*{What Defines National Power? [http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/What%20Defines%20National%20Power%3F?open&topic_id=300250000&theme_id=300]

            30.01.2001

            Annual Meeting 2001}

            Historically, what defined national power was a country’s ability to exercise its military might. The economic power of a state underpinned its military capacity, while its military capacity enabled it to advance economic power. Sean M. Cleary, Managing Director, Strategic Concepts, South Africa, said that there has been a dramatic shift in the exercise of power. The use of force in the naked pursuit of economic interests, which was a common feature in previous centuries, is no longer a viable objective because of moral and strategic reasons.

            Joseph S. Nye Jr, Dean, John F.Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA, defined power as the ability of a nation to get the outcome it desires. In the 18th century, Nye said that the control of land and peasants enabled France to emerge as the superpower nation of the day. In the 19th century, the age of the industrial revolution, what propelled Great Britain, and later Germany to superpower status was their dominance of heavy industry. Nye said that dominance over science and technology bestowed superpower status over the United States and the Soviet Union. In the 21st century, Nye believes that a superpower’s mastery of information technology will give it the key to control the information age. In the new economy, Nye believes that is soft power, which he defined as a country’s ability to persuade other nations to comply with its objectives without the use of coercive force as emerging as an important element of what makes a superpower. A nation’s high and low culture, cultural and ideological values, and quality of life are the key determinants of soft power. 

            Paul M. Kennedy, Professor of History and Director, International Security Studies, Yale University, USA presented a series of statistics that showed that the size of a nation’s population did not necessarily reflect military and economic might. As evidence, Kennedy showed statistics comparing the position of the United States (which has only a 4% share of world population) with China (21%) and India (17%). His findings are interesting:

            In terms of their share in world output, the United States had a dominant 29% share in 2000 compared with China (3%) and India (2%).

            In terms of world military expenditure in 2000, the United States had a 36 percent share in 2000. Compared with China (2%) and India (1%). In fact, US defence spending is higher than the next eight spenders put together, a phenomenon that has no parallels in the past.

            In terms of World internet users in 1999, the United States had a 49% share in 1999, compared with China (5%) and India (2%).

            Kennedy said that the implications of this are obvious. In the longer run, it is not in the best interests of the United States to see advances in these indicators in both China and India. Economic and political power, he said would begin to converge. And nations with large populations would in the longer run realize that this translates into larger power. 

            Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, USA, said that despite economic and technological advances, the bottom line is that military power is the single most important factor. She acknowledged that neither sovereignty nor international power is what it used to be. Internecine conflicts within states have led to a change in the primacy of national sovereignty. However despite the importance of military power, the information revolution is changing the definition of power. During the industrial revolution, the principal value was in the control of mass physical resources. In the information revolution, the premium is for information over resources.

            Bassam Tibi, Professor of International Relations and Director, University of Gottingen, Germany, said that in Europe the exercise of military power is losing its appeal. However, military power still enjoyed broad appeal in regions such as Africa. Nations like Egypt and Nigeria, both small economies with a large military have been able to emerge as regional powers. Turkey is another example of this trend, and what made the country even more important in the Middle East is its control over regional sources of water supply.
                        *{Contributors:       Cleary Sean M.
                  Kennedy Paul M.
                  Mathews Jessica T.
                  Nye Joseph S.
                  Tibi Bassam}