The Nature of State Power 149state’s power potential— images that translate into an intangible power ingredient.
Canadians have typically viewed themselves as internationally responsible and eager to
participate in multilateral peacekeeping missions, to provide generous foreign- aid pack-
ages, and to respond unselfishly to international emergencies. The state has acted on
and, indeed, helped to shape that image, making Canada a more power ful actor than its
small population (35 million) would other wise dictate. But images can slowly change
as policy positions change. In recent years, Canada’s view of itself as “helpful fixer” has
waned as its defense and development spending has lagged compared to other developed
states, a trend that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (elected in 2015) hopes to reverse.
The perception by other states of public support and cohesion is another intangible
source of power. China’s power was magnified during the leadership of Mao Zedong
(1893–1976), when there appeared to be unpre ce dented public support for the com-
munist leadership and a high degree of societal cohesion. A state government’s actual
support among its own population can also be a power ful mediator of state power.
Israel’s successful campaigns in the Middle East in the 1967 and 1973 wars can be
attributed in large part to strong public support, including the willingness of Israeli
citizens to pay the cost and die for their country when necessary.
When that public support is absent, particularly in democracies, the power poten-
tial of the state diminishes. Witness the U.S. loss in the Vietnam War, when challenges
to, and disagreement with, the war effort undermined military effectiveness. Loss of
public support may also inhibit authoritarian systems. In both the 1991 Gulf War and
the 2003 Iraq War, Saddam Hussein’s support from his own troops was woefully
inadequate: many were not ready to die for the Iraqi regime and fled. In 2015, Iraqi
soldiers once again dropped their weapons and discarded their uniforms when faced
with the Islamic State onslaught. They were not ready to fight for the regime. Neither
were the mercenaries Muammar Qaddafi hired ready to fight for Libya in 2011 as they
left with their arms, making their way to West African states like Mali, ready to fight
a not her d ay.
Leadership is another source of intangible power. Visionaries and charismatic leaders,
such as India’s Mohandas Gandhi, Germany’s Otto von Bismarck, and Britain’s Winston
Churchill, were able to augment the power potential of their states by taking bold
initiatives. Poor leaders, those who squander public resources and abuse the public’s
trust, such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Iraq’s Nouri al- Maliki, and Syria’s Bashar
al Assad, diminish the state’s power capability and its capacity to exert power over the
long term. Liberals, in par tic u lar, pay attention to leadership: good leaders can avoid
resorting to war; bad leaders may not be able to prevent it.
More generally, states can exercise intangible power characteristics. Joseph S. Nye
labeled such power soft power, the ability to attract others because of the legitimacy
of the state’s values or its policies.^8 Rather than exerting its natu ral and tangible power,
such a state influences other states by being what it is. A state is able to co-opt others