A large military budget does not automatically produce effective power

Bipolar or multipolar power structure? What we are heading towards is unclear. The world is now a complex and conflict-ridden place where power is exercised through multiple channels.

This is a debate post. Any opinions expressed in the text are the responsibility of the writer. If you want to participate in the debate, you can read how here.

In his column “The myth of multipolarity: the USA is still the world’s center of power” in Aftenposten on 29 April, postdoctoral fellow in political science Pål Røren claims that the USA is still the dominant power in the world. The proof is that the military strength of the United States clearly exceeds that of other states.

The world is neither bipolar nor multipolar, and it becomes neither does it.

The pipe may be right that it is not multipolar. But otherwise the proof is too simple. His thesis prevailed in the 1960s: military strength is the only the means of power.

He overlooks the analytical apparatus that political science offers today.

It is demonstrated daily that military strength is important. But a large military budget – Røren’s goal – does not automatically give effective power. When US power was at its peak, it did not prevent losses against the Taliban.

Let me briefly give four points for a realistic analysis:

1. The state’s character and domestic politics often determine the effect of the military means of power. For Røren, President Vladimir Putin is without the remedy: he just “shouts loudly”. Well, because he has shaped Russia into a state that does not contradict him, he can send enough people into the field and quickly turn the economy into a war economy. While the US cannot approve new aid to Ukraine until Putin has made clear progress.
2. Political scientists have shown for several decades that non-military resources can give a lot of power, ‘soft power’, not least financial resources, which Røren chooses to ignore. Terms such as ‘economic statecraft’ and ‘complex interdependence’ encompass states’ use of economic, social and cultural connections with others to exercise power over them.
3. Røren’s concept of power is the well-known one – the ability to get someone else to do something they would not otherwise do. Bilateral use of force can succeed, but it can also fail. Skewed dependency relationships have an effect. But it also has the effect of dominating institutions and structures in which many countries are involved. When Donald Trump took over the US in 2017, he renounced such positions in favor of bilateral relations. Before this, I claimed in this newspaper (November 29, 2016) that Trump could become China’s trump card. Did I get it right? China won positions in institutions and networks the US left, the US left resources for power. The trade measures against China hardly affected Chinese exports. What used to go to the USA goes to a third country (Mexico) and from there as finished goods to the USA.
4. States’ messages can also affect power. What does the state want? What values ​​does it promote? Is it purely national interests, a marking of identity? In Putin’s case, I thought it was Russia’s security that drove him. Today I know that his errand is imperial. The West has wanted the world to condemn him, but has received half support. Is it because the West’s message of values ​​has become less credible and its (the USA’s) power thus weakened? Do propaganda and lies construct new worldviews that weaken the West? Can the US exercise credible power externally as political lying increases domestically?

The world is now a complex and conflict-ridden place where power is exercised through multiple channels. Peace is in short supply. What kind of power structure we are heading towards is unclear. Most likely we are heading into a bipolar structure – China’s power is increasing. But India is also on the way. New partnerships increase diversity in the power structure. We must take a broad approach to understand it, not determine with absolute certainty how it is now and in the future.