National power can be equated with the entirety of a state’s effectiveness in international politics. The content of National power relies on the combination of so many elements and relative factors that it is very difficult to find out any accurate and final list at any given period of time. Despite this difficulty there has been some agreement about certain elements of national power and even about their classification into stable and unstable, tangible and intangible, human and non-human etc. More possession of these elements do not determine a nation’s power hence they should not be termed as the determinants of power as many scholars call them. What determines power is the proper and efficient utilization of these elements. At best they can be called as elements or factors or components of national power.





Elements Of National Power:

Before discussing these elements in detail one should consider and assume certain facts regarding them First, all elements are interrelated and interdependent Second these cannot be measured with a high degree of accuracy. These can simply be estimated. Third even a precise estimate of these elements is not always possible as they are undergoing constant structural and relative changes due to natural and technological reasons. Fourth, national power is never based on any single factor, but on a combination of all these elements under a set of circumstances. Fifth these can be broadly classified on the basis of their nature such as stable and unstable, tangible and intangible.

Noted authors of international relations have clarified these elements differently. Morgenthau has divided them into two categories permanent and changeable. Relatively stable elements are geography and natural resources whereas elements subject to constant change are military preparedness, population, national character and morale, diplomacy and government 1 Organski classified them into natural and social determinants.

The natural determinants are geography, natural resources and population social determinants are economic development, political structure and national morale.2 Carr gave three categories : military power, economic power and power over opinion.3 Mahendra Kumar broadly divided them into three categories: natural, social and ideational. First covers the elements of geography, resources and population, while the second includes economic development, political structure and national morale. The third category consists of ideals, intelligence and wisdom of leadership.4 Palmer and Perkins divided them into tangible and intangible. Geography, raw material, natural resources and population are tangible whereas morale and ideology are intangible.5 Many other scholars have also preferred to classify them into tangible and intangible elements. These scholars are Lerche and Said 6 Coulombs and Wolfe 7, Adi H. Doctor 8, Anam Jaitly 9 etc.

But in the following paragraphs these elements will be comprehensively divided into five categories These are:

I. Natural Elements. Geography, natural resources and population.

II. Scientific and Technological Elements. Technology and industrial capacity, agricultural capacity and military strength.

III. Political Elements. Type of government, bureaucratic organization and efficiency, wisdom of leadership and quality of diplomacy.

IV. Social and Ideological Elements. Ideologies, national morale, national character, social structure and social cohesiveness.

V. External and other Elements. Reputation and image, foreign support, international strategic position and intelligence. The above elements are examined in detail as below.

Natural Elements:

They are so called because they are endowed by nature and not man made. These elements are:

1. Geography:

Since time immemorial the most stable element upon which a nation’s power depends is geography. Geographical factors such as climate, topography, location and size influence the power potential of a nation. Climate for example acts as one of the determinants of the culture and economy of a country. If the climate is good, there would be a better work culture leading to more productivity. Great powers of modern times have been situated in those regions blessed with a temperate climate. Topography plays an important role in the defense of nations. Topographical features such as mountains, valleys, rivers may determine natural boundaries between nations and set limits to their natural expansion. Mountains like Himalayas the Alps and the Pyrenees and rivers like the Rhine the Rio Grande and Yale served as guards on the boundaries between nations. The Chinese aggression on India in 1962 shattered this belief and necessitated a rethinking on the question whether topography is important as natural guard or not. Location determines the extent of a country’s vulnerability to invasion. It is a major determinant of whether a country is a sea-power or a land-power.

The achievements of England and Japan on the seas have been owing to the fact of their being islands. Land locked countries like Austria, Hungary, Nepal, Bhutan etc, are at a disadvantage when compared to states having outlets to sea. States that are located far away from the fiction zones of power can pursue an independent or neutral policy in world affairs, but the same is not true with those states who are close to the epic center of world politics. Size is yet another natural and tangible factor of power though it is the most deceptive of the physical foundations of power. A large territory if hospitable and fertile can accommodate more people and give more natural resources. In the past, the vast size of the territory of a state was of great help to its security. It was difficult for the enemy to win and occupy a large territory. But size matters very little now a days Japan for instance even though comparatively small defeated China and Russia. Moreover, utility of larger territories has also diminished due to the technological revolution and the invention of Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles.

A new discipline has emerged that enables us to understand the application of the knowledge of political geography to statecraft. It is known as Geopolitics. It is the study of geography as it may influence foreign policy and political phenomena.

2. Natural Resources:

Natural as well as quantifiable and stable element of power is natural resources which include raw materials, agricultural products like food and fiber, forests, minerals, waterfall, fertility of soil etc. It is evident that the possession of resources such as coal, iron, uranium, oil, rubber, bauxite, manganese, other ferrous and non ferrous metals, non metallic minerals and natural gas is essential to industrial and defense production in nation states. More recently, it has been proved that the availability of petroleum at reasonable prices is important to the good economic health of industrial nations. The contemporary prosperity of many Arab countries is due to the availability of plenty of oil there.

However, it may be said that the mere possession of natural resources does not automatically generate power. Their proper utilization through advanced technology is also essential. Secondly, previously the rigid raw material theory of international politics was very popular but now its popularity is on decline. Invention of synthetics and other new industrial processes, development of synthetics and the unexpectedly high capacity of embattled populations to endure chronic shortages have all served to liberate states from the more absolutes of the theory.10 Despite these limitations natural resources and raw materials continue to-serve a nation in its economic and military development.

3. Population:

It seems a large population is an asset for the state. But it is not really so. For example, China with the largest population in the world is not as powerful as the United States and the Soviet Union are. On the other hand Israel, Japan and Germany are powerful inspite of their small population. That is why quality of population is as important as its quantity. From quantity three point of view it is a tangible element whereas it is intangible qualitatively. Thus population can serve both as an assert and as a liability. If the people are well fed, educated and properly trained, they are a great source of power. But if they are ignorant, poor and illiterate, they are a big burden on the state. Many qualities of population, such as unity, literacy, loyalty, character and Spirit of love, sacrifice and duty are crucial for making a country powerful but they are difficult to measure. A good population serves as good military personnel, civilians, workers, producers and consumers.

Manpower according to Lerche and Said, is more useful notion for purposes of national power. It is that part of the population available for broadly defined foreign policy objectives. All individuals who are politically useless, as well as those needed simply to keep the society functional (such as food producers), must be subtracted from the gross total. The remaining is the manpower quotient that, with proper direction, leadership and administration, can be utilized to contribute to I the defense, productive, administrative, diplomatic and political strength of the state.11

Scientific and Technological Elements:

As stated above industrial capacity, agricultural capacity and military capacity of a nation depend on the one hand on the availability of natural resources and raw materials and on the other hand on the scientific and technological development. Elements related with scientific and technological advancement of a country are as follows:

1. Industrial Capacity:

Technology may be said to be a nation’s capacity to convert the endowed resources into actual power. It can be applied in the economic and industrial sphere which means better machines and better and abundant products. No nation in the present world can become a great power unless it has the capacity to produce tremendous quantities of goods and services. If a country does not have the technology, industry and markets to process natural resources efficiently, it is reduced to the position of a weak raw material exporting state. On the contrary, a country with developed technology but without natural resources is greatly dependent on the importation of raw materials from other countries. For example, many Western countries with the exception of the US are critically dependent upon the supply of Middle East oil. They do not have any firm control over its supply and price fluctuations. It can be safely said that those countries which have both important raw materials and developed technologies for processing are fully developed and powerful countries.

Technology helps a nation to have stronger economy, stronger industrial base, stronger system of transport and communication, stronger military, greater capacity to win war and influence nations during peace. Industrial capacity contributes towards the production Of weapons that are required for modern warfare. It provides international rewards in the form of consumer goods and in the shape of markets for foreign goods. It enables a nation to persuade other nations by providing technical and economic assistance in the name of soft loans, aid, grants etc. Industrial capacity of a nation, thus is a great source of wealth and power.

2. Agricultural Capacity:

Agriculture is a crucial component of national power. It is more relevant for developing countries where agriculture tends to be the major sector of national economy. In the words of Couloumbis and Wolfe, “This is also a tangible element of power. Countries that can feed themselves, especially over the course of a long war will be relatively more powerful than countries that are not self sufficient.”12 international trade of a developing country heavily depends upon agricultural products and products manufactured with agricultural content (e.g. jute, cloth and sugar) as these become goods for export and these facilitate imports of machinery and raw material for industrial sector. In India, agriculture products constitute about fifty percent of the total . Indian exports while goods manufactured with agricultural content constitute another twenty percent of the total exports thus constituting nearly 70 per cent of the total Indian exports.13



Thus India being an industrially less advanced country, relies greatly on agriculture and allied products. Agriculture contributes about 35 percent of the national income and provides livelihood to about three-fourth of the population. In 1950 India was faced with the food problem and suffered from agricultural backwardness. For food it was depending On Western nations and particularly US which through PL 480 pressurized India off and on. But with the help of modern technology India succeeded in Green Revolution and became self-sufficient in food. With this its dependence on the US for food ended and it became more self confident in diplomatic activities. Scientific and technological methods can thus help in increasing the agricultural capacity of a nation that further enhances a nation’s power.

3. Military Strength:

Scientific and technological development is the sustaining factor for the armed forces without which the military strength cannot be dependable and self-reliant. Indigenous capacity to produce different kinds of modern and sophisticated weapons is necessary, otherwise the nation cannot sustain prolonged warfare. Consequently, notwithstanding their technological backwardness, many countries have acquired military strength by buying weapons from the advanced countries which has contributed to their military might. In the beginning, most of the states increase their strength in this way and later on build up their technological capability for defense production and forces.

Military strength is relevant both in war and peace. No one can win a war without a strong military base. In peace time also, diplomacy is significantly affected by the leverages that rivals wield owing to their respective military might. Military strength involves two main things-armed forces and weapons. To analyze their role in national power one has to take into consideration their size and quantity, their quality and technological sophistication, their mobility and deployment, their leadership and morale.

The size and number of armed forces are of great importance. Even the age of space battles and push-button warfare has not undermined the general importance of number. Therefore, a country with a large size of defense forces will be always relatively in a better position. Equally important is the weapons and equipment’s supplied to them. A state with a small armed force, but armed with sophisticated weapons and quality equipment can easily defeat another state which has a much larger armed force using old weapons. Thus the quality of the army and arms ammunition is also very crucial along with their quantity. The quality of forces depends on the nature of the training, the physical endurance and the morale of troops. Next is the question of mobility and deployment. It stands for the ability of a state to deploy its armed might in locations inside and outside its territory.

The chief indicator of mobility is a state’s ability to transport and effectively support military Operations on land, sea and air. Military leadership also plays a great role in the actual military Operations during a war. By their skill military commanders can jolt a superior enemy and term the defeat of his side into victory. Morale of forces i.e. their willingness to sacrifice for nation is no less a factor in contributing to military strength. The military alliances and bases also contribute important aspect of the military element. A state with a number of such alliances and bases is potentially stronger. Lastly, military component of national power is dependent upon the financial resources of nation as well as its technological, industrial and economic development.

Political Elements:

Political elements consist of type of government, bureaucratic efficiency, political leadership and quality of diplomacy. All these are important parts of the political system of a state and contribute towards its power. These are discussed as follows:

1. Type of Government:

States formulate and conduct their foreign policy through their governments. If a governments foreign policy is unified, specific, representative of the popular will, stable, and at the same time flexible, it can do wonders for the nation, and its power position. Government also regulates social discipline, which is based on the coordination of all efforts in its community. Good rapport between the government and people bring greater allegiance of people towards the country. Such an allegiance is a prime factor in the development of national power.

it is not easy to say which type of government is the most powerful. The issue of relationship between type of government and national power has not been resolved since Aristotle’s times. There are various forms of government in the present world such as communist, democratic, authoritarian etc. Past international relations prove that both democratic and authoritarian types of governments have been successful in effectively regulating the behavior of other states, and, therefore, to that extent both of them have been powerful nations. Authoritarian regimes can make swift and flexible foreign policy decision as their decision makers are few and relatively Unaccountable. But we should think whether quick decisions by unaccountable decision makers are necessarily wise decisions.

The features of checks and balances of democratic governments subject decisions to greater scrutiny and presumably guard against whimsical and hasty decisions. The yardstick to measure superiority of a type of government can be its efficiency to achieve set national goals and ability to mobilize people’s support. Democratic and constitutional government is based on consensus of fundamentals, it is likely to operate with a sustained popular support. In this way, it will be in a better position to impose greater discipline and persuade people to make sacrifices for achieving national objectives and national growth.

2. Bureaucratic Efficiency:

If the bureaucracy is impartial, honest, clean and efficient, it will generate more power for a nation. Corruption and inefficiency will always cost a nation much both in peace and war. In peace, it will stall development and progress. in war, it will set at naught all coordinated efforts and prepare the ground for eventual capitulation. Rich, well-armed, and even wisely governed countries cannot work effectively unless they have efficient bureaucracies with which to execute their policies. There are four views regarding the proper role, method of operation, and adequate functioning of bureaucracies. First, communist states believe in large-scale bureaucratization not only in political but also in economic and social sectors. But by now it has been realized that over bureaucratization in communist countries has proved counterproductive.

Second, democratic competitive countries seek to encourage private initiative and limit the role of governmental bureaucracies to defense, taxation, and other regulatory functions. Third, there are those who argue for the complete detachment of politics from professional bureaucracies. Fourth, few people are interested to have political control over the bureaucracies, plug leaks, and ensure that political decisions are carried out faithfully by the professional bureaucrats. Each of these theories has its own advantages and disadvantages, we do not intend discussing them here. But it can be realized that to assess the exact impact of a given bureaucratic theory upon the power of a state is an uphill task.

3. Leadership:

Leadership is of great significance to any analysis of national power because it is leadership that utilizes the national resources to build up power. Morale of the people also revolves around leadership. There can be no integrated technology sans leadership. It is important for many reasons. First, leadership utilizes the other components of national power like geography, resources, population, industrial capacity, technology etc, and this it does with the qualities that it possesses. Second, it coordinates other elements of national power. Third, it allocates resources between military and civilian programmes. Fourth, it decides the nature of relations with other states and declares war and peace. Decisions and actions of leaders have a direct bearing on the power of the state. Couloumbis and Wolfe rightly observe: Undoubtedly, greatness or incompetence, wisdom or irrationality, effectiveness or impotence in leadership considerably affects the power that a country has. Leaders such as Napoleon, Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao, Gandhi, Kennedy, de Gaulle, Khrushchev, and Nixon have made a deep impact on world history.14 An able leadership serves as a source of great inspiration to a people. Such an inspiration is crucial both in the realization of national development programmes and in the assumption of initiative in foreign affairs.

4. Quality of Diplomacy:

Another significant component of national power is the quality of diplomacy. It embraces all the power resources of a nation to bear in such a way as to make the most of them, rattling. The sabre here, offering rewards there, bringing forth arguments at another point timing actions and concessions in such a way as to persuade one’s enemies and allies to act as one wishes them to act of all the elements that play role in gaining national power, the most important, though unstable and intangible, is the quality of diplomacy. All other elements are like raw materials, and the state having them may be a potentially great power. However, it becomes an actual power when it follows an effective foreign policy towards this end through diplomacy According to Morgenthau, “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”15 If morale is the soul of national power then diplomacy is its brain.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, France and Britain were proud of their diplomatic skill. It was the art of diplomacy that gave to Britain the relative consistency of power from Henry VIII to the First World War. During inter-war period the USA was politically very strong but played insignificant part in world politics as her diplomacy was weak. It was only after the Second World War that the US pursued a great power policy, shouldered commensurate economic, military and diplomatic responsibilities and transformed the potential into actual. There are also some diplomats in the third world countries who have earned a name for their negotiating ability.

New factors such as the rapid increase in the means of transport and communication, increasing appreciation of the importance of public opinion and the practice of Open diplomacy have greatly affected the character of diplomacy and contributed towards its decline. But it is not fully correct Though it may have suffered a few setbacks yet a high quality of diplomacy still plays an indispensable role for the power of a nation. it is the only peaceful alternative to protect and accomplish national interests. On the last one must remember that a high quality diplomacy must also possess the element of consistency.

Social and Ideological Elements:

Social environment of a nation influences its power making. These elements are concerned with society’s ideals, ideas, attitudes, sentiments, slogans, morale, character, social traditions and customs. All these are parts of the social system and structure of a nation. These are explained as below:

1. Ideology:

Ideology has remained a very vital aspect in the power of a nation especially in the twentieth century. An ideology is a body of ideas and beliefs concerning certain values and usually suggesting a certain political and economic order in order to accomplish these values. Richard Snyder and Hubert Wilson presents a comprehensive definition of ideology. In their own words, it is a cluster of ideas about life, society or government, which originate in most cases as consciously advocated or dogmatically asserted social, political or religious slogans or battle cries , which become the characteristic beliefs or dogmas of a particular group, party or nationality 16 Ideologies can be of different types-social, political, economic, religious, racial and so on.

Morgenthau has given three main types :

(i) ideologies of status quo.

(ii) ideology of imperialism.



(iii) ambiguous ideologies (e.g: self-determination).

Other important ideologies of the twentieth century are: liberalism, constitutionalism, Nazism, fascism, communism, socialism, nationalism, internationalism etc.

Experience reveals that in the past ideologies have provided a tremendous philosophical, psychological and moral power for the policies and program mes of men. They have gradually been a guiding force for policy goals and activities of nations. Often nation have utilized ideologies as a source of moral justification for the pursuit of their policy goals. As an element of national power, these can boost people’s morale. An ideology if it is followed by a majority of citizens or is indoctrinated into them can act as a powerful factor making for unity and power. It can be used either to reconcile man to his conditions or to stimulate him to improve them. Ideology is thus a significant element strengthening the power-base of a state as also it foreign policy.

Ideologies have their own merits as well as demerits. They give strength to worthy causes, unity to nation and a sense of common interest to peoples in many parts of the world. The objective of human brotherhood and world peace can be realized by ideological motivation. 17 On the other hand, experience demonstrates a good part of the evils and miseries characterizing international relations is brought into existence by ideologies as initiators and determinants of nation’s policies and efforts. Ideologies sometime act as part of national egos and lead various nations into confrontation and wars. Different nations pursuing conflicting ideologies have tended to add to the tensions of the modern world particularly before and after the Second World War. The task of peace-makers is generally made difficult by the opposing ideologies.

The impact of ideology on international relations is fastly diminishing especially after the advent of Gorbachevian phenomenon and the subsequent collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and East Europe. It belongs now to the past as the fire of ideology once burning in Europe seems to have extinguished as new ideas and feelings are being accepted to suit the changing times. Ideology in fact, is not the end for which the states resort to war, instead an instrument for concealing the interests of the states. It is either used to attract people and gain their support or convince them with the superiority of the state’s ideals. In this sense it is still relevant as an element of national power.

2. National Morale:

National Morale and national character are the historical psychological sociological element of national power. These are unstable, intangible and cannot be measured easily. Lerche and Said used this term “to describe the mass state of mind in action, with particular reference to the extent to which the society feels itself committed to the government’s policy “18 In the words of Morgenthau, “National morale is the degree of determination with which a nation supports the foreign policies of its government in peace or war. It permeates all activities of a nation, its agricultural and industrial production as well as its military establishment and diplomatic service. In the form of public opinion, it provides an intangible factor without whose support no government, democratic or autocratic, is able to pursue its policies with full effectiveness, if it is able to pursue them at all.”19

Palmer and Perkins define it as a thing of the spirit made up of loyalty, courage, faith, the impulse to the preservation of personality and dignity. It can make men and women work harder, sacrifice more, and fight harder.20 Mohendra Kumar observes that willingness to sacrifice is the core of national morale of the armed forces as well as the people at large. In his own words, the sum total of the individual qualities of men in a nation in the form of their willingness to put the nation’s welfare above their own personal welfare.21 A high national morale or willingness to sacrifice contributes towards the building of national power in peacetime, in national crisis and in wars. It has a direct impact on the vigor and human dynamics with which government mobilize and utilize the other tangible elements of power.

National morale is significantly influenced by national character and the cultural background of the individuals. For instance, the German character can be said to impart efficiency and thoroughness to the morale of German soldiers the Russian character provided doggedness and endurance to the morale of Russian soldiers while the American character gave inventiveness and resourcefulness to the morale of American soldiers. The morale of an advanced nation is likely to be higher than the morale of a background nation due to the difference of cultural background.

National morale is never permanent and static. It changes with time and conditions. Sometime, there comes a point when it breaks. Generation and maintenance of morale often depend upon technological advance, the development of the means of transport and communication, the flow of information and ideas and the exposure of the people to them and so on. It can also be stimulated by the techniques of propaganda and qualities of leadership.



3. National Character:

National character is the trait of people towards all the walks of national life. It is the outcome of evolutionary process and the attitude of the previous generations which is transmitted to the next generations. Each nation has a distinct character. It is also a product of a specific social environment. National character determine the attitude of a people to international trends and events, as well as the resolution with which they will back up foreign policy in peace or in war. The national character consist of intellectual and moral qualities of the people which leave their imprint on a nation’s foreign policy. Nicolson rightly observed national policy is colored and even governed by national character and I would say that unless we understand that character we cannot understand the policy.22

The people of a nation, thus, have some common traits and features with which the sociologists generally identify them. As we generally perceive Chinese in terms of cosmic unchangeability, of the Germans in terms of thoroughness and discipline of the Russians in terms of relentless persistence and tenacity, of the English in terms of undogmatic common sense of the Americans in terms of pragmatism and informality, of all Latins in terms of esthetic instinct and volatility and the Indians in terms of detachment on the verge of indifference.

The relationship between national morale and character is positive but at the same time ambiguous. Jointly, both of them demonstrate the national will to further the national cause in a particular situation or time. As an element of national power, national character is broader than morale. Their relationship can be summed up in the words of Palmer and Perkins: National character may be thought of as climate, morale as weather.23

4. Social System and Cohesiveness:

This social element is also unstable as well as intangible. If the society is integrated and coordinated then it will be capable of unified effort that will further consolidate its power. On the other hand if it is disintegrated and suffers from internal dissensions it will dilute nation’s power and prestige. Lerche rightly observes: “that social system is best for power purposes which is the most homogeneous and united behind the political leadership of the country and which embodies the minimum amount of stress and strain.”24 A society stricken with communal tension, rural urban tension, or with dissatisfied minorities, will have a low morale and will adversely affect the power status of the nation. Many scholars believe that internally unified nations are strong whereas divided ones are weak.

The reasons for disunity or unity can vary from ethnic, linguistic, racial, and religious diversity all the way to economic, political, ideological and foreign-inspired divisions. Some plausible indicators of disunity are terrorism, number of political prisoners, riots, demonstrations, paralyzing strikes, media censorship, insurgency, and even civil war.25 The most recent example of this factor is the Soviet Union which has been a victim of internal tensions, disunity and ethnic problem. All these factors have adversely affected its power position in the world. India too has been riddled with communal tensions, terrorism, casteism, riots, strikes, violence for the last many years. That stood in its way to become a powerful nation.

5. Accidents:

Sometimes accidents and unforeseen events also put spoke in the wheel of power. For instance, “the sudden death of a great leader, an earthquake, a famine, an epidemic of a dread disease such as the plague, a misunderstanding or a breakdown in communication during a crisis, and many other unforeseen events may deeply affect the power relationship of nation-states. Since accidents cannot be predicted in any other but aggregate statistical sense, they remain at the summit of the pyramid of intangibility.”26 African countries ravaged by drought and cyclone prone Bangladesh cannot think of becoming powerful.

External Elements:

Most of the political scientists have laid stress on different internal factors discussed above, ignoring external elements completely. These external factors are in no way less significant than the internal ones in determining a nation’s power. Couloumbis and Wolfe,27 Lerche and Said,28 have, however, discussed the same in their works.

1. Image and Reputation:

If a state has a favorable image, its voice would be heard at the international level. For example, India under Nehru had a good image albeit its backwardness and military weakness. It enjoyed a good prestige-owing to Gandhian heritage, policy of non-alignment and Nehru’s dynamic leadership. Both the super-powers tried to befriend it. Many third world countries sought its guidance on important international issues. After Nehru, there was some setback to this image.

Similarly reputation of a state also matters. If some state has the reputation of being a good fighter, the rival would think hundred times before attacking it. Reputation acts as a deterrent and enables a state to achieve some power position. In various wars Israel has subdued Arabs and won the reputation of a tough fighter. This reputation deters potential Arab invaders and is a strong diplomatic card for Israel vis-a-vis Arabs. Couloumbis and Wolfe rightly say, “Power, therefore, should be evaluated not only in terms of each country’s ability and willingness to use its capabilities when challenged, but also in terms of its reputation for action in response to previous challenges”.29

2. Foreign Support and Dependency:

Another element which is not being touched upon by scholars is foreign support and dependency. This factor comprises of international connections such as alliances, foreign economic and military aid, the leasing or granting of strategic bases to the great powers, and participation in regional and universal international organization and action. To overlook these aspects would leave us measuring the power of Syria and Israel, for example, without considering Soviet and American aid and commitments to these two countries. Too much support from outside render a country totally dependent. When this happens, the sovereignty and strategic flexibility of the dependent nation-state vis-a~vis its supporter become seriously limited in this way, foreign support and dependency remains a crucial, although intangible element.

3. International Strategic Position:

If the state apprehends great: and constant danger, it will naturally channelize its available power to defend its territory leaving a limited role tor the world sin to. Any revision in a state’s assessment of the dangers it faces automatically affects its power in other spheres. An estimation that the threat has diminished enables the state for more free action elsewhere if the threat is colossal, adequate responsive action requires contraction of activity at other points. Lerche and Said aptly remarked, ”In a familiar and paradoxical way, the very objectives a state selects for itself, and the way it interprets the situation in which it must operate, have a major influence on its capability to achieve those objectives and to function in the situation. A state’s international strategic position is to a large measure determined by itself a state is to a great extent the architect of its own capability.” 30

4. Intelligence:

Intelligence in this context implies complete knowledge of the strength and weakness of external foes and friends. Different nations employ various secret agencies and spies to obtain this knowledge. Sherman Kent explains, the idea is to produce “the kind of knowledge our states must possess regarding other states in order to assure itself that its cause will not suffer nor its undertakings fail because its statesmen and soldiers plan and act in ignorance.”31 This knowledge and information serves the purpose of power. Such an information can be useful both in times of war and peace. in war advance information about the strength and strategy of the enemy greatly helps to effectively deal with the eventuality. During peace time, prior knowledge about the other party’s plus and minus points enables a country to extract maximum benefit to itself on the bargaining table. Keeping in view the significance of this element different nations have their own network of intelligence agencies and spies such as USA’s CIA, USSR’s KGB and India’s RAW.



Measurement Of National Power:

Notional Power cannot be measured or weighed physically in terms of meters, liters, kilograms, tonnes etc. No measuring tape or balancing scale or barometer has since been invented to measure the power of one nation vis~a-vis another. The problem of measurement lies both in the subjective limitations of the analysis and in the very characteristics of the elements themselves. The subjectivity, values and prejudices of the analyst may distort the true picture of the national power. Besides the very nature of the elements is such as to make this measurement all the more difficult. Some of these elements are stable while others are unstable some are tangible (e.g: Geography, population, natural resources, industrial capacity, military strength) whereas others are intangible (such as national) morale, national character, social cohesiveness, intelligence, reputation etc. It has been admitted by the noted scholars of international relations such as Morgenthau, Palmer and Perkins, Hartmann, Organksld etc. that national power cannot be measured precisely owing to reasons mentioned below.

Relativity of Power:

An evaluator may ignore the relativity of power by erecting the power of one particular nation into an absolute. France after 1919 and Germany after 1936 were considered as absolute power, but subsequent history established the falsity of this Opinion. Power is never absolute. In international relations power is relative and essentially relational as it cannot be measured in a vacuum. A state is more or less powerful relative to some other state. Palmer and Perkins elaborate, “Fifty divisions, three hundred war vessels, two thousand planes all these may represent overwhelming might against one opponent and miserable inadequacy against another.”32 its relativity has been further increased by the development of nuclear energy and emergence of the power of the weak. in the contemporary world of nuclear deterrence, the national power is to be assessed not in terms of the capacity of first attack but in terms of the capacity of surviving retaliatory strength. The power of the weak is linked with the emergence of new nations that restrict the dominant nature of power and makes it further relative.33

Changing Nature of Power:

Morgenthau points out, The second typical error impairing the evaluation of national power singles out a particular power factor or power relation, basing the estimate upon the assumption that this factor or relation is immune to change.34 While evaluating power, one must bear in mind the changing nature of power. One cannot take for granted the permanency of a certain factor that has played a decisive role in the past, thus neglecting the dynamic change. The Soviet Union was treated as inherently powerless between 1917 and 1943, but the epic of Stalingrad repudiated this version. Similarly at the beginning of the First World War Britain was the mistress of the sea but at the close of the Second World War she was reduced to a second grade power, as the significance of sea war-fare had diminished.

Some geopoliticians have wrongly erected the element of geography into an absolute. Take the example of Heartland theory which is now exploded. Thus for many reasons, a nation’s political and economic status and power may change basically over a period of time. Rise and fall of nations is a common phenomenon in history.

Single Factor Determinism:

The third typical error according to Morgenthau, in measuring the national power is giving to one single factor a decisive role to the disregard of all other factors Sometimes an evaluation is made on the basis of geopolitics or nationalism or militarism.35 One should avoid any single factor determinism. No one factor is an absolute. One state may have a very good geographical features and other may have a strong military but is lacking in other elements. If the assessment of both these states are based on single factor i.e geography and military respectively then this assessment is going to be proved wrong and erroneous.



Moreover, all factors are not of equal importance. In the Opinion of Organski, national morale, resources and geography are of comparatively less importance than population, political structure and economic productivity. Simple possession or rich resources is not a major element in the absence of high rate of economic productivity. India can be cited an example of this. Similarly, with the development of nuclear weapons and inventions of different kinds of means of delivery geography’s importance has declined. Modernization of political Structure and industrialization can enhance power. By regular economic development, efficiency of government and by joining political alliances a nation can gain more power.

The Estimate and Reality of Power:

The gap between the estimate and reality of power also makes measurement difficult. The possibility of the underestimation or overestimation of one’s power and that of the opponent is always there. It is correct that a nation’s power relies not merely on its genuine ability to influence the behavior of other states but also on the estimation of its ability as also on the estimation of its power as made by other nations. For instance, during 1930 Italy was not so great as was generally estimated and French fear of Germany was based on overestimation. Thus, the underestimation or overestimation of one’s own self or of others reveals lack of an exact evaluation of power. Underestimation of one’s own power and overestimation of that of others result in policies of peace and status quo, while overestimation of one’s own power and underestimation of that of others pave the way for policies of war and change.

Actual and Potential Power:

While calculating power an observer must be aware of the actual and potential power of the states. The potential power of the state is the possibility it possesses of developing into a powerful state on the basis of natural resources, etc. Evaluation of potential power helps in chalking out long-term plans involving commitment of power. The actual power is power that a state really has. The measurement of this power is useful in forecasting short-term developments and in making immediate commitments of power.

If a state has adequate immediate power to press for an advantageous decision, it will do so, before the rival can mobilize his greater potential superiority. Germany did this twice. But in 1917 and 1941 she miscalculated the swiftness with which the USA could arm herself. It is evident that a state with lesser potential but which keeps a larger part of it in readiness all the time may prove effective and be able to supply greater pressure in a given situation, than a state with a larger potential but which it is reluctant or unable to utilize.

The organization and military elements are very significant in transforming a potential power into an actual power. Without proper organization and leadership and military equipment, the national power may not develop at all and express itself in any positive manner.

Specificity of Power:

The problem of a proper evaluation of power is intimately linked with the problem of the credibility of power. A threat which is not credible has no meaning in the game of power. But the problem of the credibility of power is further linked with the specificity of power. That is to say, that no particular type of power can be such that it can be applied in any form and in any condition. Even the huge stock of nuclear weapons will be meaningless deterrent if the rival thinks that these weapons will not be used, while less destructive weapons can be proved fearful for opponent if it considers that those weapons will be used against it. If all the above errors are sought to be avoided assiduously then national power cannot be measured exactly. At the best it remains a matter of conjecture.

Limitations On National Power:

Howsoever powerful a county may be and be in possess on of as many elements of power as possible, it ca of arbitrary and authoritative manner at int National power operates within certain Limitations. These act as restrictions on state action. The major limitations of national power are as follows:

International Morality:

Though many thinkers likes Machiavelli and Hobbes deny the existence of international morality, yet many others, accept the existence of international morality. Men do profess to follow certain moral rules whether they act as individuals or as statesmen and seldom make any distinction at least in principle about the nature of these binding rules. But in reality they do draw such distinction. For example, when they Work as statesmen they do claim exemption for certain acts on ground of necessity which they would never justify in their private capacity. Therefore, in fact, there exists a contradiction between moral command and the requirement of successful action.

Meaning. International morality or ethics is the combination of the standards, norms and values which nation states and international organizations think they should observe in their relations with each other. These norms or values may originate from desires and attitudes, from social customs and traditions they are regularly influenced by the developments in the sphere of science and technology. One of the most crucial and clearly understood item in this code is the obligation not to harm others or-inflict unnecessary suffering on other human beings except for some higher objective which is held, rightly or wrongly, to justify a derogation from this general obligation.37

Operation of International Morality:

Had the struggle for power taken independent course it would have converted the world into the Hobbesian state of war and might would have been the right In practice, moral norms operate in the civilized world and in their presence power struggle cannot go unbridled. To preserve society, in the words of Morgenthau, certain moral precepts have been put forward which the statesmen and diplomats ought of take to heart in order to make relations between nations more peaceful and less anarchic, such as the keeping of promises, trust in other words, fair dealing, respect for international law, protection of minorities, repudiation of war as an instrument of national policy.38



Morgenthau further Explains the ways through which international morality operates to protect human life and to check the occurrence of war. First, international morality protects human life in peace by renouncing the policy of assassination of the leaders of the opponent countries, technique of giving poison, treachery, etc. Such policies may be still desirable and possible but morally these are rebuked and difficult to execute. “Moral limitations of the same kind protect in times of peace the lives not only of outstanding individuals but also of large groups, even of whole nations whose destruction would be both politically desirable and feasible.”39

Second, similar moral limitations Operate in times of war. They protect civilians and those combatants who are unable or unwilling to fight. Both statesmen and army leaders admit that, as only the armed forces participate in combat activities, it is undesirable to make civilian population major target of their attack If the army commanders isolate this moral principle of not attacking civilian population unnecessarily or beyond reasonable limits and indulge in ruthless civilian killings, they have to face a condemnation at home and abroad. Similarly morality prohibits that those who were no longer engaged in actual warfare because of sickness, wounds, disability, or because they have become prisoners of war should not be harmed. Such a humanitarian approach towards the prisoners of war and disabled soldiers was developed during the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries in Europe and culminated in adopting a certain treaties in this respect by many states in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries.

The Geneva Convention of 1864, 1906, 1929 and 1949 as well as the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 laid down certain specific conditions regarding the treatment of the sick and wounded soldiers by the other side. Third and final, there is moral condemnation of war in the present century. War as an instrument of foreign policy has been repudiated on moral grounds and all nations are keen to avoid it as far as possible. The eschewing of war itself has become an aim of statecraft only in the last half century. The two Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, the League of Nations of 1919, the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928, the League of Nations, and the United Nations in the present times all have the avoidance of war itself as their final goal.

After Second World War also many powerful states avoided war even at the huge cost of their political and military advantage. The desire to eschew war outweighed all other considerations of national policy. The attempts of all the great powers to confine the Korean War to the Korean peninsula and thus prevent it from developing into a third world war and the self-restraint practiced by all of them during many international crises (e.g Cuba, Suez, Kuwait etc) since the end of Second World War are striking example of a basic change in the attitude toward war Morgenthau sums up “Thus, while the moral limitations upon killing in times of peace remain intact, the moral limitations upon killing in war have proved to be largely ineffective.”40



Sanctions:

Moral precepts act as restraint Owing to the following reasons or sanctions as explained by Frankel. The first is found in the sanctions imposed for violating the internationally accepted moral standards of conduct which is in social disapproval. All countries, however powerful, are sensitive to the dangers of losing the reputation and prestige of acting morally. All countries are expected to abide by the generally accepted standards of conduct, and are fully aware of the disrepute arising if they are not obeyed.

Since all political actions come under public scrutiny and is nearly always morally evaluated, the moral principles frequently professed as veil for selfish national policy assume a momentum of their own in order to avoid the unwelcome reputation of hypocrisy and duplicity, however insincere they may have been in their protestations, statesmen usually find it more convenient to obey the professed norms than to violate them. In other words, domestic as well as world public opinion compel leaders to follow certain ethical standards in their international dealings.

The Second sanction behind restraint can be found in the moral sentiments and consciences of the statesmen or ruling elites I themselves. Both Great Britain and the United States in the nineteenth century enjoyed an unequaled moral opportunity by being exceptionally secure moreover, international moral rules closely approximated their domestic moral codes internalized by their statesmen. These statesmen preferred to act morally rather than otherwise, unless, of course, a really vital national interest appeared to be at stake. Similarly, although to a lesser extent, it can be said about statesmen in other times and places.

Finally, moral restraint operates much more effectively in the relations among friends and allies than among rivals and enemies. This can be explained by the principle of reciprocity good behavior which is expected to be reciprocated is not only good in moral terms but is also beneficial to all concerned.41

Thus international morality limits the use of power a country possesses to achieve the desired goals. States do not pursue certain ends and use certain means because of moral limitations. But as Frankel says, “Even an extreme idealist would not assert that moral restraints actually prevail over what states consider to be their vital interest.”42

World Public Opinion:

The nations policies or activities directed to the pursuit of their objectives can be influenced, modified, or even halted under the pressure of world public opinion. No nation can generally dare to use the power at its disposal to achieve selfish ends in violation of the world public Opinion. But as a concept it is more elusive and lacks analytical precision.

World public opinion was considered to be the force behind the League of Nations. International law, the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the Briand-Kelloge Pact etc. were to be executed through world public opinion. The great weapon we rely upon is world public opinion and if we are wrong about it, then the whole thing is wrong, 43 declared Lord Robert Cecil in the House of Commons on July, 21,1919. Before the beginning of the Second World War, Cordell Hull then American Secretary of State said that “a public opinion the most potent of all forces of peace, is mo strongly developing throughout the world.44 The United Nations is an important instrument of the world public Opinion and vice versa. The General Assembly of the United Nations is decorated to be the Open conscience of the world. “45

Meaning:



In order to understand world public opinion we will first de fine the term public opinion. According to Bryce, “This term is commonly used to denote the aggregate of the views men held regarding matters that affect or interest the community Thus understood, it is a congeries of all sorts of discrepant lotions, beliefs, fancies, prejudices, aspirations.”46 On the other hand, Lowell defines it by saying that, “Public opinion tot re worthy of the name, to be the proper motive force in democracy, must be really public. A majority is not enough and humanity is not required, but the opinion must be such that, while the minority may not share it, they feel bound, by conviction and not by fear to accept it and if democracy is complete, the submission of the minority must be given unstintingly.”47

In the words of Morgenthau, “World public opinion is obviously a public opinion that transcends national boundaries and that unites members of different nations in a consensus with regard to artiest certain fundamental international issues. This consensus makes itself felt in spontaneous reactions throughout the world against whatever move on the chessboard of international politics is disapproved by that consensus.”48 Whenever a state acts against the mankind or do a wrong thing, humanity will react, regardless of national affiliations, and at least try to mend it through spontaneous sanctions upon the erring state. In this way, international society will either compel it to abide by its standard or shut it out from society for its erring behavior.

Existence and Operation:

Whether world public opinion really does exist and operate or not, there are two different views on it. One is negative and emphatically denies its exist. The other positive one admits its existence and effectiveness. Notwithstanding the existence of world public Opinion, it could not operate as restraint in the following instances, according to the negative viewpoint supported by Morgenthau. These instances are the Japanese aggression’s against China in the thirties, the German foreign policies since 1935, the Italian attack against Ethopia in 1936, the Russian suppression of the Hungarian revolution in 1956, Czechoslovakian revolution in 1968 and intervention in Afghanistan in 1980,China’s annexation of Tibet in 1959, Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990 etc.

Morgenthau has made mention of some developments which give rise to a myth regarding the existence of world public Opinion whereas in fact there is no such thing. First is the psychological unity of the world. Today, all human beings want to have security, liberty, freedom, peace and order.

These are Some of the minimum set of standards, which all human beings seek. Morgenthau remarks, “Any violation Of the standards of this world public opinion, against and by whomever committed, would call forth spontaneous reactions on the part of humanity for in view Of the hypothetical similarity of all conditions, all men would fear that what happens to one group might happen to any group.”49 But in actual life these set standards have different meanings in different environments and countries.

Peace, liberty, justice, democracy etc. are interpreted differently by different nations. An action condemned by one group as immoral and unjust is appreciated by another as the opposite. Thus Morgenthau observes, “the contrast between the community of psychological traits and elemental aspirations, on the one hand, and the absence of shared experiences, universal moral convictions, and common political aspirations, on the other, far from providing evidence for the existence of a world public opinion, rather demonstrates its impossibility, as humanity is constituted in our age.”50

Second, in the modern age, the technological unification of the world has also created an impression of world public Opinion, if it has not actually created it. A world public Opinion tends to develop because Of the extension of the radius and rapidity of communication by inventions in ocean, land and air transportation and in the press, postal service. telecommunication and satellite communication system.

Quincy Wright observes, that animals are guided mainly by instinct primitive man by custom civilized man by conscience and modern man, in the age of abundant communication by public opinion. With more and more means of international , communication between governments and between people, a world public opinion tends to develop and influence government actions.51 But Morgenthau points out that even if we lived in a world actually unified by modern technology with men, news, and ideas moving freely regardless of national boundaries, we would not have a world public opinion.52

Third is the barrier of nationalism and national bias. The particular nationalism, molds and directs the minds of men, that infused their particular meanings into the good words of democracy, freedom, security and peace paints them with their particular color and makes them symbols of their particular aspirations. In such a situation how world public opinion can exist and Operate effectively. It is often noticed that the same issue agitates public mind in many countries but public opinion formed about them in different countries is not the same. It is mainly due to the national bias of different peoples. For example, public opinion in various capitals on lndo-Pak war in 1971 was not similar. The US and China supported Pakistan whereas the USSR was with India.

But at times on some burning issue different countries of the world express similar public opinion in one voice albeit national bias and national conditioning. One such example is of Vietnamese War when large scale destruction of life and property by US involvement aroused strong public opinion against the US and ultimately she had to retreat from Vietnam. These two examples of the Indo-Pak war and the Vietnam war reveal the ambiguity and the complexity of world public opinion in certain circumstances as well as its uniformity in many other ”situations”.

If the issue is very serious and the attitude of a particular power is clearly unjust and provocative, it does arouse world public opinion in favor of the victims and influences foreign policies in various capitals to some extent. Despite the national bias, it would be incorrect to deny its existence altogether like Morgenthau. It has played a crucial role in shaping policies in the countries where the press and other organs of mass media are free compared to those countries where they are government controlled. After the introduction of Glasnost (openness) Soviet Union’s foreign policy has witnessed a notable change.

International Law:

International morality and world public opinion have been discussed in detail as above. The other limitations on national power such as international law, balance of power, international organizations and disarmament are being touched upon here briefly.

International laws are rules that regulate the conduct of nations at international level. Most nations endeavor to be known in the eyes of the world as law-abiding nations and in achieving this goal they accept the obligations of limitation entailed by international law. If each nation uses its power in unlimited ways against her rivals, the world society would perish. There would be no peace or stability. It would be perpetual state of war. To avoid this a code of conduct in the nature of international law is essential to limit the national power. Strictly speaking, international law is not a true law as it suffers from many shortcoming such as the absence of a common law making, law enforcing or law adjudicating body. Its execution is dependent upon the will and convenience of the states. The execution of these laws by consent or use of external force restricts the scope of use of national power by any state.

The Balance of Power:

The balance of power implies containing power with power. Like checks and balances in domestic politics, in the Sphere of international politics also the power of one nation or a group of nations is used to prevent a particular nation from imposing its will upon others. When a state has preponderance of power it must be balanced or checked by the combined power of other states. The common patterns of balance of power are direct opposition to the other state with a view to preserving status quo. In the second one, two nations compete with each other to establish control over the third nation. The other common methods used to maintain the balance of power are divide and rule, compensation and acquisitions, armaments and intervention, alliances and counter alliances and buffer state formation.

International Organizations:

The coming into existence of international organizations like the League of Nations and the United Nations has also kept the power of the states within limits. At present, the member states are expected to act in accordance with the principles enshrined in UN Charter. It is correct that the United Nations cannot intervene in the internal affairs of any state except when they pose a threat to the peace, but it certainly acts as a check on the unfair and unlimited use of power by the states and hence is a limitation on power. Chapter VII of the UN Charter incorporates the theory of collective security which also has a deterrent effect on the power ambitions of the states. Since its formation, UN has done remarkable work not only in preserving peace but also in limiting the ambitions of the super powers.

Disarmament:

Disarmament efforts in and outside the UN have also restricted the national power. The steps towards disarmament have acquired much significance in our times. An effort has been made through several agreements, treaties and conventions to control the use of nuclear and conventional weapons that have the potentialities to destroy the entire world. To some extent this also helps in the reduction of power.

REFERENCES

I. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Pace (Calcutta, 1973, 5th edn. Indian ), pp. Ii-149.

2. AFK. Organski, World Politics (New York, 1958), p. 117.

3. EH. Carr, Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1939 (London, 1949), p. 109.



4. Elements of National Power Mahendra Kumar, T (Agra, 1972. 2nd ed)

5. Norman D Palmer & Howard C. Perkins, International Relations The Commonalty in transition (Calcutta, 1970, 3rd edn., Indian),

6. Charles O.Lerche jr: Abdul A sad,Concepts International POW New Dell 4, 1972, 2nd edn , Indian),pp.67-68.

7. Theodore A Couloumbis James H. Wolfe, Introduction to International relations Power and justice (New Delhi, 1986, 3rd exit 2. ad Indian Reprint), pp 95-103.

8. Adi H . Doctor, International Relations An introduction/ Study (Delh: 1969), p p. 24-54.

9. Anarr Jaitly, International Politics Major Contemporary Trends and Issues (Ne w Delhi, 1984). p. 86.

10. Lerclce and 5, id, 1. 6, p.

11. Ibid., p. 70.



12. Supra n. 7, p . 99,

13. Ruddar Dut and K.P.M. Sundaram, Indian Economy (New Delhi, 1977), p. 80 .

14. Supra n. 7, p.101.

15. Supra n. 1 , p. 141.

16. Richard C l. Snyder and H. Hubert Wilson, Roots of Behavior (New York, 1949), p. 511.

17. Palmer 2nd Perkins, n. 5, p. 75.

18. Supran . 6, p. 74.

19. Supran. 1. p. 135.

20. Sapran. 5, p. 76.

21. Supra. n.4, p. 185.

22. Harold Nicolson, National Character and National Policy, excerpts in F .H. Hartmann, ed., Readings in International Relations (New York, 1952), p. 48.

23. Supra n. 5, p. 78.

24. Charles o. Lerche, Principles of lntemational Politics (New York, 1956), p. 85.

25. Coulombs and Wolfe, n. 7, p. 102.



26. Ibid. p.103.

27. Supran. 7.

28. Supran. 6.

29. Supran. 7, 102-103.

30. Supran. 6, p. 75.

31. Sherman Kent, Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy (Princeton, 1949), p. 3.

32. Supra n. 5, p. 80.

33. Mahendra Kumar. n. 4, p. 192.

34. Supran. 1, p. 156.

35. Supran. 1. p. 158-64.

36. Supran. 2, p. 216.

37. Addi. H. Doctor 11. 3, p. 76.

38. Supran. 1, p. 230.

39. Ibid, p. 232.

40. Ibid., p. 241.



41. Joseph Frankel, International Politics: Conflict and harmony (London, 1969), pp. 186-33.

42.IBd, p. 187.

43. The Parliamentary Debates :Official Report. Fifth Series, V03. 1 1: House of Commons, 9. 992.

44. New York Times, April 18, 1939, p. 2.

45. Leland M. Goodrich and Edward Hambro, Charter of the United Nations (Boston, 1949), p. 151.

46. Bryce, Modern Democracies, Vol. 1, p. 173.

47. AL. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government New York, 1914), p. 14-15.

48. Supran. 1, p. 258.

49. Ibid, p. 259

50. Ibid, p. 260.



51. Quoted by Narinder Mehta in Theory and Practice of International Politics (Jullundur, 1971, 2nd edn) p. 156.

52. Supran. I, p. 262.