Usually, the states attain, maintain, and sustain power to ensure peace and prosperity for their people; however, the great powers do that to impose their will on the relatively smaller and weaker states. That is the dark side of the most popular and practised international relations theory, realism.
Notwithstanding its widespread appeal and practice, realism has failed to bring peace, stability, and security at any level (Global, Regional, or Sub-regional). Realism preached for the acquisition of power to ensure security and protect interests. Ideally speaking, if it was done without causing harm and without impinging on the interests of the other states, it was fine. However, precisely the opposite has happened.
The great powers, since time immemorial, have promoted and protected their interests by subjugating the interests of the relatively weaker and smaller states. To expand their perimeter of security, the great powers continue to act as revisionists under the broad heading of ‘ensuring territorial integrity.’
The great powers, since time immemorial, have promoted and protected their interests by subjugating the interests of the relatively weaker and smaller states.
Israel has been doing it since its establishment in 1948, and is vigorously pursuing the agenda of a greater Israel by slicing the territory of the relatively weaker neighbouring states. On its way to building a greater Israel, it is not shy of using force and killing people who are unarmed and non-combatants, including women and children. The global community, in general, and international organisations in particular, have looked the other way towards Israeli atrocities against the poor people of Palestine. Gaza has been turned into ruins, and now there are no functioning schools or hospitals. Maybe a school building will be renovated in the years to come. Still, there will be no children to attend the class because an entire generation of children under nine has been mercilessly eliminated by the relentless bombing of the towns in Gaza.
This brings me to the question raised in the title. Do states acquire power for peace or war? Considering that the simplest definition of power remains ‘the ability to influence the behaviour of others.’ This leads to a supplementary question. Do states need to go to war with an Unequal Military Power (UMP) to influence its behaviour?
The answer to my questions lies in the philosophical musings of the two civilisations or cultures. One is led by Machiavelli and his followers in the West, who believe that war is a viable policy option. The other is led by Sun Tzu in China, who believes that war must be won without fighting. This differing concept forms the core of all crises, conflicts, and wars of the past, present, and perhaps the future as well.
The influence of Western powers in international affairs has endured for many centuries. Their modus operandi has remained the same: go to a new place, take money and soldiers, either buy the locals or kill them to occupy the land, subjugate the aborigines, and rule them with an iron fist. From their perspective, they were highly successful and therefore must continue with their grand strategy of colonising the smaller states, only with slight modification: now they do not have to appoint the Viceroy or Governor General, but do it through their proxies who would serve their interests in the most efficient manner possible.
On the other hand, the Chinese approach to similar things is different. China is also acquiring the power to influence others, but through the principle of productive engagement and mutual coexistence. Under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China is investing in the critical infrastructure of the developing states in various regions regardless of their political affiliations. Africa is likely to reap the maximum benefits of the BRI, as the continent has long needed such an initiative, having been colonised and deprived of its basic amenities for a long time, even after apparent decolonisation had taken place.
The beauty of China’s BRI lies in its public-oriented projects in the poorest countries of Africa and Asia, including roads, rail, bridges, ports, airports, water, climate, and energy projects. China, unlike colonial powers, does not invest in regimes to appoint its proxies to look after its interests in the countries where it invests. Instead, it invests in public-oriented projects, which can directly benefit the people of the host country-no wonder the Global South is looking to China to lead them today towards a better tomorrow.
The power struggle persists as part of the anarchic international system, as per the realist paradigm. However, in my opinion, China has shown the world that power can be attained, maintained, and sustained without going to war against the UMPs.
The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.”