have, therefore, strengthened their stranglehold on areas
containing this important resource. The expansion and variations in technology
has a direct impact on importance of raw materials. In today‟s world, some
minerals such as Uranium and Plutonium have become important because of
their use in nuclear industry. Whereas others such as quartz, cobalt, chromium,
manganese and platinum are considered classic strategic minerals for a host of
military, medical, scientific and commercial uses.

New processes and inventions are continuously changing the demand for
certain minerals and hence the competition is shifting to areas containing those
minerals. Afghanistan and the African continent are the two primary sources of
most strategic minerals, and much of instability and wars in those regions is
actually a battle for control of and access to the minerals.25 Earlier, coal and oil
were considered the chief sources of energy. Now, because of the dwindling
sources of oil and coal and concerns of pollution, the world is shifting its focus to
other forms of energy such as hydro, wind, solar, as well as nuclear energy.
Already, experts have started predicting that the next wars will take place
because of water instead of oil. As the humans continue to explore and utilize the
resources, the availability of natural resources on land is on the decline. That has
enhanced the importance of the seas which contain vast amounts of hitherto
unexplored natural resources in the form of food and minerals; not to mention the
immense energy generating potential of the oceans.

93

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Studies

Economy

The economic factor is becoming more and more relevant to the modern
world and may be considered one of the most important elements, especially
since it is related closely with and has influence over most other elements of
power: natural or social, stable or unstable, tangible or intangible. Economy is a
more comprehensive term that encompasses other factors such as industrial
capacity and technology, etc., which were referred to as independent elements of
power by writers in the past. A strong economy is a must to sustain and exploit
other elements of national power. It is gradually taking over from the military
element as the chief means to influence another nation or state. No country can
maintain a viable military without putting in a lot of money which comes from a
strong economy. Even if a country enjoys an ideal geography and abundance of
natural resources, it has to have a strong viable economy to exploit its resources,
feed its people and run its military establishment, and in turn, maintain the
sanctity of its territorial integrity. Without a viable, sustainable economy, a
country is at the mercy of others, like Pakistan and many other poorer countries
are.

The former Soviet Union was one of the mightiest powers on earth militarily;
geographically it occupied the “heartland” which according to Mackinder was the
key to world domination; it was almost self-sufficient in natural resources, like
no other country, but it disintegrated because it could not maintain a healthy
economy. China still regards itself as a developing country. However, it is
arguably the most powerful and influential country in the world after the United
States. It has achieved this status only on the basis of a strong growing economy
and has recently become the second biggest economy bypassing Japan. The
strength of China‟s economy is inherent in the fact that the so-called sole Super
Power United States had to seek China‟s help to bail it out of economic
recession.

Why a nuclear power like Pakistan is openly humiliated and coerced by the
United States and its allies? Because Pakistan is dependent on economic aid from
these countries and the international institutions run under their influence. The
importance of the Gulf nations in the regional and international politics is only
because of their oil economy. Because of globalization and the dependence of
nations upon each other economically, this factor has become ever more
important. The economic stability or otherwise in one country does not only
affect that particular country but it has effects regionally and sometimes globally
depending upon the size of its economy and its interaction with other economies.
We have recently witnessed the effect of recession in United States on the global
economy. The strong economic bloc of the European Union is trembling like a
house of cards by the prospects of bankruptcy of Greece.

94

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Concept of national power

In the past, the role of economy was limited to provision of livelihood to the
people and maintenance of a country‟s war machine. Its relations with other
countries were dependent more on the military might of the country itself and the
combined might of its friends and allies. However, economy has become an
important tool that creates non-military national power. Economically strong
countries can exercise their power through trade, aid, loans and grants and hence
can influence the poorer countries using both carrot and stick, without employing
military means. Not only the countries, but some multinational corporations and
money lending institutions have become even more powerful than the countries.
In today‟s globalized world, variations in a country‟s economy can have a ripple
effect on countries which are neither physically close nor directly trading with
that country.

Hence, the strength of a nation‟s economy has a direct effect on the variety,
resilience, and credibility of its international economic options. Increasing
interdependence has caused major changes in the economic element of national
power. National economies have become more dependent on international trade
and on financial markets that have become truly global in scope. A nation‟s
economic policy is now influenced by a host of factors which include the policies
of international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the influence of
multinational corporations (it is said that multinationals play a major role in
shaping the policies of the U.S. since they fund election campaigns of the
candidates), and, of course, the policies and state of economy of other countries.

Military

Military strength, since ages, has been the most obvious and visible symbol
of a country‟s national power. The proverb “might is right” is definitely right in
international relations. The unchecked and unjustifiable show of force by the
U.S. (supported by its Western allies) in countries across the globe, in pursuit of
its hegemonic interests, is a clear manifestation of the importance of this element
of national power. It was assumed after the two world wars that the world had
seen enough destruction, and that the institution of the United Nations would
usher in an era of peace and progress. However, the natural lust of humans for
power and their mistrust and suspicion of each other has continued to mar the
world with more and more conflict and the United Nations has become only a
tool in the hands of the powerful. The basic composition of the United Nations,
giving preferential status to the powerful five, defied its stated objective from the
very beginning.

95

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Studies

Military strength does not only mean possession of weapons and sensors to
fight a war. It is dependent on a whole lot of factors which include material
factors such as economy, industrial development, technology, resources, number
of men available to fight, etc., as well as non-material factors such as leadership,
quality of the fighting force and their training, the morale of both the armed
forces as well as the entire nation, and also the willingness of the nation to
support the armed forces. Because of the overwhelming influence of military on
national policies, countries tend to lose balance and spend disproportionately on
their military establishment, causing harm to other sectors. The collapse of the
USSR owed predominantly to this reason, and the current economic crisis in the
U.S. also has a share of its overstretched military adventures. However, every
sovereign nation requires a balanced military force strong enough to defend its
territorial integrity and, preferably, deter potential aggressors.

The importance of technology in raising and maintaining a potent military

cannot be overemphasized. Countries that fail to keep pace with modern
technology can only do so at their own peril, and they become totally dependent
on other countries for provision of latest military hardware and software.
Technological innovations have often been the difference between the victor and
the loser. Beyond doubt, the current U.S. mastery of the world has only been
possible because of its overwhelming superiority in (military) technology.
Maintaining a military also requires, as mentioned earlier, a strong economy as
well as access to natural resources. However, in addition to material means, the
military strength depends a great deal on the quality of the fighting force and its
leaders. Of course, the concept of military leadership has somewhat changed in
modern war. The individual charisma and bravado of the military commanders is
becoming less and less relevant, but their training, ability to comprehend the
situation, timely decision-making and judicious use of available resources remain
paramount.

Another vital element of military strength is the quality and quantity of its
fighting force. In the words of Morgenthau,26

A nation may have a good grasp of technological innovations in warfare. Its

military leaders may excel in the strategy and tactics appropriate to the new
techniques of war. Yet, such a nation may be militarily and, in consequence,
also politically weak if it does not possess a military establishment that in its
over-all strength and in the strength of its component parts is neither too large
nor too small in view of the tasks it may be called upon to perform.

Must a nation, in order to be strong, possess a large army or is its power not
impaired by having, at least in peacetime, only small land forces, composed of
highly trained, heavily armed specialized units? Have battle-ready forces-in-
being become more important than trained reserves? Have large surface navies

96

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Concept of national power

become obsolete, or do aircraft carriers still fulfill a useful purpose? How large a
military establishment can a nation afford in view of its resources and
commitments? Does concern for national power require large-scale peacetime
production of aircraft and other mechanized weapons, or should a nation, in
view of rapid changes in technology, spend its resources on research and on the
production of limited quantities of improved types of weapons?

Morgenthau‟s counsel is more and more relevant with advancements in

technology, lethality and reach of weapons. And, in the age where economy is
taking over from military as the dominant element of national power and
prestige, countries have to address the above questions and many more. With
growing emphasis on economic development, the people are less and less willing
to spend their hard-earned money on killing people. The future shall belong to
smaller, better equipped and better trained forces. The balance of armed forces is
a question being discussed all the time in all the countries. Whether Pakistan
needs an aircraft carrier to match the designs of the Indians or invest in
submarines to counter the threat more effectively? The kind of leverage a few
submarines can provide to Iran in the Persian Gulf, can it be possible with
surface ships and aircrafts? Why should countries like Pakistan and India invest
heavily in conventional weapons when they have nukes? The countries have to
find the right answers to these questions. This important element of power can
become a liability if the right balance is not achieved.

Intangibles

There are certain unquantifiable factors in the makeup of national power

which play an equal, or sometimes more important, role in the application or
manifestation of a country‟s power, than the more visible and measurable
elements. The nature of government and its relationship with the people, the
willingness of the population to support the policies of the government or its
military, national character, morale, nationalism, etc., are factors which can be
crucial in determining a nation‟s power at a given time.

The quality and character of the government is extremely important. It is the

government which bears the responsibility of all actions within a state. If the
government is honest, capable and efficient, and it has the support of its people, it
can take bold decisions and does not have to fear outside forces. The government
should have the ability and will to bring all the elements of national power to
bear upon an issue. A government has to cater for the interests of its people,
ensure welfare and development, guarantee social justice, law and order and
harmony. Such a government will always have the backing of its population.
When these basic necessities are provided for, it will automatically raise the
morale and national integration. The Americans have always trusted and
supported their governments in international affairs. This has been a national
97

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Studies

character despite repeated betrayals and lies by successive governments. This is

one of the strengths which has allowed the U.S. to project its military power
around the world with impunity.

However, when the American public withdrew that support, like in Vietnam,
the U.S. forces had to withdraw in defeat. The decline in domestic support to
military actions around the world is now causing the Americans to find face-
saving exit solutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has been able to face
economic hardships and wrath of the U.S. and its Western allies because the
people stood behind their government. On the other hand, successive Pakistani
governments have not been able to implement important projects like the
Kalabagh dam because they lacked public trust and support. Due to this lack of
support in the masses, the governments had to look for strength towards foreign
forces, particularly the U.S. The U.S. and its allies would not have been able to
invade Afghanistan and Libya if a substantial population had not sided against
their regimes. Similarly, India would not have succeeded in severing East
Pakistan (now Bangladesh) if the local people were united and satisfied with the
Pakistani government.

One of the important tasks of the governments includes diplomacy.

Diplomacy is the skill of managing international relations. Morgenthau describes
diplomacy in the following words:27

The conduct of a nation‟s foreign affairs by its diplomats is for national power in
peace what military strategy and tactics by its military leaders are for national
power in war. It is the art of bringing the different elements of national power to
bear with maximum effect upon those points in the international situation which
concern the national interest most directly.

Diplomacy, one might say, is the brains of national power, as national morale is
its soul. If its vision is blurred, its judgment defective, and its determination
feeble, all the advantages of geographical location, of self-sufficiency in food,
raw materials, and industrial production, of military preparedness, of size and
quality of population will in the long run avail a nation little.

National character also plays an important role in diplomacy and policy-

making. For example, the Hindus are very shrewd and calculative and have the
ability to sweet-talk their opponents; the Americans are very arrogant but when
confronted with strong will can easily change their position. The Muslims are
generally straight forward and „non-diplomatic‟, whereas the Chinese are very
pragmatic, cool and calculative in their dealings with the foreigners. The
Germans are considered a very disciplined and hardworking nation which has
always helped the Germans rally behind their leaders and rise after every defeat.

98

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Concept of national power

It is said that the people living close to the equator are generally lethargic in
character and that is the reason these nations have never risen to glory and power.
Unlike all great empires in history, the Chinese have not shown hegemonic or
expansionist tendencies. The ordinary Americans are less interested in politics
and international affairs and more in their own well being and comfort. That is
why they seldom question the foreign policies of their governments but raise
their voice for economic development and social justice within society. Hence, it
is very important to keep a nation‟s character in mind when dealing with a
country to be able to comprehend and predict its response to different situations.

National will and morale may be defined as the degree of determination that
any actor manifests in the pursuit of its internal or external objectives. What
caused the 313 ill-equipped companions of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and
blessings of Allah be upon Him) to fight and defeat a much larger army at the
battle of Badr? Why Pakistan was able to beat the materially and numerically
much superior Indian military in 1965? How a rag-tag army of few thousand ill-
equipped, ill-trained, ill-fed Taliban fought the history‟s mightiest military power
and brought the coalition of U.S. and its 40 allies to a situation where they are
forced to negotiate an honourable exit for themselves? How the Vietnamese
managed to defeat a super power? These questions cannot be answered by
counting the material elements of national power.

It is said that in 1969, during the last days of Vietnam war, Pentagon fed all
material data like population, gross national product, manufacturing capability,
number of tanks, ships, and aircraft, size of the armed forces, etc., with respect to
both the U.S. and North Vietnam in the computer and asked the computer, “when
will we win?” The computer immediately responded, “You won in 1964”28. This
example clearly manifests the importance of national will and morale in the
outcome of a conflict. The side which considers that it is fighting the just cause
will always enter a conflict with a high morale as against the side that lacks
justification or morality. On the other hand, if a people are fighting for survival,
they will show amazing and unexpected results.

Another very important factor which relates to and has enormous influence
on all the intangible factors mentioned above is nationalism. This factor,
unfortunately, is not given due consideration in the discussion of elements of
national power. Unlike religion or ethnicity, nationalism has no sects or factions
and is therefore the most effective binding force. Nationalism is the only force
which can effectively bring people of different colours and creeds together. Once
a nation is truly united, it finds its own ways to development and progress. Such
a country need not fear an adversary or adversity because the bond of nationhood
motivates people to stand by each other and also give strength to the
representative government.
99

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Studies

Sometimes adversities help bring an otherwise divided people together, as

has happened during wars and calamities to the Pakistani people. The United
States and its allies could easily invade Iraq and Afghanistan because their people
are divided into ethnic and sectarian groups, but they will never venture against
countries like Iran and North Korea which stand as one nation. The world‟s most
populous country, China, with a huge landmass, has proved how unity and
direction can turn a demoralized, opium infested country into a super power
within a short span of half a century. So, nationalism provides a degree of
integration and a sense of belonging which contribute to national will and
morale.

Conclusion

Power is the ability of an individual or state to influence or control the

behaviour of others. Power occupies an important place in international relations
and, therefore, has been defined and explained by various writers according to
prevailing understanding of international environment. Power can be used in
different ways ranging from persuasion to punishment. The concept and tools of
power keep on evolving over time, and a skilled player knows how and when to
use the right power tools to achieve desired objectives. It must be kept in mind
that power is not absolute and may vary in time and space and in relation to
others. National power is depended on various elements, and while dealing with
other states a comprehensive understanding of their elements of power, both
tangible and intangible, is essential.

It must also be borne in mind that the presence or absence of an element of

power does not guarantee power or otherwise. A state must continue to revisit its
strengths and weaknesses in terms of known elements of power and strive to
achieve a realistic balance between its resources and capabilities. Regardless of
the material and physical strength of a state, ultimate victory will largely depend
on the intangible factors such as the morale, character of people and government,
and nationalism. It is, therefore, important for the leaders to pay due attention to
this very important element of national power.

Notes & References

1
Hans J Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace 5th
Revised Ed. (New York: Knopf Inc., 1973), 42.
2
Steven J Rosen & Walter S Jones, The Logic of International Relations
(Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers 1977), 182
3
Charles Handy, Understanding Organisations (New York: Oxford University Press
1993), 123.

100

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Concept of national power

4
Alvin Toffler, Power Shift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st
Century (New York: Bantam Books 1990), 15-16.
5
Quoted in Theodore A Couloumbis and James H Wolfe, Introduction to
International Relations: Power and Justice, 2nd Ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall 1982), 63
6
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill 1958), 86.
7
Different authors have described Hard and Soft power in their own way. There is still
no standard, universally accepted definition.
8
Craig W Mastapeter, “The Instruments of National Power: Achieving the Strategic
Advantage in a Changing World” Thesis US Naval Post Graduate School (2008),
190, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA493955&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, 15/10/11.
9
Sam C Sarkesian & Robert E Conner, US Military Profession in the Twenty-First
Century (New York: Routledge 2006), 103.
10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National power, 20/08/11.
11
David Joblonsky, “National Power” Parameters (Spring 1997): 35.
12
A F K Organsky, World Politics (New York: Knopf Inc. 1958), 124-155.
13
Morgenthau, 117
14
Couloumbis and Wolfe, 65-78.
15
Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Revised Ed. (2008), 595.
16
William H Hessler, “A Geopolitics for Americans,” US Naval Institute Proceedings,
LXX (March 1944), 246. Also see Nolmer D Palmer & Howard C Perkins,
International Relations: The World Community in Transition 3rd Revised Ed, (New
Delhi: AITBS Publishers 2010), 41.
17
Sunil D Tennakoon Maj Gen, “Demography as an Element of National Power,”
NDC Journal (Winter 2003), 57
18
Morgenthau, 131 and Joblonsky, 39
19
Morgenthau, 134
20
Joblonsky, 40
21
Quoted in Palmer & Perkins, 63
22
Ibid., 45
23
Joblonsky, 40
24
Morgenthau, 120
25
Elizabeth Young, “What are Strategic Minerals”, Helium (04 October 2011)
http://www.helium.com /items /1949042-what-are-strategic-minerals.
26
Morgenthau, 129
27
Ibid., 146
28
Harry G Summers, On Strategy: The Vietnam War in Context (Carlisle,
Pennsylvania: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute 1983), 11.

101

This content downloaded from

103.155.138.196 on Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:21:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms