The Future of Power

Before considering the significance of power, and its future affects on International Relations one must understand a crucial premise. Power is multi dimensional; a 3D chess board, as American historian Joseph Nye describes it. The top board; or dimension, can be defined as power in relation to coercion; or military force. The ability to beat one into doing something you want them to do. Oxford historian A.J.P. Taylor defined power as the ‘ability to prevail in War’. In a sense this dimension can be defined as ‘sticks’. The ability to pay, or tempt, using money, is the next dimension. In a sense this is the capacity to pay another agent, or state, to do something you want them to do. Lastly, and most importantly when analysing power in relation to future international relations, there is the notion of Soft power. Essentially soft power can be defined as; the faculty to convince another agent to want to do something you need them to do. Soft Power, in a sense is a direct argument against the premise of A.J.P. Taylor; it is not whose army who wins that becomes powerful it is more whose story wins that becomes powerful. 

A.J.P. Taylor

In my opinion, there are two key transitions in power that need to be understood. Firstly, and far less importantly, power is travelling to the wings of the planet. Consider, the end of the Second World War; the collapse of Nazi Germany and the desolation of most of Central and Eastern Europe brought about a power vacuum. An arena for conflict and struggle to seize power; authority and, above all, influence. At the time, the World was, certainly in terms of the top chess board; coercion, a bipolar World. The USSR, a Communist regime, and the United States, the pioneer of Liberal Democracy, were at War for political domination. A conflict based on economic systems; free market v. centrally planned systems and political ideologies; pluralism v. elitism. Pluralism, the belief that a multi party system based on freedom of speech is more democratic, efficient and more fair. Elitism, as Plato believed, can be defined as a system where a single leader; or group-of-leaders, make all economic and political decisions; freedom of speech is not encouraged and a single party system is adopted. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in the rise of a monopoly World. Historian Francis Fukuyama, wrote the End of History in 1992 with the sole premise being that the 20th century had ended in exactly the same way that the 20th century had commenced; a hegemony. Essentially, the defeat of two major ideological opponents to Western democracy; Hitlers rightwing Nazism and Stalin’s Left Wing Communism. Fukuyama believed that the World was now in for a prolonged period of one system; essentially the evolution of ideologies was over and the universalisation of liberal democracy had begun. However, this brings us onto the beginning of the first transition of power. The power vacuum in Europe and the defeat of the USSR saw power travel to the peripheries of the World. The United States would soon have to share its power with China. It is important to not overestimate the role of China in todays political order. Going back to the 3D chess board; illustrated earlier, the only board in which China perhaps contends with America is in relation to its economy. It is estimated that China’s gross domestic product; GDP will prevail that of the United States in around 2030. Nevertheless, it is clear that GDP is no satisfactory measure when analysing economic power. Indeed, GDP per capita, although certainly not without its limitations, gives a far more accurate picture. GDP per capita is total economic product divided by total population in order to give an aggregate level of income. On this measure; China, according to the World Bank in 2013 has a GDP per capita of $11,868 compared to the US’ $53,001. Of course, China’s economic trajectory is positive, growing at an average 10% since Deng’s Charimanship began in 1978. Indeed Chairman Deng brought 700 million Chinese out of poverty, over the $1.25 a day line, between 1978 and 2000. A remarkable feat for any politician. However, given these statistics there is a long way to go before China is on a level playing field with the economic might of the United States of America. 

Joseph Nye

The second shift in power we are witnessing is of far more significance and is, in some manner, more complex to understand. The argument is that power is leaving the hands of states such as the US, Britain, Japan, Germany, France, China etc. and arriving in the hands of transnational corporations and non state actors. Imagine international relations or international diplomacy as a stage where actors perform. This shift in power vertically is resulting one crucial thing; the stage is becoming crowded. This is for several reasons; but most importantly that barriers to entry are becoming lower and cheaper. In economics barriers to entry are defined as the restrictions for a firm to join a market. For instance, if an electricity firm wanted to begin to supply electricity to citizens in Britain they would have to pay a large sunk cost in order to even begin supplying, then would also need to handle legalities. These are barriers to entry. Another example is argued in the Mystery of Capital that it takes 15 years to create a business in Mexico due to the level of petty corruption. However, these barriers to entry are beginning to diminish. Notably, the price of computing and communication has decreased by 1000x since 1970. Put in perspective, if the cost of cars had decreased at the same rate than one could purchase a car for $5. As a result of communication and computing becoming cheaper more players; state and non state actors can join the stage. It was the privileged few who could communicate with Australia from Britain 100 years ago; now it is available to everyone who owns an iPhone; Skype and Viber or anyone who possesses a Facebook account; thats 1.23 billion people. This crowded stage has positives and negatives though. Consider, more people were killed by a non state attack, Al Qaeda, 9/11, than were killed by a state v state attack, Pearl Harbour 1941.This is due to a single issue; as power transfers upwards; towards the cloud, for instance and technology becomes cheaper, there is more opportunity for abuse in the systems. However, it is also harder to regulate. For example, the recent war on cyber crime; hacking for instance, is such a difficult issue due to the inexplicable fact that regulation of the internet is virtually impossible. Barriers to entry, not merely in terms of their economic cost, but also in terms of their availability have become significantly more accessible. However, there are positives for the stage becoming crowded. The United States, now the hegemony in World order, can harness this power transfer to gain further influence and this is where the notion of Soft Power becomes so crucial. Soft Power, defined previously as the ability to convince an agent to do something you want them to because they think they want to, is becoming more significant. The United States dominate in every aspect of soft power. When the Twin Towers fell on September 11th 2001, affiliates of Al Qaeda celebrated wearing GAP Jumpers and t-Shirts. In my travels to India and Nepal; countries with extreme examples of absolute poverty, there are users of iPhones, supporters of the New York Knicks and Bob Dylan fans. The American way of life is considered the pivotal, the ideal that everyone must aspire to achieve. In China, according to the Economist magazine last year, the emergence of e-commerce and the desire to own the latest smartphone released by Apple proves once again that it is the attraction of Silicon Valley not Shanghai or Beijing which dominates the conscious of the average Chinese citizen. Once again power is achieved by those whose story wins, not those who have successful armies in this day and age. 

Why is all this important? Why is all this worth reading? For one simple reason; one needs to recognise these power shifts in order to understand where next to go. Psychology must change if we, as a group of state, and non state actors, are going to tackle some of the deep-rooted issues of our time. Climate Change, the crisis in the Middle East, absolute poverty, to name a few, are only able to be dealt with if psychology is changed from zero sum to positive sum. The notion of zero sum is my gain is your loss; this is out of date. The level of interconnectivity in this new world order is such that my gain is now your gain and your loss is also my own. Until we embrace this; we are stuck.