The Dynamics of National Power

 

DYNAMICS OF NATIONAL POWER

 

Borrowed Power can be explained within the context and broad concept of power. Organsky (1968) defines power as “the ability to influence the behavior of others in accordance with one’s own ends”. At the national level, this influence is based on relations between the nations. According to Jablonsky (1997) national power has two main attributes – national and social. Geography, resources, and population constitute the national attribute whereas economy, politics, military strength, psychological, and informational factors form part of social attribute. Jablonsky maintains that whereas national power is a complex concept which cannot be accurately quantified, it nevertheless remains the key factor in developing a national security strategy. The relevance and importance of the constituents of national power depend upon the situation. Notwithstanding the complexity of national power and the various contradictions involved, we have to create conceptual models to see patterns through random data. This is because our brains are used to taking messy and incomplete inputs and turning them into something comprehensible. Various models have thus been evolved to explain national power. Significant among these are the following: - 

National Power Index (NPI)

 

Evolved by the National Power Project team, NPI scores are the product of an index combining the weighted factors of GDP, defence spending, population and technology. Scores calculated are expressed as a state’s relative share (percentage) of all global power. The forecast of these values for any country and some regional groupings can be produced up to 2060. 

Source: www.nationalpowerinfo.com.

 

Comprehensive National Power (CNP)

It is an original Chinese political concept about the national power of a state. It reflects the contemporary political thought of the Peoples Republic of China. CNP can be calculated numerically by combining various quantitative indices to create a single number held to measure the power of a nation-state. These indices take into account both military factors (known as hard power) and economic and cultural factors (known as soft power). Being a China –centric model, it aims at preventing China from repeating the mistakes of the erstwhile Soviet Union in over emphasizing military power at the expense of economy (Pillsbury, 2000; Singh, Gera & Dewan, 2013)).

Whereas no country is absolutely weak, there also is no omnipotent power on the planet (Handel, 1990). In the power calculus every relatively strong power has its Achilles heel which if accurately identified by the weaker power, and exploited at the right time, can neutralize the power advantage enjoyed by the strong power. The instruments used to exploit the Achilles heel may be diplomacy, watchful waiting, and even war, in that order. 

Thailand and Finland used diplomacy to defend their independence - Thailand from Britain and France, and Finland from Russia (particularly during the eras of Peter the Great and Stalin, and after WWII). After its defeat in the 1962 Sino- Indian border war, India under Nehru adopted a strategy of leaning on the erstwhile Soviet Union to build up its economy and military power. While it kept the territorial dispute alive through political rhetoric and an occasional mild standoff along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).  India continued to avoid, as much as possible, a future armed conflict with China. In yet another balancing act after the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union’s demise, India aligned itself with the US.

Algeria and Vietnam waged bloody and protracted armed struggles to win their independence from France (in the case of Algeria), and France and the United States (in the case of Vietnam). But such diplomacy requires lots of patience, willingness to sacrifice lives, and in the process sacrificing entire generations.

For the last more than half a century, the Afghan people have been fighting for their freedom. During their struggle, they confronted and defeated two superpowers - the Soviet Union and the US. However, their      struggle remained inconclusive, mainly because of infighting and the absence of unity of command.

Borrowed Power

Theoretically, if the relatively strong country’s aggregate national power is ‘x’, and the weaker country’s aggregate national power is ‘y’, then their power differential will be ‘x-y’. This will be the quantum of the additional power required by the weaker country to offset the superiority of the stronger of the two. This borrowed power will come from a third country, if that country is willing to lend it to the weaker country. This implies that the power lender also needs to trade off its power with the weaker state to achieve its objectives. Borrowed Power will be available to the borrowing country partly in tangible form and partly as an underwriting by the lender. There is a limit to the effectiveness of the borrowed power. It can help the client state in seeking a parity of sorts with a stronger power through formal and informal alliances. According to Handel (1990):

‘Weak states must learn to draw on or borrow the strength of other states….. they will try to manipulate or commit, if they can, the strength of other states (mostly great powers) in order to secure their own interests. There are two major ways in which the weak states can recruit the support of other countries. They may either enter into a formal alliance with other states, or they may reach an informal, though not necessarily less helpful, understanding with partners sharing common interests.

Manipulation of borrowed power by a weak power for the resolution of its dispute(s) with a stronger power can be likened to the “gravity assist maneuver” which, in orbital mechanics and aerospace engineering, is the use of relative movement and gravity of a planet, or any other heavenly object, to accelerate a spacecraft for saving propellant, time, and expense.

However, no country will lend its power to a client state for fighting the latter’s wars. During the Korean War America and China directly intervened in favour of their proxies - South Korea and North Korea respectively. China did not send its forces to fight in the Korean Peninsula because of any bonhomie for the North Korean despot Kim Il Sung. It did so for its own sake. At that time the communists were still consolidating their hold on mainland China and, with Nationalist China still a permanent member of the Security Council and strongly backed by the United States, feared a comeback by Chiang Kai Shek. Hence, by sending their forces in the Korean peninsula the Chinese communists were essentially fighting for their own survival.

As for the United States, starting from WW1 when did it miss a chance to militarily interfere in foreign lands and reshape the world in its own image? But unlike its support for Israel the American intervention in the Korean Peninsula was purely to pursue America’s global interests.

There is an exception in Israel’s case. Israel has been a constant borrower of American power. It can be said with 100% certainty that America will militarily intervene if there is an existential threat to Israel. During the 1973 Arab-Israel War, there came a stage when the military situation became so precarious for Israel that the defence minister Moshe Dayan advised his military commanders to withdraw from the Suez Canal and take up new defensive positions along the line of Mitla and Gidi Passes. That was the time when Moshe Dayan made his famous remark “this is the end of the Third Temple” and told his prime minister “Golda, I was wrong in everything. We are heading towards a catastrophe. We shall have to withdraw on the Golan Heights to the edge of the escarpment overlooking the(Jordan, sic) valley and in the south in Sinai to the passes and hold on to the last bullet” (Herzog, 1975). It was then that the United States started a massive airlift to replenish the Israeli equipment losses by even bleeding the American units of their equipment. It was also the time when Israeli leaders seriously considered using the nuclear option (Ginzberg, 2013). Had the Israeli army not restored the situation on the ground, America would definitely have landed its marines in the Middle East.

During the Israel – Hamas War in 2023, The US stated that Israel would receive "whatever it needs" to support a counteroffensive against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. It also promised more military aid to Israel. President Biden announced that he had asked Congress for $14 billion in additional aid. In addition to the Sixth Fleet which is permanently deployed in the Mediterranean as part of the US Naval Forces Europe-Africa. Within hours of the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israeli settlements along the Israel-Gaza border, the U.S. began moving warships and aircraft to the region to be ready to provide Israel with whatever it needed to respond.

Despite so much assurance of American help, Israel steals critical technologies from the United States (and elsewhere) while the latter looks the other way (Ostrovsky, 1994). In the past Israel stole Mirage aircraft blueprints from Switzerland while the latter feigned ignorance. Israel has sold its airborne early warning radar system (based on US technology) to both China (surreptitiously) and India (with U.S. blessings). China’s J-10 fighter aircraft is based on Israel’s Lavi technology demonstrator which borrowed heavily from US technological know - how.

When Vietnam fought against France and then the United States, it borrowed power from the Soviet Union and China in the form of moral and material help, but the actual fighting was done by the Viet Cong. That Vietnam defeated the United States shows no matter how large the power differential, a weak country can defeat a global power provided it is prepared to pay the price. To secure its independence, Vietnam had to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives and suffer enormous losses to its economic and communications infrastructure from which it has not recovered even four decades after the end of the war.

In February 1979 China fought a border war with Vietnam in what is known as the Third Indochina War. China attacked to draw Vietnamese forces away from Cambodia, which was occupied by Vietnam in 1978 by toppling China’s ally, the Khmer Rouche. With fighting taking place mainly in the border provinces, the PLA advanced about 15-20 kilometers into Vietnam. The Vietnamese, after a tip – off from Soviet satellite intelligence, fought back mainly with their militias, avoiding direct combat, and held back some 300,000 regular troops for the defence of Hanoi. Once the Chinese saw through the game, they announced its punitive mission had been accomplished and carried out a unilateral withdrawal. Afterwards both the sides declared victory.

In this war, Vietnam borrowed power from the Soviet Union in the form of intelligence information and material support and, using an indirect approach, thwarted China’s strategic aim of getting Vietnamese forces out of Cambodia. Later, China, also using an indirect approach mobilized international opinion against Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia and improved its relations with ASEAN by promising protection to Thailand and Singapore against any future aggression by Vietnam. The dispute was finally resolved in 1989 when the Vietnamese agreed to fully withdraw from Cambodia.

During the Cold War period Pakistan borrowed power from the United States to seek parity with India, while India borrowed power from the Soviet Union (and also the United States) to seek parity with China. Pakistan sold its sovereignty cheap whereas the Indian leadership displayed better marketing skills through the enigmatic marketing tool of non-alignment. Pakistan’s membership of the American sponsored military pacts is well known. That India was also aligned during the Cold War period is generally ignored. During the 1962 Sino-Indian War, Nehru requested the United States to bomb China (Galbraith, 1969). China’s unilateral ceasefire was not an act of magnanimity. It feared direct American intervention in the Sino-Indian conflict. Again, the United States was not supporting India because of any moral reason.

After WW II, Britain and the United States had wanted a united India to counter the Soviet Union –the nascent superpower. They accepted partition reluctantly as the law-and-order situation in the Subcontinent was gradually getting out of Britain’s control. After partition of the Subcontinent, for a brief period the United States still hoped that India and Nationalist China would form the Asian pivot of America’s global reach (China was governed by the nationalists till 1949, when toppled by the communists). However, only when China was “lost to the Free World” - and it became clear that India under Nehru was intent upon its own empire building under the concept of non-alignment, was Pakistan brought into the matrix of American security and offered military and economic assistance. The 1962 Sino- Indian War provided the United States an opportunity to increase American influence over India without coercing the latter into a formal and declared pact. This, to some extent, also explains America’s totally indifferent stance towards Pakistan during the 65 and 71wars.

In 1971, India, through the Indo-Soviet Treaty, borrowed Soviet power to 1) make certain the dismemberment of Pakistan and 2) prevent China from coming to Pakistan’s help. Soviet Union directly contributed in the Indian war effort by: 1) arming India with enough military hardware for waging the war by providing it, besides other equipment, enough MiG-21 fighter aircraft in advance to replace the expected war wastage; 2) sending its military transport aircraft to airlift Indian troops and military equipment from the western theatre to the eastern theatre and, after the fall of Dhaka, vice versa ; 3) providing India satellite photos of Pakistani troop movements; 4) there is a likelihood that PNS Khyber was sunk off the coast of Karachi by a Soviet submarine.

A Proposed Conceptual Framework

The author suggests a conceptual framework which is simple and makes it easier calculate National Power - the power to wield influence within and without. The determinants of national power in the proposed model are: 1) Economic Power; 2) Ranking in Science & Technology; and 3) Military Power. Internal Stability, the fourth factor in National Power, is a moderating variable – it partially modifies the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable, i.e. National Power.

Internal Stability

Internal stability plays a important role in national power dynamics and can be determined by the Fragile States Index List. Like GnDP, the list only assesses sovereign states (as determined by membership in the United Nations). Several territories are excluded until their political status and UN membership is ratified in international law. Ranking is based on the total scores of the 12 indicators. A fragile state has several attributes. Common indicators include a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations and sharp economic decline. Fragile States Index has eleven levels of state security, the highest being Very High Alert (VHA). The levels keep changing every year. For calculating the level of national power these security levels are reversed, i.e., very Sustainable (VS) becomes level 1.

 It is evident that a country’s internal stability is inversely proportional to its level of fragility.U.S possesses political stability through well established and pluralistic state institutions (A “Very Stable” country, according to the Fragile States Index). Indian internal stability is deeply impacted by its grinding poverty and separatist movements in its various states. On the other hand, China ‘s political stability is becoming increasingly vulnerable due to 1) centrifugal tendencies, and 2) opening up of Chinese society due to exposure to the application of information technology etc.

To address this problem, China is fine tuning an already practiced pattern of governance, which suits authoritarian states and provides them with an alternative of sorts to democracy. This pattern is also being practiced in varying forms by Malaysia, Singapore, the Gulf states, and Iran. The author has coined the term “Corporate Governance” for this pattern. It transforms the state into a huge corporate entity where the government is reduced to the status of an oversized board of directors and the population becomes state employees. The system has all the trappings of democracy - legislature, judiciary, and executive. These institutions make all the right noises, but the real power rests with the board of directors (ruling parties in the case of Malaysia and Singapore, the communist party in the case of China, royal families in the Gulf states, and the watchdog institution of clerics, in Iran’s case). Looks like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with the difference that it is already being practiced. More on Iran. The real power in Iran rests with the Wilayat-e-Faqih and the Pasdaran or IRGC. The doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih forms the central axis of contemporary Shi’a political thought. It advocates a guardianship-based political system, which relies upon a just and capable jurist (faqih) to assume the leadership of the government in the absence of an infallible Imam.

The concept of corporate governance can be likened to a refined form of Mussolini’s Corporate State. To put the Italian economy on a fast track and save time on pointless strikes, the Duce had experimented with a system of mixed economy by creating corporations controlled by the state. Within the system, companies were privately owned, allowing for competition. Had it not been for WW2, Mussolini would be remembered as a great Italian reformer. Corporate governance differs from communism and the classical dictatorships in that it is relatively benign and the populace gets a fair share of the national wealth. In this system, human rights are regulated by the state to the extent where they do not clash with the interests of the ruling elite. Cynics believe that western democracy is also a sophisticated version of corporate governance.

Economic Power

A country’s economy, as reflected by its GDP, is the most important determinant of its national power. Presently, the United States is the world’s strongest nation because it has the largest economy with a US$ 26.94 trillion GDP (Nominal) in 2023. U.S. economy propels     its military strength. Together; these two factors play a major role in the projection of American power globally. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States emerged as an unchallenged hyper power. However, its national power is gradually slipping down, not actually declining, relative to the    increase in the national power of the emerging nodes in a multi-polar world.

With a US$ 17.70(Nominal) trillion economy in 2023, China, after the United States, ranks second in the global economic power. In governance, present day Peoples Republic can be compared with Taiwan under the Kuomintang. Deng Xiaoping had once remarked   he was not sure if China would follow communism in the distant future. We should not forget that the much talked about Sino-Soviet rift concerning socialist ideology, during the Cold War period, was essentially a struggle for their respective national interests behind the façade of communism.

China, as envisioned by Deng, has chosen to follow a path which will eventually lead to greater freedom and economic prosperity. For the present, it is wary of granting more liberties to its people because of the Glasnost syndrome- it fears that granting civil rights to its people like the erstwhile Soviet Union will open a Pandora’s Box where the resultant    chaos will be fully exploited by the United States. Fragmentation of China, by at least separating Tibet and Manchuria from the mainland is what the western powers are working for. So, in China’s case, Perestroika should precede Glasnost.

India is an aspirant for regional power status and sees itself as a competitor to China. With a US$ 3.73 trillion GDP (nominal) in 2023, India is the world’s 5th largest economy. However, India’s GDP to population ratio is very low, which indicates that most of its economic power is consumed in providing basic facilities to its population. The bulk of what remains caters for maintaining a large military establishment. Nonetheless, with the passage of time, Indian global reach and coercive power will also increase relative to the increase in China’s power. This is so because the US and the European Union are propping up India against China.

National space programmes are the symbols of geopolitical aristocracy. After China failed in its attempt to send a spacecraft to Mars. In 2011, Fobos-Grunt was an attempted Russian sample-return mission to Phobos, one of the moons of Mars. Fobos-Grunt also carried the Chinese Mars orbiter Yinghuo-1. Due to a malfunction, the spacecraft got stuck in Earth’s orbit and eventually fell back to Earth. the United States, to score a point on China, helped India in putting a satellite in Mars’ orbit. The Indian space mission utilized NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN), situated in Spain, California, and Australia, during its journey to the Red Planet. The NASA assets provided additional support during the Indian network’s “non- visible period.” America’s MAVEN Mars orbiter, which was launched two weeks after India’s Mangalyaan, overtook the latter during the last leg of the journey and acted as a pathfinder for the Indian spacecraft. China’s first Mars mission landed on the Red Planet in May 2021, six years after India was able to put Mangalyaan into Mars’ orbit (it didn’t have a lander though). In August 2023 India achieved what only the US, the USSR and China had done before and successfully landed a lunar probe on the moon In due course, the world will also know about the extent to which the US helped India in landing its recent Lunar mission – Chandrayaan, on the moon's surface.

Western powers justify their post-Cold War cozying up to India to their shared “moral values”. They consider India a benign, and somewhat persecuted country which is pitted against an expansionist, brutal, and totalitarian China. While doing so, they ignore that during the Cold War period, India, in spite of its professed non- alignment, had been a close friend and supporter of the Soviet Union, another expansionist and brutal power of the era. India had fully supported the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when almost the entire world was against it.

Russia is a quasi- democracy governed by the former communist party bosses. With a US$1.86 trillion GDP (Nominal) at the end of 2023, it is the world’s 11^th largest economic power. Russian economy is shrinking. In 2022, Russian GDP was US$ 2.24 trillion, ranking it 8^th among the world’s largest economies. The shrinking of Russian economy, from 8^th the 11^th position, has resulted mainly due to the Russia- Ukraine War. 

Military Power

After the economy, aggregate national power of a country is shaped by its military strength, as indicated in America’s case which is militarily the world’s most powerful country. Military Power can be measured through Global Firepower (GFP) ranking, which is based on a formula utilizing over fifty different factors, compiled and measured against each nation. The finalized GFP value is recognized as the “Power Index” (pwrindx) which supplies a nation it's respective positioning in the rankings. Power Index scores are judged on the perfect value of “0.0000” which is realistically unattainable due to the number of factors considered per country. Bonuses and penalties are added to each nation, as needed. Nuclear power is not counted. According to Handel (1990):

‘The possibility of weak states acquiring nuclear weapons as the great equalizer does not diminish the power gap between the weak and the powerful. ….. Acquisition of nuclear weapons is considered by weak states only vis-a-vis other weak states, and as a bargaining counter in relation to the great powers.’

Presently, the United States is militarily the most powerful country in the world in 2023 (pwrindx: 0.0712), followed by Russia (pwrindx: 0.1714). Russia remains the second most powerful country globally, and  single most powerful military force in Europe even though its national power has been greatly reduced since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The key to Russia’s military power is its nuclear arsenal (though the Firepower Index precludes nuclear power), which is rivaled only by the United States. Ranked 59^th in scientific research, Russia is one of those European powers that have the ability to develop their own weapons platforms, which closely match in quality, those of the United States and the European Union countries. China (pwrindx: 0.0722), and India (pwrindx: 0.1025) rank 3^rd and 4^th respectively in global military power.

Ranking in Science & Technology

Economy and military power are catapulted by a country’s ranking in science and technology which can be effectively quantified through H-index which attempts to measure both the productivity and citation of the published body of a scientist scholar. The index is based on the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that the individual has received in other publications. The index can also be applied to the productivity and impact of a scholarly journal as well as a group of scientists, such as a department or university, or country. Those aspects of a country’s ranking in the realm of science and technology, not captured by H-index, have been highlighted and analyzed separately.

With H-index value of 2880 according to SJR (Scimago Journal and Country Rank -1966 to 2022) presently, and in the foreseeable future, the U.S. will continue to possess the highest level of political and military clout on the planet because it has the world’s best universities and scientific research institutions. Massachusetts (US), with an H-index of score of 896.41, ranks 1^st in the world in scientific research.   US has a work ethic and intellectual culture not matched elsewhere in the world. Those forecasting that in the foreseeable future China and India will over shadow the U.S. should remember that the brain drain is taking place from China and India, and the rest of the world, to the United States, not vice versa. Even in the 22^nd Century, China and India may not emerge as leaders in science and technology but remain as America’s auxiliary seats of learning because of the Chinese and Indian Diaspora working in American science and technology institutions.

 Scimago Journal ranks China 2nd  in scientific research (H Index: 1210). The Chinese are rapidly catching up with scientifically more advanced countries. During the1980s, in retaliation to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the western powers joined China in an informal alliance. For China it was an opportunity to modernize its armed forces and economy, and improve the level of its science and technology. As a result, The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, and Israel offered military sales to China and also provided it technological knowhow, either openly or covertly. Since then, China has come a long way and is now capable of designing and producing its own high value industrial products and weapons platforms like stealth aircraft.

Scimago Journal ranks India 7^th, after France, in scientific research (H-index: 795). Like China, its military – industrial complex is woefully dependent and will remain so in the years to come on foreign state – of - the- art technologies. Besides military technology India needs the latest civilian nuclear technology to meet its energy requirements.

The above-mentioned variables can be incorporated into a conceptual model for explaining the national power through various inter-linkages. The model is evolutionary in nature and possesses flexibility by allowing for adjustments and improvements. 

National Power Index

Based on the proposed conceptual model, National Power index (NP index), a function of a country’s Aggregate National Power, considers the rankings of the countries in GDP, science &technology (reflective of intellectual power), and military power. The National Power Index is then calculated by the formula: 1xGDP

1xGDP Ranking +3x Ranking in Science & Technology+3x Military Power Ranking                                                               6

The above formula quantifies national power as the arithmetic mean between ranking in GDP, Scientific research, and military power. Internal Stability, the moderating factor, will keep varying according to the security situation. Each factor is accorded a weight; 1 for GDP, 2 for Military Power, and 3 for Scientific Research.

States with low scientific research and industrial base can purchase or borrow military hardware and military/ civilian technology from industrially and technologically advanced states. For example, Gulf states, through their oil/ natural gas wealth, buy military hardware and intellectual property from U.S. and European Union. Israel, despite its avowed scientific research base, steals technology, so did both India and Pakistan when they were developing nuclear weapons. NP index determines a country’s ranking in Global Power. The reliability of NP index lies in the availability of authentic indices of its constituent factors.

Future studies on appraising the suggested model should aim at fine- tuning through analysis. A comprehensive study may be carried out based on a ten- year secondary data of each constituent factor to evolve a more effective generalization.

The proposed model may come under criticism for various reasons, particularly for its focus on four determinants only and the according of weights for each determinant. The author considers the model adequate for explaining the national power within the ambit of internal stability, GDP, military strength, and a nation’s mastery and application of the exact sciences. Despite the drawbacks, the model

 fulfills the purpose of quantifying a nation’s power accurate enough for general discussions. Remember, the dynamics of the national power fall in the realm of social sciences. Even in exact sciences no single model can fully explain the existence and behaviour of a phenomenon. Newton’s laws of motion and of universal gravitation have not become redundant and we utilize them even today to explain the universe to a certain extent beyond which Einstein’s Theory of Relativity takes over. Then we have the M-Theory, which deals with those aspects that cannot be explained by the Theory of Relativity.

Saleem Akhtar Malik

14 February 2024