UNIT 3 SOME CONCEPTS: STATE

SYSTEM, POWER, NATIONAL

INTEREST, SECURITY
Structure
3.0
3.1
3.2

Objectives
Introduction
State System
3.2.1
3.2.2

3.3

Power
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5

3.4

3.4.2

Definition of National Interest

National Interest - The Core of Foreign Policy

Security
3.5.1
3.5.2

3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

What is Power?
Elements of Power
Measurement of Power
Methods of Exercising Power
Management of Power

National Interest
3.4.1

3.5

Features of State System

Evolution of the State System

Security and National Interest

Security and Nuclear Weapons

Let Us Sum Up
Key Words
Some Useful Books
Answers to Check Your Progress

3.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit four important concepts of international relations are discussed. After
going through this Unit we should be able to:
explain the meaning and importance of the state system;
trace the evolution of the contemporary sovereign nation state system;
define power and explainits dominate role in international relations;
identify and explain various elements of power;
describe various methods used for exercise of power;
analyse balance of power gnd collective security as means of management of
power;
explain the importance of national interest for any nation-state;
analyse the relationship between national interest and foreign policy; and
define security and explain the role of security in the protection of national
interest and exercise of power.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The 'State' in its modern sense of a territorial nation-state emerged as a result of
momentous developments in Europe between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries.
In today's world, there are around 185 states which constitutes the international

system. International relations and politics are generally understood as a set of

actions, reactions and interactions between sovereign states, through the medium of
their foreign policies. As the most authoritative political institution, the state can
mobilize all domestic resources needed to carry on international interactions in the
form of war, or the pursuit of dipIomacy and peace. In this unit we will discuss the
evolution of state system and its relevance in contemporary international relations
and the world community.

Power is the capacity that enables a person to exercise control over the minds and
actions of others. In respect of the sovereign stlltes, power has been defined as the
ability of state 'A' to influence the behaviour of state 'B' and other states. A powerful
state can ensure that the powerful countries act in the manner that the former would
like them to behave. Depending on the power that a state possesses, it may be
described as a Super power, Big power or Small power. It is very difficult to exactly
measure the power of a state, but power is often measured in terms of its elements.
Some elements of power are tanable like the size of the territory, topography and its
location; population of a state; the size of the armed forces; and possession of natural
resources. There are a number of intangible elements also that determine power.
These include quality of leadership and morale of the people and the armed forces.
The state exercises power through methods such as persuasion, rewards, punishment
and force. Those who possess power, which is like money, manage it by different
means. Most prominent of these means are balance of power and collective security.
International Relations are often identified with foreign policy. This is not wholly
correct, yet foreign policy is a vital tool of nation-states. National interest is the key
concept in foreign policy. Foreign policy makers have to start with proper
understanding of the country's national interest. National interest has been described
as indeed the last word in international politics.
I

Primary objective of foreign policy makers is to ensure security of the state. In fact
security is the most essential component of the national interest. Security is not
merely the protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state. It is also
vitally concerned with the economic development, which in turn enables a country to
increase its power and to use it to secure a place of respect in the world community.
Thus, the four concepts that we will discuss in this unit are closely interrelated and
their understanding is essential for proper appreciation'of international relations.

3.2 THE STATE SYSTEM

The world community is organized into over 185 sovereign states. The organization
of humankind intg sovereign states is now called the state system. Palmer and
Perkins define .what is variously described as Western State System, the nation-state
system or (sovereign) state system as: "It is the pattern of political life in which
people are s'eparately organized into sovereign states that must manage to get along
together." Sovereignty and a definite territory are two of the essential attributes of a
state. Of course, there should always be, as Garner said, a community of persons,
having an organized government. Each state acquires coercive power to ensure
compliance. The state system has evolved during the last three and a half centuries.
It is the dominant pattern today. International Relations, infact, are relations and
interactions among the states who constitute the state-system.

3.2.1 Features of the State System

Certain features of the state system are essential conditions, without which the state
system cannot exist. These features have been described by Palmer and Perkins as
corollaries. They are the concepts of nationalism, sovereignty and power. Nationalism
is that psychological or spiritual quality which unites the people of a state and " gives

Some Concepts :State System, Power,

Natlonal Internst, Secudty

ullderstancling Illtenlatiolad Relatiolls

them the will to champion what they regard as their natlonal interest." sovereignty is
the concept of unlimited powers. A group of people who are territorially organized
are called sovereign when they possess both internal and external freedom to do what
they wish to do. National power is the might of a state which enables the state to get
things done as it would like them to be done. Power is a complex of many tangible
and intangible elements.
We have studied about the concept of nationalism in unit 2, and the Goncept of power
is analysed in detail in the next section of this unit.The concept of sovereignty is
briefly dealt with below. You will notice in every modren state, such as India, Britain,
Russia, the United States, Pakistan or Egypt, there lives a community of numerous
persons who possess a government which is generally obeyed by the people and which
does not obey any external authority. Such a state is situated within a definite
territory.
Sovereignty, in simple terms, means the supreme power of the state both internally
and externally. It is the attribute of sovereignity which distinguishes the state from
other associations or organisations.
One of the earliest definitions of sovereignty was given by the French philosopher
Jean Bodin (1 530-1596),who defined it as "supreme power over citizens and subjects,
unrestrained by law." However, Bodin's main object was to strengthen the position of
the French Monarch who was then facing civil war and chaos.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), elaborated on the concept of sovereignty, shifting the

emphasis from the person of the king to the abstraction called government or state.
Hobbes equated the sovereign with the state and government.
A useful distinction is made between internal and external sovereignty. Internal
sovereignty concerns the supreme and lawful authority of the state over its citizens.
External sovereignty, on the other hand, refers to the recognition by all states, of the
independence, territorial intergrity and inviolability of each state, as represented by its
government. Hugo Grotius, (1583 -1645),the Dutch jurist defined sovereignty as "that
power whose acts are not subject to the control of another." For him, sovereignty was
manifested when a state, in dealing with its internal affairs, remained free from the
control of other states. Thus defined, sovereignty has become the cornerstone of the
modern international system. It is this external sovereignty that we are concerned with
here.
This concept of sovereignty was for the first time recognised and institutionalized in
the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It provided that : (i) only sovereign states could
engage in international relations; (ii) for the purpose of recognizing a state as an actor
in international relations, it nust have a geographical t e r r i t o j ' w a definite
population, land and effective military power to fulfill international obligations; and
(iii) all sovereign states are equal in international law and international relations.

3.2.2 Evolution of the State System

The signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, after the Thirty years war, is
identified as the beginning of the state system in its modern form. States did indeed
exist before Westphalia, and they conducted relations among themselveqbut that was
quite different from modern state system. In the ancient world there existed small city
states in Greece, India, Egypt and Italy. Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece, and
Indraprastha and Hastinapur in India were some s u ~ city-states.Then,there
h
had been a
succession of sprawling dynastic empires. The world had also known the vast Roman
Empire which enconlpassed the entire civilised Western World. But there had heen no
nation state with sovereignty.

The Thirty Years War had resulted out of the Protestant-Catholic conflict The
struggle did not establish any dominant religion, yet it ended the undisputed authority
of the catholic church. It resulted in a spirit of mutual toleration which has not yet
been threatened. It laid the foundation of the nation state system. Palmer and Perkins
write : "In spite of enormous destruction, the wrecking of the universal Church, and
the fragmentation of Eurape into well-defined nation-states, the resulting peace of
Westphalia (1648) paved the way for a semblance of European stabihty."
The culnlination of the Thirty Year War in the Peace of Westphalia marked the
starting point for new norms governing the behaviour of states in their relations with
each other. The medieval conception dominated by the image of a Euro-centric
christlan commonwealth gave way to a new concept of an international system based
on the co-existence of sovereign states. Territorial states emerged as the sole
legitimate players in the new international system. Only sovereign states could either
wage wars, or enter into treaties. or alliances with each other.
A corollary to the principle of state sovereignty was naturally the principle of state
equality. As Vattel puts it in his celebrated argument ,"a dwarf is as much as man as a
giant is. a small republic no less a sovereign state than the most powerful kingdom.

This was at least the juridical position. Reality, however, was quite different. State
equality was practically limited to the great powers of Europe namely France, Great
Britain, Austria and Russia. The so-called "anti-hegemony norm"embodied in the
concept of a "just balance of power" was the exclusive privilege of the Great powers.
The non-European states however, did not figure in the actual scheme of t h i n 6 that
emerged after the Westphalian peace.

I!

Rather, the international norms of thls period were based on the then extant dynastic
concept of state. The principle of sovereignty meant that the dynasties ruling the
territorial states of Europe recognized each other as rightful, independent and
sovereign. The post-Westphalian system thus developed its own hierarchies.
International relations between peace of Westphalia and the Treaty of Utrecht (17 13)
were marked by the attempts of Louis XIV to establish French hegemony, and rivalry
among Britain, Francs, Holland and Spain. Eventually, France suffered heavy losses
by the Treaty of Utrecht. France promised that Spain and France would never be
united. Unification of Prussia was encouraged leading to a new balance in Europe.
Sweden, Russia and Poland could not take any decision without involving west
Europea? countries.

The mutations within the Westphalian system and its further elaboration was seen in
the system that emerged after the Congress of Vienna (1815). This system was still
Eurocentric with 22 of the 23 member states being European and the last being the
United States. Yet in a sense, it was a global system in that it lald the norms that were
to affect every part of the world. The backward countries became the battleground for
the resolution of the conflicts of great powers. The system that emerged after the
Vienna Congress was a system of great-power hegemony and known as the Concert of
Europe. It was somewhat of a prototype of the collective security system that we see
today. Five great powers, namely, Britan, France, Prussia, Russia and Austria took
upon themselves the responsibility of maintaining international order. The concert of
Europe rested on the assumption that world order could not be maintained without the
exercise of special rights by these great powers.
The rise of nationalism and thereby the emergence of new norms led to what has been
termed, the updating of the Westphalian system, following the Congress of Vienna
(1815). The concept of a sovereign state was not challenged, but its basis shifted from
royalty to nationality. Thus merged the concept of the state with nationhood which
laid the basis for the modern nation state. Subsequently, the Paris Treaty which ended

Sol~reConcepts : State Syste~a,Power,

National Interest, Security

Understandhlg International Relations

the Crimean war recognized the principle of national self-determinatioq. Gradually,

therefore, the right of each nationality to become an indepW,ent political actor on an
equal footing developed.as a key principle of international r e l a h s .
\

1914, the system's membership reached 4 3 . For the first time the hyopean
exOlus~venesswas affected. There were 17 States from Latin America, 3
Asia,
one from Africa and one from the Middle East. Though the prototype of modelq
diplomacy was established much earlier at Westphalia, Vienna and Paris, it was ohly
in the second half of the nineteenth century that regular international conferences
siirted taking place for adopting conventions regarding the behaviour of states. The
subjects covered by these conventions included the rules of diplomacy (rank, protocol,
procedure and privilege), the principles of maritime law, neutrality, blockade and
contraband, free navigation and international water ways, copyrights and patents,
and rules of warfare.
In contemporary international re1ations;the principles of sovereign equality of all
states and non-interference in the internal affairs of states are paramount in the
formal conduct of states towards one another. In the absence of any superior legal
authority, the present system functions in which each state is at liberty to act to secure
its own interests. Though it is largely true about some of the Great Powers, the above
characterization is somewhat of an exaggeration. Rules, conventions, procedures that
evolved over hundreds of years do have some sanctity. The United Nations, which
succeeded the League of Nations, though it has often failed to restrain powerful states
from committing aggression at will, still enjoys a certain degree of legitimacy.
With the process of decolonisation having become complete after World War 11, the
focus on Europe changed to include newly independent states in Asia and Africa.
A rapid scan through recent developments in the international system reveals new
trends which suggest that the Westphalian system of territorially sovereign nationstates is on decline.

Though formally sovereign yet vast majority of nation-states try to adjust to a highly
hierarchical international system that has emerged. The resulting world is
characterized by "super-powers" "satellites", and the UN system's various operations,
arm-twistings of super power(s), conditionalities of the International Monetary Fund's
and activities of multinational corporations with budgets greater than many states
GNPs etc. Due to globalization in various spheres, the state seems to be losing its
power. The inter-dependence of world economy and the growing importance of
supra-state international authorities like IMF, (GATT) WTO, World Bank points to
curtailment of autqority. In the post-cold war phase, such curtailment of authority
does not however apply to the United States of America whose state has become, if
anything, more powerful and domineering.
Check Your Progress 1
Note : i)

ii)
1)

Use the space below for your answers.

Check your answer with the model answers given at the end of the unit

What is meant by the state system?

t'

,I

2)

Describe three features, or corollaries, of the state system.

...................................................................................................................

3)

~b

Trace the evolution of state system since the Peace of Westphalia.

3.3

POWER

3.3.1 What is Power?

I

Power is a phenomenon of all relationships, and political relationship is no exception

to this rule. Power has been defined by Hans Morgenthau as "Man's control over
minds and actions of other man." But, as minds cannot be seen, power can be
determined by the behaviour of individuals and states. In a very broad sense, power
has been defined "as the ability or capacity to control others and get them to do what
.one wants them to do and also to see that they do not do what one does not want
them to do." In international relations, power is the ability of a state to make its
will prevail and to enforce respect and command obedience from other states.
This is how Professor Mahendra Kumar has explained power of the states. Simply
speaking, power is an ability which may not be exercised. But, when exercised, this
ability enables a state to control the behaviour of other states.

The concept of power was discussed by Kautilya, the master of statecraft in ancient
India, in fourth century B.C. He interpreted power as "the possession of strength"
derived from three elements, namely knowledge, military might and valour (Gyan,
Sainya bal and Shaurya respectively). Morgenthau has been described as a realist
descendant of Kautilya. His entire approach is based on power. As pointed out in
Unit 1, he describes all politics as struggle for power. Therefore, international
politics is struggle for power among states. Robert Dahl explained power by
saying:'A' has power over 'B' to the extent that it can get 'B'to do something that
'B'could not otherwise do. Thus, every state has power in respect to certain other
states. Smaller powers like Nauru may not be able to get things done as.they want,
but most states possess power of ensuring that their wishes prevail. However, the
quantum of power varies. The ability to get things done of US4 is far more than that
of India. Thus, USA has more power than India. In turn, Jndia has perhaps more
power than Nepal or Indonesia. Strength of power may be demonstrated in several
ways. For example, in 1996, The Conference on disarmament (CD) at Geneva could

Some Concepts :State Systenq Power,

Nntionnl L~terest,Security

Ul~dcmtanding 11ltcnl;ltiollal Rdatiolls

not adopt CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) because India refused to sign it.
That proved India's power even as against the U.S.A.
Power can be easily compared to money. Power plays some role in international
politics as money plays in economy. Most people get money so that they can get what
they require. But, for some people, money becomes an obsession. They seek money to
accumulate it. For most people money is a means, for others it is an end. Similarly,
power is a vital means of states. However, it is very often an end in itself. For, every
state desires to be more and more powerful. That is why, Vernon Van Duke wrote :
Power is both "the capstone among the objectives which the states pursue and the
cornerstone among the methods which they employ." He meant that power is the
highest of objectives and aims of states, and it is also the basic means which they use
to serve the& national interests.
Power is the most central concept of international politics. But it is not always easy to
define it. Still definitions have been given. Couloumbis and Wolfe define power as
"an umbrella concept that denotes anything that establishes and maintains the control
of Actor A over Actor B." This definition widens the meaning of the concept of
power.
Power has three important ingredients. They are force, influence and authority.
According to Couloumbis and Wolfe, authority means voluntary compliance by Actor
B of the wishes of Actor A, out of respect, affection, etc. Influence has been defined
as use of instruments of persuasion, short of force, by Actor A to get its wishes
accepted by Actor B. Finally, force implies coercion by Actor A of Actor B in pursuit
of political objectives of Actor A. This, power is a combination of authority
(voluntary compliance), Influence (Compliance through persuasion) and force (use of
coercive methods).
Power
Authority

InCuence

-Force

3.3.2 Elements of Power

A country acquires power through serveral elements. There is no absolute condition
that makes for power. Different elements, in different situations, can make for power.
The same elements in another situation may not provide power. A combination of
certain elements in one situation may give more power to a country than the same
combination provides to another country. The elements may be broadly divided
between tangible and intangible elements. But, from another angle the elements of
power may be classified as of quantitative and qualitative value. William Ebenstein
stressed upon the importance of qualitative elements. He wrote :
"In the field of intern'ational relations, the central problem of the strength of a nation
is essentially a problem of qualitative judgement and measurement, as national power
is more than the sum total of population, new material and quantitative factors. The
'alliance potential' of a nation, its civil devotion, the flexibility of its institutions, its
technical 'knowhow', its capacity to endure privations - these are but a few
qualitative elements that determine the total strength of a nation."
Elements of power are briefly discussed below :

Tangible Elements : Population can be easily couitte8. Therefore, it is a tangible

element. It is generally believed th?t states with large population are more powerful.
Large population enables a country not only to have strong armed forces, but to have
manpower for various economic activities also. But, it is not essential that large
population will make for power. China, during nineteenth century, had much less
power than Britain which is a less populous state. Contemporary Israel with less than

50 lakh people has proved to be an effective power. She has even acquired nuclear
capability. Thus, as Couloumbis acd Wolfe say, "A population that is healthy, wellfed, unified, evenly spaced, well inforilled .... is likely to be much more powerful than
a population that is badly nourished, diseased, overcrowded, illiterate, disunited and
disloyal."

Territory is the second tangible element of power. Some writers refer to geography
as an element, and include territory within 'geography'. Most important among this
element are size of a country, its climate, topography and its location. Normally, it is
believed that a country large in size would be more powerful than smaller states. A
large size not only enables the country to have vast areas under agricultural
production and to have industrial growth, but also provide scope for a defensive army
to manoeuvre and retreat, allow enemy to enter, then hit it back, encircle it and
defeat it. But, a smaller state may at times becomes more powerful. Mere
measurement of area is no guarantee of power to a state. Israel is a striking example
of a small state that has demonstrated a disproportionately large amount of military
power. On the other hand, Canada with its frozen waters and Brazil with its jungles
have never been big powers.
Climate of a country also influences its power. Thus, frozen Antartica and the
deserts of Sahara are obviously not suitable for power, although with the potential of
uranium for nuclear power, even deserts where uranium is found have assumed
importance. A lot depends on the location and topography of a country. Foreign
policy - makers find Iocation to be a key determinant. Topographic features
determine boundaries between nations. Whereas artificially created boundaries, as
between India and Pakistan or Germany and France, can weaken the position; the
natural frontiers such as high mountains and sea help the power of a state. This
again is not an absolute condition.
Natural Resources constitute another element of power. Possession of natural
resources such as oil, uranium and various minerals add to the power of a state.
Today, importance of oil-rich Gulf has increased. Besides those possessing items like
coal and iron can enhance their power. Nations can improve their power, if on
account of their natural resources, they can give rewards in the form of minerals,
agricultural products or manufactured goods.

The fourth tangible element of power is that of agricultural capacity. Such capacity .
is considered crucial in the sense that countries capable of feeding themselves,
especially during the course of a long war, will be relatively more powerful. Selfsufficiency in food is considered critical in this regard.
The fifth tangible element of power is that of military strength. This relates to the
conventional notion that power is backed by military force. The military strength of a
given nation-state can be measured in terms of funds expended for defence and
security purposes. A related factor is lbcation outside its territory. Such military
mobility hinges on the nation-state's ability to sustain military aperations on land,
sea and air. The ultimate success of the nation-states, however, would depend on
intangible factors such as preparedness, training, leadership, morale, etc. which
affect the performance of armed forces in a given situation.
\

The discussion of tangible elements of power brings out clearly that such elements
are necessary to generate capability of the nation-states in a sovereign state-system.
But this is not sufficient to ensure that capabilities would lead to the overall strength
of the nation-states. We need to specify the intangible elements of power that
contribute in a most critical way to the overall capability of the sovereign state.
Intangible Elements of Power : The intangible elements (attributes) of power
include leadership, bureaucratic-organisational efficiency, type bf government,
societal cohesion, etc. Although such elements cannot be measured or concretely
specified, they are critical in terms of the overall power of a sovereign state.

Some Concepts :State Systen~,Power,

National Interest, Security

Relations

Leadership constitutes the most critical intangible element of power. Its significance
relates to the ability of the leader of a sovereign state to motivate its citizens to realise
foreign policy objectives of the state. Although we cannot accurately measure this
variable, the latter is significant in terms of its impact on the sovereign country's
conduct in inter-state relations.

The second intangible element of power refers to bureaucratic-organisational

efficiency. The underlying reasoning here is that states, having eff~cient
bureaukracies, can implement their domestic and foreign policies in an effective
manner.
The third intangible element of power refers to the type of government. It is difficult
to specify and measure the effect to different types of governance of national power in
genkal and specific situations. All we can suggest here is that governmental
decisions in foreign policy matters must be quick and adaptable to the changing
external environment as well as domestic needs of the nation-state. Further, they
must be accountable in terms of the checks and balances characteristic of democratic
regimes. It ensures efficiency and credibility to the fordign policy of a given
sovereign state.
The fourth intangible element of power is that of societal cohesion. Here the
assumption is that internally unified nation-states are stronger. Chronic terrorism,
recurring strikes, civil war - these are some of the indicators which point towards
internal instability and disruption within the confines of a sovereign state. Such a
state will not be capable of sustaining its strength in the sovereign state-system in
the longer run.
Lastly, national morale is one the of the most important of intangible elements of
power. If the morale of the army is high it is difficult for any enemy to defeat the
country. In peace time also, people's morale enables a country to be effective and
powerfpl. If morale goes down people do not work with enthusiasm. and army tends
to loose the battle. Thus, high national morale can overcome shortcomings of various
types.
The above discussion on intangible elements of power shows that despite inability to
measure, these elements are equally (if not more) important as the tangible elements
are.

3.3.3 Measurement of Power

Mere possession of elements of power does not make a country powerful. Thus, huge
deposits of minerals and possession of raw material and having huge manpower does
not make for power. The resources must be properly utilised. Secondly, a distinction
is sometimes made between Capability and Power. Mere possession of elements of
power may be called capability, and mobilisation of this capability for actual use
is power. Thus, potential to be powerful is capability and mobilisation of capability is
powe?.
An imnortant question that you may ask is how can we measure the power of a
country. It is almost impossible to be able to measure the power. It is to be examined
in relative context. Thus, country A may be more powerful than C, but less powerful
than B. This is because A cannot get things done according to its wishes, as far as B
is concerned, but can have its way in regard to C. However, Ray S. Cline has
suggested a very useful method of measurement of power. For Cline, power is
important i n the sense that it is perceived both by its wielders and by those over who
it is exercised. He has suggested a formula for measurement of power though it may
not give us exact results. If PP is 'perceived power', it can be measured as under :

Here C means critical mass, which includes population and territory; E stands for
economic capability, M for military capability, S for strategic purpose, and W means,
will to pursue national strategy. Whereas C, E and M are tangible, S and W are
intangible elements. Thus Ray S. Cline places very important value on strategi;
purpose and the will to pursue that purpose.
Robert Dahl offers another suggestion for measurement of power. According to him,
"A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not
otherwise do". But, even this formula is far from satisfactory and measurement of
power remains a very difficult exercise.

3.3.4 Methods of Exercising Power

If power is the ability to get things done, what are the methods that can be employed,
by those who possess power, for securing compliance with their wishes. Four methods
are generally employed for the exercise of power. These methods are : Persuasion,
reward, punishment and force. These methods may also be called instruments of
the exercise of power. Persuasion is the easiest of the four methods. In this country A
tries to influence the beha~fiourof country B by persuading the latter to change its
decision. In fact, most of the times diplomacy is based on persuasion. This method is
free from use of coercion or even threat of use of force. Another method of exercise of
power is offer of reward. In this method, attempt is made to influence the behaviour
of other state by promise of reward, which may be material, economic or political.
The reward may take the shape of offer of a territory, or military aid in the form of
weapons, bases or training facilities. The reward may be in the nature of economic
aid or loan. It may be political if support, or a favourable vote, is promised in the
United Nations or other organisations and agencies. The third method of power is
Punishment. It may take various forms. For example, stoppage of economic or
military aid, or even a threat of such a withdrawal amounts to punishment. A threat
of unfavourable action also implies punishment. Similarly, punishments include
unfavourable propaganda, political support to the opponents or enemies, and
imposition of unfavourable terms of trade and transit. Thus when the U.S. promises
support to Pakistan or seeks to vote in her favour against India's wishes it amounts to
US punishment of India. ~ a s t l ~ , ' w h ethe
n threat of punishment is actually carried
out, it is called use of force. In other words, punishment is a threat, and its
implementation is force.'
It must be mentioned that only a short or a narrow end view looks at threat and force
as ultimate form of power. As Prof. Kenneth E Boulding observes that there has been
a remarkable expansion in the area of stable peace among independent nations from
the mid-19th century onwards. This always meant abandonment of military threats as
a means of changing frontiers. Arguments against 'threat as the sole basis of power'
have two interesting developments from India and China coming up during the 20th
century. Gandhiji's experiments with organised non-violence leading to achievement
of political independence attracted many leaders engaged in nationalist struggles
elsewhere (including 1989 happenings in Eastern Europe). Similarly, China
syndrome conveys its remarkable capacity to convert its conquerors into Chinese
ways of thinking and doing Further, improvements in the means of destruction has
often diminished the power of threat. As Prof. Boulding observes, "It was the
invention of the effective cannon that made the feudal castle and then city wall
obsolete and created the nation-state with its relatively wide-spread areas of internal
peace. Similarly, the nuclear weapon and the long-range missile have probaly done
for the nation-state what gun-power did for the feudal baron." There hangs a hope
for a stable world community of peace-loving people.

3.3.5 Management of Power

I

Each nation-state tries to mange power for its own advantage in a world of uneven
powers. Broadly, two strategies are followed.

Soii~eCoilcepts : State Syste~n,Power,

National Interest, Secr~rity

Underqtanding International Relations

Balance of Power : The term balance of power normally implies existence of a rough
equilibrium of power among various nations, which means power should be more or
less equally shared by different states. However, when we say that balance of power is
favourable to such and such country, we mean that there is preponderance of power in
favour of that country.
The operation of balance of power requires the existence of five or six big powers
who try to maintain equilibrium among them and avoid preponderance of power with
any one country. @f course besides the big powers, there may also be several medium
and small powers. According to Quincy Wright, there are five main assumptions of
balance of power. Firstly, he says, it is assumed that states are committed to protect
their vital interests by all possible means. Such vital interests generally include
security, territorial integrity, political independence and economic resources. Second
assumption is that vital interests of the states are, or may be, threatened. Unless
interests are threatened why would any state try to protect them. The third assumption
is that balance of power helps the protection of vital interests by threatening other
states with committing aggression, or by enabling the victim to achieve victory in
case an aggression takes place. In other words, a future aggressor will resort to war
only if it is sure of superiority of power The fourth assumption is that relatlve power
position of various states can be measured so that it may be managed in one's favour.
The last assumption is that leaders formulate foreign policy on the basis of an
intelligent understanding of power consideration.
Based on these assumptions, it can be concluded that management of power to protect
vital int~restsof a country (which were threatened) is balance of power.
A balance may be brought about through the use of one or more of the following
ways. One of the most important means is amassing of armaments. Since war is the
ultimate instrument of resolution of disputes, countries try to increase military power
to secure advantage. But once one country acquires new weapons, the opponents also
begin to compete. Alliances are often concluded to secure a favourable balance of
power. Counter alliances are then concluded to upset the preponderance of power of
some against the others. Nations always try to make, abandon and remake alliances.
Balances of power becomes effective if there are a number of big powers who often
exercise choice of making alliances and counter alliances. Thirdly, in order to
maintain a favourable balance of power, or to secure preponderance of power, nations
often try to seize territory. This increases the power of the nation concerned. This
method was very common during the period of imperialism. Even in 1990, Iraq seized
the territory of Kuwait though later she had to vacate it. Earlier, several Arab
territories were seized by Israel. Fourthly, a nation may acquire and maintain power
by setting up buffer state between two large and unfriendly countries. For example, at
one time Poland was a buffer between Russia and Germany and Tibet was set up as a
buffer between China and British India.
Intervention is another method of ensuring favourable balance of power. It often
happens that a big power tries to regain a lost ally or pick up a new ally by intervening
in the internal affairs of a smaller country and set up a friendly government there. For
example the United States intervened in Vietnam, Dominican Republic, and others,
the Soviet Union intervened in 1979 in Afghanistan. Lastly, there is a method of
altering the existing balance of power by detaching allies from the opposite side
compellimg them to become neutrals or winning them over as allies. All these
methods have been used again and again to secure or upset a balance of power.
At times a laughing third party, or balancer, plays vital role. This means a third
party, uninterested in rivalry between two nations or two power blocs, may help a
weaker nation to secure better balance of power. Britain has traditionally been a
balancer, or a laughing third.

Collective Security : Collective security is another device of management of power.

It is also said to be one of the most promising of all approaches of peace. Power
should be so managed that an aggression is collectively repulsed by the international
community. It is a better device than balance of power as it does not involve alliances
and counter alliances, race for armaments and political manipulations. The concept of
collective security implies "Security" as the goal and "collective" as the means. It has
been defined as "a machinery for joint action in order to prevent or counter any attack
against an established order" (Schwarzberger). There are two basic assumptions of
collective security. First, that war is unavoidable and it is likely to occur, and second,
that it can be defeated (or prevented) by an overwhelming power. As Inis Claude
says, it is not the elimination of Power, but the management of power. It is a middle
position between balance of power and the world government. Collective security
operates through a system of international organisation - The League of Nations and
the United Nations. It is different from collective defence because in the collective
security system the principle that applies is one for all, and all for one. The rock
bottom principle of collective security is that an attack on any one state will be
regarded as an attack on all States. An attack on any one Member Nation of the UN is
regarded as an aggression against all, and if the Security Council identifies the
aggressor and calls upon all other countries to apply economic andlor military
sanctions, all the states are expected to stand together and fight the aggression. Thus,
the aggressor is not identified in advance. It can be anyone against whom collective
action is taken. Collective defence, on the other hand, is an arrangement through
alliance system. Here an opponent is identified in advance and others are committed
only against that one enemy. It is not one for all, and all for one.

The system of collective security was enshrined in the Covenant of League of Nations
and was given a trial by the League. It is also accepted as a device of maintaining
international peace and management of power in the present United Nations system.
Check Your Progress 2
Note : i)

Use the space below for your answers.

ii) Check your answer with the model answers given at the end of the unit.
1)

Explain the concept of power.

2)

What are the tangible elements of power?

Some Concepts :State System, Power,

National Interest, Security

Discuss the intangible elements of power.

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................
Desctibe briefly four methods of exercising power.
...................................................................................................................

.................................... ..............................................................................
i

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
'

..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
What is balance of power and what are the devices, of balance of power?

............................................... ..................................................................
i

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
Explain the concept of collective security.

...................................................................................................................
.A

.................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

3.4 NATIONAL INTEREST

The concept a f national interest is of central importance in any attempt to describe
and explain the international behaviour. It is almost universally believed that the
primary justification of state action is national interest. President Wilson of the U.S.
was one of those rare idealists who differed with this belief (see below). National
interest is regarded as the 'key concept' in foreign policy. As Hans Morgenthau wrote :
"As long as the world is politically orgalised into nations, the national interest is
indeed the last word in world politics." It is the only legitimate and fundamental
cause of national policy. Lord Palmerston had once said in the nineteenth century:
"We have no eternal allies and we have no eternal enemies. Our interests are eternal
and those interests it is ou; duty to follow." It is not only difficult to define national
interest, but it is also difficult to understand how different world leaders explain
away all their actions in the name of national interest.

3.4.1 Definition of National Interest

What exactly is national interest? Nepoleon had said that he was acting in the
interest of France when he initiated his campaign against Russia, and later when he
launched his desperate battle at Waterloo. Adolf Hitler justified his expansionist
policies, including annexation of Austria and breakup of Czechoslovakia, in the
name of Germany's national interest. "Friendly socialist" governments were installed
in Poland and other East European countries by Stalin in the name of Soviet Union's
national interest. President Bush was acting in America's national interest when he
led the war against Iraq on the question of Kuwait's annexation by Iraq. Benazir
h hut to thought that it was in Pakistan's national interest to destabilise the Indian State
of Jammu and Kashmir. Thus, all actions, howsoever, wsong are taken in the name of
national interest. We must now try to find an acceptable definition of national interest.
The idea of national interest is singularly vague. It assumes variety of meanings in
different contexts. The concept of national interest has not been objectively or
scientifically defined. However, Padleford and Lincoln observe : "Concepts of
national interests are centred on the core values of the society, which include the
welfare of the nation, the security of its political beliefs, national way of life,
territorial integnty and its self-preservation." According to Robert Osgood, national
interest is "state of affairs valued solely for its benefit to the nations." Morgenthau
maintains that the main requirements of a nation-state is to protect its physical,
political and cultural identity against threat from other states. But, Joseph Frankel
writes about aspirational and operation&aspects of national interest. Aspirational
(what one expects) aspects include the state's vision of good life and an ideal set of
goals to be realised. Put into operation, national interest refers to sum total of its
interests and policies actually pursued.

3.4.2 National Interest

- the Core of Foreign Policy

Foreign policy - makers can never ignore their state's national interest as they
perceive it. At times leaders like Hitler, intoxicated of power, led to disaster in the
name of national interest. But, normally the good of the state is the sole concern of
foreign policy. This good of the state, or national interest, remains the core of the
foreign policy. The idealist (US President) Woodrow Wilson, however, felt that
national interests can be legitimately subordinated to morality and interests of the \
mankind. He said : "It is perilous thing to determine the foreign policy of a nation in
terms of national interests .... we dare not turn from the principle that morality and
not expediency is the thing that must guide us. We have no selfish ends to serve." But
this idealist approach of morality has never succeeded in areas of foreign policy.
Wilson's views were totally at variance from what the first U.S. President George
Washington had said. According to him, "No nation, no matter how lofty its ideals

Some Concepts :State System, Power,

Nntio~talInterest, Security

Understaldu~g I~~tetenlatio~~al
Relatiolls

and how genuine its desire to abide by them, can base its foreign policy on
consideration other than its own national interest." He had opined that no prudent
statesman or politician will venture to depart from it.
What then are the components of national interest of a state? Security, economic
development and a peaceful world order are the objective of a modern state. All
countries desire and search for national security, political independence and
maintenance of territorial integrity. In other words, defence of the state is naturally
the primary concern of foreign policy. Secondly, promotion of economic interest,
including securing favourable conditions of trade, is a vital objective of foreign
policy-makers. Thirdly, most modern states are also concerned with maintenance of
international peace, respect for international law, pacific settlement of international
disputes and strengthening of the system of international organisation.
When India, under Nehru's leadership, decided to adopt the policy of non-alignment
that was in India's national interest as well as being an instrument of world peace.
The Non-Aligned Movement initiated by Nehru, Nasser and Tito was also meant to
promote the ideal of peace in a world then divided into two hostile power blocs. If
India had aligned itself with one of the power blocs our economic development would
have glot linked only to one ideology. There are some world leaders who believe that
their foreign policy must be committed to a certain ideology, such as propagation of
Fasri.srn or communism or the containment of communism. mt, realist statesmen
emphasise only the national interest. Consequently, the role of ideology has lately
declined.
Check Your Progress 3
Note : i)

Use the space below for your answep.

ii) Check your answer with the model answer given at the end of the unit.
1)

What is the importance of national interest in foreign policy-making?

3.5 SECURITY
3.5.1 Security and National Interest
~ d concept
e
of security is directly related to national interest. The entire state system
is the product of the desire of man to protect himself against threats from various
quarters. Security of the state is the objective of every government. We have said in
section 3 . 3 . 5 above about two of the methods of security. The idea of management of
power is to regulate power in such a way that security of the state is protected and
that none should have preponderance of power so as to be able to threaten security of
other' states. Whenever security of the States has been seriously threatened, man has
begun to think and device new means of security of political independence and
territorial integrity of the states. We have seen (3.2) that the state-system was largely
an outcome of the Peace of Westphalia which ended the thirty-years war. When
. Napolean was defeated, the suffering states of Europe, after the Congress of Vienna,
created the Concert of Europe. The idea was to ensure security of the evolving state
systems.

When the Russian ~ z a r ' t o o kthe initiative for the Hague Conferences (1899 and
1907), security was again the objective. The Hague Co~lfcrencesprovided for peaceful
settlement of international disputes maiilly through arl>ilrationand constituted a
Court of Arbitration at the Hague. When international law and morality became
victims of unprincipled warfare during the First World War, scholars and statesmen
alike initiated the process of setting up a League of Nations to maintain peace and
security in the post-war pcriod. The preamble of the League of Nations clearly spelt
out the objectives of the new organisation. It said that the High contracting Parties
(Member - Nations) had agreed to the Covcnant "ln order to promote international
co-operation and to achieve international peace and security, by the acceptance of
obligatioils not to resort to war ...." The League made several attempts for
international security, but eventually it failed. The Charter of the United Nations also
declares : "We the peoples of the United Nations determined .... lo unite our strength
to maintain international peace and security .... that armed forces shall not be used,
save in the common interest . . . . I t Thus, the international concern for security has
been consisteiltly expressed.

3.5.2 Security and Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons have altcred the security perspective of nation-states. But, even
before such deadly weapons were produced, nations-were always coilcerned with their
security. For that purpose they often entered into alliances and couater-alliances, and
race for armaments was vigorously carried on After the First World War, a victorious
France was so inuch scared of defeated Germany that she insisted on her, security in
the Paris Conference, in the League of Nations and outside it. French seaith of
security dominated many of inter-war years. Having been dissatisfied with the
security provisions of the League Covenant, France sought guarantees from various
quarters including an abortive joint Anglo-American Guarantee, the Draft Treaty of
Mutual Assistance (l923), the Geneva protocol 1924 (both failed to take off), the
successful Locarno Pact (1925) and the Pact of Paris (1928) for the renunciation of
war. Before as well as after the Second World War also search for security has been
the principal concern of numerous countries.
Alliances like NATO, SEATO. Baghdad Pact and Warsaw Pact were all aimed at
security either against the Soviet Union or against the United States. Besides,
military bases and assistance to several countries, including Pakistan, were in order
to satisfy their quest for security.
When the United States manufactured and dropped the first two atom bombs at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 1945). to secure surrender 01Japan, the whole
nature of war changed. With that the conceril and nature of security also changed.
For four years, till 1949, the United States was the only nuclear power, which placed
the security of entire world at her mercy. Nobody was sure of one's security. Even
Soviet Union remained in constant fear as it was not known whether the US had
another bomb or not, and whethei she had any intention of targeting Moscow in its
ongoing ideological conflict. Once Soviet Union tested its first nuclear device in
1949, the race for nuclear weapons began. Britain, France and finally China became
nuclear powers. Since then at least three inore countries have-acquired nuclear
capability. These are India, Pakistan and Israel. Together they are known as
"threshold countries". India insists that she will use nuclear power only for peaceful
purposes. There are many other countries that can acquire nuclear capability.
In the nuclear age security of nations requires not merely amassing of traditional
weapons and coilclusion of alliances. Seeking nuclear umbrella also became objectiye
of many. The cold w8r expressed concern for security and nations sought even '
nuclear missiles and military bases from Big Powers. The disaster that nuclear
weapons can bring about is unprer~dented,and as Max Lerner says, we are living in
the period of "overkill", for nuclec - weapons that nations now possess can destroy the
whole world several times over. T1.s war in nuclear age is no more limited to the
armed forces. Civilian targets are aimed at even by non-nuclear, traditional bombs. In
such a situation the conhrn for security has assumed alarming concern.

Solnc Co~lcepts:State Systenq Power,

Uatics~rrlInterest, Security

Understanding laternntiu~~d
Relatio~ls Check
'

Your Progress 4

' Note : i)

Use the space below for your answer.

ii) Check your answer with the model answers given at the end of the unit.
1)

Highlight the relation between security and national interest.

2)

What the reason for the concern for security in the nuclear age?

3.6

LET US SUM UP

In tHis unit we have dealt with four concepts : state system, power, national interest
and security. In the ancient period there did exist states, but these were mostly city states in Greece, India, etc. Then there came into existence huge empires such as the
Holy Roman Empire. The modern state-systembegan to evolve after the Peace of
Westphalia (1648). It is after the Congress of Vienna that the concept of sovereign
nation-states developed. The emergence of several nation-states after First World War
was a welcome development in international relations. The state-system today
consists of territorial entities which enjoy both internal and external sovereignty. The
state system represents a clear advance over the previous international system. It is
basad on the key concept of equality of all states. Present international system has its
foundation in nation-states.
Power is the ability to control the minds and actions of others. In international
relations it means ability of states to control the behaviour of other states. Power is
like money in market economy. Like all politics, international politics, is struggle for
power. There are various elements of power - some are tangible which can be
measured, and others are intangible which cannot be measured or quantified. Yet
they are critical in terms of overall capacity of sovereign states. The tangible
elements include population, territory (its size, climate, topography and location)
natural resources, agricultural capacity, and military strength. None of these elements
is absolute as their p~sitionis relative Intangible elements are equally important. They
include quality of lea\qership, type of government, societal cohesion and national
morale.
It is only a very short-ruiq view which looks at threat and force as the ultimate forms
of power. Such a view ov$rlooks vast areas of stable peace among independent
nations built over years, subcessful strategies of organised non-violence etc. It is not
easy to measure the power oqa state. It depends on many factors. There are four
recognised methods of exercise of power : Persuasion, reward, punishment and force.

Peace has become a gfeater need today than ever before. It can be made possible
through proper management of power. Three common methods of management are :
balance of power, collective security and world government (the last mentioned is still
a dream). Balance of power has been practised for a long time to ensure that no state
acquires preponderance of power. Balancer often plays important role, and is called
"the laughing third". National interest is a concept of central importance in
understanding international behaviour. The concept is difficult to define, yet it is the
core of every foreign policy. It includes welfare of the nation, security of its political
beliefs, security of the state and its territorial integrity. Primary objectives of national
interest are security, economic development and a world order that is stable and free
of serious disputes.,
Security is the primary concern of every state. It is, as mentioned above, the primary
concern of every state and objective of national interest. Power is exercised to
promote national interest in general and ensure security in particular. Security in the
nuclear age is generally threatened and has acquired greater importance.
I

3.7 KEY WORDS

Sovereignty

Supreme Power of the state subject to no internal

or external limitations.

National-State

The form of state based on ethnic identity of its

peoplk. People feel united by common bond, and
are territorially organised under a government
that is independent.

International System

,:

Independent political entities - states, nation,

empires are variables of a worldwide system,
together called international system.

Power

AMty or capacity to get things done as one would

llke others to do. It also ensures that others 90 not
do what one does not want them to do.

Tangible Elements

Elements like population and territory that can be

measured or quantified.
Elements that are not visible and cannot be
measured.

Intangible elements
Coll+tive Security

Method of ensuring security of nations through

collective economic and military action against
the aggressor.

3.8 SOME USEFUL BOOKS

Henz, John H

The Nation-State and the d i s i s of World

Politics.

Morgenthau, Hans

Politics Among Nations

Deutsch, Karl W

Palmer & Perkins

Martin Wright
Kenneth E,Boulding

he Analysis of International Relations

International Relations

Systems of States,Eeicester, 1977

Three Faces of Power, California, 1989

Some Concepts : State System, Power,

National Interest, Security

Understandu~g hlten~ationirlRelations

3.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Answcrs to Check Your Progress 1
1)

A system in which sovereign nation-states interact with each other throngh the
nlediurn of their foreign policies A state is a cotnmunity of persons.
territorially organiscd with an independent government and enjoying
sovereignty Nation-states are units of present international system.

2).

Three prominent features of state systenl are (i) nationalism - a psychological

quality that binds people; (ii) sovereignty; (iii) national power, the capacity to
get things done according to its wishes.

3)

Territorial states based on nationalisin: Euroceiltric systenl with about 22

states; nation-states after the First World War: and multiplication of states
after decolonisation after 1945.

Answers to Check Your Progress 2

1)

Power is ability to control the behaviour of others. It is man's control over

minds and actions of other men. In international relations capacity of state to
get things done. as desired by a powerful state.

2)

Elements that can be quantified : population; territory - its size, climate,

topography etc. natural resources, raw material. industrial units, armed forces

3)

Elements that cannot be measured; quality of leadership; burcaucratic

efficiency; type of go~xxnrne~it,
societal cohesion and national nlorals.

4)

Persuasion, Reward, Punishment and Force

5)

A system i n which about half a dozen states enjoy more or less equal power,
check each other so that none acquires preponderance of power; often a
'balancer' ensures equilibrium Devices . alliances, arinainents, buffer states,
intenlention, etc.

6)

International security is the aim, collective is the means. Aggressor has to face
the collective might of world community. 'One for all and all for one' is the
principle; operates through international organisation like the U.N.

Answcrs to Check Your Progress 3

1)

National interest seeks to protect core values of the society including welfare
or tlie nation, economic prosperity, security of political beliefs, sovereignty,
territorial integrity and national honour. National intcrest is a key concgpt in
foreign policy; it,is the starting point as well as a goal offoreign policy.

Answers to Check Your Progrcss 4

1)

Security is the main objective of every government. Foreign policy is the

instrument through which national interest is protected. Thus, if security is
not ensured, national interest is sacrificed.

2)

Nature of weapons. and of war, has changed with the corning of nuclear
weapons. It is an age of overkill, aiid nuclear n7eaponscan endanger security
of entire mankind due to their capacity of total destruction.