A discussion of power, part 1.

Power is one of the most important concepts in International Relations. It is, unfortunately, also likely the least clearly defined and nebulous concept. Most definitions for power are qualitative, which is probably the best starting point for it. In IR, power is seen as some combination of A: being able to obtain things you want, and B: the ability to make others do your will. I am going to put these together, power, to me, is the ability to achieve goals. However, this definition tells us nothing, really. We have a concept, and outcomes, but not how one achieves the other. There is a black box, a collection of things that make up "power" that we can then use to achieve goals. 

X + Y + Z = level of power = goals that can be achieved.

Without knowing how much power you have, you can never know what sort of goals you are actually capable of striving for. This is known as absolute power. Do we have the power to send a man to the moon, to feed our hungry and heal our sick?

Power is not just absolute, however. Though it does matter how much power you have, it also matters how much power everyone else has. (Realists and Liberals disagree on which does or should matter more. As a Realist, I am going to act as though, for a state, relative power is more important.) Many goals a state wants to achieve are dependent not on how much power it has, but how much power it has *relative to another state*. Can State A defend itself from an attack by State B? Can State X compel State Y to do its will? To a state, answering these questions may well be more important than its absolute power level. I imagine that, at the height of the Roman Empire, Caesar would have been perfectly happy to never increase the empire's level of power again, if he could guarantee that no other state would be able to do so either. (I could be wrong, of course, a Liberal would disagree with me on this point, and legitimately so. I would like to think that a state would improve its level of power even without an outside need to do so if that would improve the lives of its citizens, but…perhaps not. There are counterexamples.)

In either case, it is imperative to know how much power the state, and other states, have, otherwise there can be huge errors. World War II is an excellent example of this. Germany, Japan, and Italy dramatically overestimated their relative power, and it cost them. Japan was perhaps the clearest example of all, obviously overestimating their power relative to the United States.

So how do we measure state power? A fairly well accepted method was created by the Correlates of War project, called the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC). This index averages ratios, state divided by world, in six measures: total population of country, urban population, iron and steel production, energy consumption, military expenditures and military personnel. It's a little confusing, let me try and explain this.

State A has 1% of the total world population, 2% of it's urban population, 3% of its iron and steel production, 4% of its energy consumption, 5%of its military expenditures and 6% of its military personnel. You just add these together and divide by six, so this fictional state's CINC score would be 21% / 6 = .035. You can then compare these scores and make a claim that one state is more powerful than another. In 2007, the top five most powerful states by CINC were: 

1. China (.199) 

2. United States (.142) 

3. India (.073) 

4. Japan (.427)

5. Russia (.392)

Right off the bat, I can identify some major problems with this methodology. Does population matter to power as much as military expenditures? How about expenditures and troops? Does spending the most in the world matter if you have no troops to use it? How about the reverse, where a state has a huge army but no money (the North Korea situation)? How can all these very different measures be weighted the same? The CINC score does give some rather strange results. Syria more powerful than Israel. North Korea more powerful than Australia?

China more powerful than the US?

Space Policy, part 1.

Star Trek got it right when they said space was the final frontier. Very little that applies on earth matters once you enter orbit, even the omnipresent and fundamental political realities that people assume exist everywhere. And for the most part, they're right: concepts like sovereign control of territory (or territory at all for that matter) that are just part of life on earth, don't, or even can't, matter in space. This blog post will outline the realities of outer space (politically speaking), current policy towards space by the space powers, and where things could go from here. I will also discuss some of the unique dangers and threats posed by space technology.

As it stands, outer space is considered the Common Heritage of Mankind, which means everyone owns it…which of course means no one owns it (and no one CAN own it), as we would conceive of ownership. Everyone can freely use Outer Space, which begins at about 62 miles above sea level. Traditional notions of Sovereignty end at this point. A state can decide who can enter its airspace, but an orbiting satellite can go overhead six times a day and no one can complain, they do not control the space over a state. This is partly functional, most orbits are not stationary and will cross many boundaries, usually more than once, over the course of the day. Of course, since no one can control where a satellite goes once it is up there, it is also perfectly legal to park a geo-synchronous satellite (which orbits at the same rate the earth rotates, thus remaining stationary from our perspective) over any country. The US has done exactly that with many satellites: some of the best positions for communications satellites are around the equator, and as one of the first states to achieve space flight, we have taken those spots. Several countries in Africa and South America were not happy about this development, they actually tried to declare that the orbits over their territory were under their sovereign control and we had to move (and first-world policymakers all had a good laugh about that.)

Because Outer Space is not under the control of anyone, there isn't much law out there. A few treaties have been signed, mostly to make life easier for spacefaring states. Astronauts must be protected and returned to their home countries if they land in another state's territory. Whatever you put in outer space is still yours. If a state or its nationals do damage to someone else's property (by accident or on purpose), the state is liable. You can't bring nuclear weapons into outer space (when these were written the Cold War was a big deal, and no one wanted space weapons platforms.) The weaponization of space is for the most part banned (article IV of the outer space treaty: "The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden." Keep in mind that this does not rule out military equipment, etc. that is not on a celestial body but instead is self propelled, or maybe in orbit. Even with that caveat, it is frowned upon.) Though space is obviously used for military purposes, it is always indirect: communications, GPS and the like, not orbiting bombs or space lasers, etc. 

Until recently, most discussions of Outer Space were academic. Almost no one could go there, and it was incredibly expensive even for those who could. Actually USING Outer Space for a purpose other than exploration for its own sake, and some specific science, was not a consideration. In recent years however, the idea of making space profitable has emerged. Everything from mining to tourism to exploration is being mooted. Different groups are considering actual colonization missions to Mars. Capturing and mining asteroids is a possibility. How do we analyze these new possibilities within the current space paradigm?

*******************************

As an aside, and one that will eventually be relevant to this blog post, I have been thinking about the "common heritage of mankind" idea and how it is used. The idea was put forth originally by 3rd world nations, first about high seas. It gives all people (really all states) a right to something by birth. One could maybe make this claim about the seas: we all should have access to it and no one can take exclusive rights over the high seas, they are for everyone to benefit from equally. Just because some states are richer and more powerful than others right now does not give them the right to take all the oceans resources for themselves.

However, we know that the profit motive is powerful, and when it is taken away, less development happens. Very little has been BUILT for the benefit of all mankind. By making an area the property of everyone, it makes it difficult to economically exploit that area. This might be a slight exaggeration, but when a territory is owned by everyone, the profitability might drop to zero. So, from a poor nation's perspective, whether an area is developed or not seems to make no difference, they make no money either way. The common heritage claim is more about "fairness" than material benefits, then. Poor states don't want rich states to gain a further advantage by using some new resource, even if they are not taking anything away from poor states by doing so (because poor states can't use it anyway). This makes common heritage a relative gains argument, realist thinking using a fundamentally liberal concept of universal ownership.

*******************************

Common heritage might be able to apply to the oceans, but does it apply to space? By what right can humanity as a group claim ALL OF SPACE as ours?!? It's absurd thinking, for most of our existence we did not know "space" existed, and for most of the remainder actually traveling there was the height of fantasy. And yet we somehow can claim it as our common heritage, that use of space, all of space, every planet, every solar system, is the birthright of every human. The arrogance, if you'll excuse me, is of truly stellar proportions. Far more easy to conceptualize is that space and celestial bodies are the property of no one until they are claimed.