Chapter 4 - What is Power?

Have you ever felt powerless?

Have you ever felt you had power over some one else?

If you answered yes to either or both of these questions it proves you are a human.

Power is a part of all human relationships. It may not be "the bedrock" or "heart" of all relationships but - face it - some humans, in cultures around the world and throughout history, spend a great deal of time and energy seeking, amassing and using power. The power of money, or the church, or whatever, is essentially the ability to get people to do things...to get anything done at all... to lead... to rule...

You can ask people why they did something or what they think, but if you want to measure something - you have to deal in reality: What they did; What was not done, etc. Remeber we have to have measuerable concepts. And power is very difficult to measure directly.... In our life or in the international areana.

In international relations it is assumed the fundamental unit - the state - acts in its own best interest and in a manner which is rational or at least explainable and constrained by its own domestic politics. That is the basic assumption of the entire fieled of study and thus raises basic questions, like: is the state the most important actor in world politics? (This will be discussed in Chapter 6).

Of course, it seems a stretch to say that all states are rational actors... or that they can define thier best interests... or that states are not effected by other actors on the world stage (NGOs, corporations, etc). But still - the state is seen as the key "player" or actor in global politics.

Can this change? I think it continues to change as wealth continues to get shifted around the world. After all, that's what globalization is - a global shifting of wealth, technoogy, cultures, etc.

Your text mentions the "dynamics of power" and many just look at it like a list and think, at best, I'll memorize it. But that's... So not the point of the list:

1. There are differing forms of influence.
2. Power is shaped by perception.
3. Power is dynamic and changing.
4. Power is relative.
5. Power is situational.

To me, this is not just some list that applies to state power in the study of international relations, but a key to understanding human behavior at all levels in all settings.

I challange you to apply this list to all the relationships and situations in your life and you may see things in a different way.

But never forget the over-riding reality of power - it all its forms - it is always limited. Humans are finite creatures and we have limited compassion, passion and all other human emotions, let alone physical resources. Everything is limited.

Morgenthau, as the first realist, is the first to point out that power may be best studied, not by looking for instances or examples of so called "hard" or "soft" power, but by seeing the limits of each.

In many ways, power is best defined by its limits. There are states in the world who have the power to do things that other states who simply do not.

Your text points out the "objective" and "subjective" sources of state power and they are worth looking into and thinking about. Each has its limits.

Military power has been misunderstood by many people. Often used as an example of hard power and objectively measurable, what we have learned since the first Gulf War - our military - which is clearly, undoubtedly the greatest military force the human race as ever scene - with less than 800,000 people, even after this disasterous war, our technology and training makes our military the most leathal... and the most expensive - military ever.

And all this high tech tracking and killing power has gotten us where is Iraq?

I argue that military power is not as important as the perception that the state has of its power and whether that perception matches how other states precieve them.

There is a great cost to military threats, as both Bush adminstrations saw that, but inaction looks so weak ...

John Stewart says war is the only way American learn geography. Maybe this invasion and occupation of Iraw qill finally teach Americans about the limits of military power.

Economic power matters. And don't forget a large part of that is the holding of the debt of other nations. All so called first world banks hold debt for foreign banks. the US banks used to be supreme.

When I first started teaching college in 1991, the US national debt was held primarily - well over half - almost two thirds of it - was held by US banks. Today, China holds around 20% of the US debt (some say as much as a third). That makes our relationship different, no doubt.

The old theory about democracies not going to war with each other may have little meaning in the US/China relationship as China is clearly not - and will not any time soon become - a democracy (or even a market driven economy).

The last type of subjective power your text lists in "intelligence" and there can be no doubt that different states have quite different abilities to gather and analize information of foreign rivals... or allies.

During the cold war, the CIA was accused of doing a great number of things. And now we have proff that the US did have a role in the Shah taking power in Iran... in Allende's ouster in Chile, and many, many other such coups, etc.

But also there was this perception among Americans that the CIA was this vast effective network of spies and "good" Americans and all that. Most Americans, including most policy makers, believed the CIA was our "best and brightest." But now it is clear, when one looks at the record, the CIA was often a slipshop run organization with no direction nor over sight. The standard joke was "If only the CIA were capible of doing half of what it was accused of doing, it would be worth the money."

Perception changes over time and with the release of documents...

Click here for a video on the "Romance of the Cold War."

The idea of balance of power may have little relevance today as the US is one quarter of the world's economy and still clearly the world's dominant military power. The idea of multiple forms of balance in the international stage seems to make sense as the US adapts to the changing world.

Collective security is a concept that predates the world after World War Two. In fact, it is after World War One - that the League of Nations is formed and the concept gains acceptance as the basis for a global body of like-minded states.

Today collective security remains a vital part of international action.

But the question I give you to think about is this: Does globalization, in all its forms and ways, make it easier for states to cooperate, or does it stress the current international system? Can the international system adapt? It already is...