From Power Over to Power With – By: Qazi Suhal Akhunzada
Technological depth has completely shifted power over to power with, leaving nature of super power topsy-turvy
There is an old adage that goes: good decisions come from bad experiences and good experiences come from bad decisions. The conflicts like ‘defeated and buried Operation Sindoor’ and the ‘timely- paused Epic Fury’are the experiences that global actors practiced in the recent past, regarding the definition of super and great power. One leading experience learned from the two high-risk wars is that super power is the one which is deeper in its technology. This has created chaos in the international system where it is very difficult to differentiate between the values of influence of super powers.
What could be the fate of future crises like Taiwan, Malacca strait and Ukraine crisis. If super power manifests weakness of minor power, then what is weakness in strategic perspective? Is it backwardness in technology or lack of missiles stockpiles? What is the touchstone which decides the essence of influence of super power? All these have originated from easily and rapidly growing technological improvement.
Technological depth has completely shifted power over to power with, leaving nature of super power topsy-turvy
The recent knee jerks and muscle testing have given rise to a great debate about the ‘definition of power’— to influence others—super power and a great power. And so much so that it leads to a confusion about a secure state. To put it in another way, what are those determinants that guarantee reliable security to a state? The answer to this nail biting confusion is simple: the one which possesses rather deeper technology than more nukes, fighter jets and guided cruise and ballistic missiles systems.
Emanual Macron,after the recent missiles exchange in middle east, iterated to develop an advance nuclear Deterrence, calling it inevitable need of the time.The surprises posed by cluster warheads, satellite intelligence, kamikaze drones, and killing of known state figures have proved that the fate of super power relies on technology because it has been the only influencing tool to materialize strategic objectives. In the past wars, the same sort of objectives were being achieved through trained dogs and intelligence based operations. Contrariwise, the brave Muslim leadership of Iran became victim to AI hijacking of surveillance and traffic cameras.
In the war zone, the USS Abraham Lincoln Aircraft carrier met a blow of ballistic missiles. Moreso, drone technology bypassed the all-time advanced Iron Domes situated in Dimona, Haifa and other sites situated inside atrocious Israeli territories under its occupation. In aerial combat, the Majid defence system shot down the F 35 stealth fighter jet – US pride– posing a question mark on the US sphere of influence. It also gives rise to ambiguity regarding the notion: the US is a distant neighbour. This narrative, among others, was greatly owed credit to the US technological supremacy.
This article places the interchangeable nature of power and technology at its heart by comparing the current war with the past US invasions in different regions of the world. It also prophesizes the future of notion and definition of power,with changing technological advancement.
In the past wars, the ambit of US power was totally aligned with the definitions of power in all its aspects, respects estimations and determinants. How has the nature of power been changed by technological advancement? It can be verified by comparing the current war with past experiences. For the sake of convenience, two American wars are taken as touchstones: Operation Enduring Freedom; and Operation Iraqi freedom.
Taking Operation Enduring Freedom first, it was aimed at capturing Osama Bin Laden and dismantling the Taliban regime in line with the disguised philosophy of inducing civilized codon in The DNA of Asians. The toppling of the Taliban regime was the result of American power coupled with advanced technology. Owing to primitive Taliban tech, the US had the upper hand over the underdogs in the region. The greatest loss was in Wardak province where 30 soldiers were killed. The most important thing in line with the definitions of power was that there was no technological inferiority like the shooting down of F 35 or F15E and other defence systems. It means super power arises out of the weaknesses of others. This was proved second time in ‘operation Iraqi Freedom’.
Unlike, Iran war has been proven fatalic blow to the notion of power. If power means to influence, then that power is no more with America. Through indigenous technology, Iran challenged US influence by destroying advanced US technology. Had ballistic missiles not been made, Iran would not have been able to thwart US influence. To put it in other words, there is a marked difference in the value of US influence in the Afghan war and in the Iran war.This difference is due to deeper, advanced and sophisticated technology.
The future notion of power is a buzz- phenomenon in the arena of diplomatic behaviour. This tech- based ambiguity about the notion of power is likely giving rise to the following ramifications based on power influence. These ramifications are attached with power struggle between and among actors on the world stage. For the sake of convenience, three cases are worth noting: Taiwan case; Middle east case; Ukraine case.
How is China more influential in Taiwan? Has China technologically enough tools to annex it, or does America have the capacity to counter Chinese initiatives to avert the situation of materializing One China policy.
The same leg -pulling-scene between highdogs is going on in Ukraine. Now it is not the problem that Natoization of Ukraine is possible or not. It is the dilemma whether Western ‘power-seekers’ can provide required power to Ukraine against Russia. Who has more power? Russia or west? On the one hand, Russia successfully attacks Ukraine,despite Western defence system. On the other hand, Ukrainian drones reach presidential office in Moscow.
In the Middle eastern terrain, who will guarantee maritime routes, as per Trump’ s social truth uterence: “the fucking strait”. All these questions arise out of changing nature of power, rooted in technological advancement. The future definition of power is unknown due to surprising developments in the scientific domain. It is not only the problem of who is strong, but it is also an issue of who is weak because one’s strength manifests others weakness as Joseph Conrad, Russian rooted, English novelist, gives vertical movement to his horizontal lips in this way: “our strength arises from weakness of others”.
The good experience of the Iran war resulted from bad decisions of Trump and Netanyahu has ushered the international system under the guardianship of an unknown technologically influencing superpower. Let us see which way the cat jumps in the future– towards east or towards west.
Qazi Suhal Akhunzada
MA English, MA IR
Ex. V. lecturer GDC Chitral Lower
