The big powers in international relations refer to the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as stated by writer Aishwarya Sanjukta Roy Proma in her story "The World Is Larger Than Big Powers: What Does It Mean for Global Politics?"
These nations can veto, which means they can prevent the Security Council from adopting any substantive resolution. These nations also possess nuclear weapons and also have a privileged position and a special responsibility for maintaining global order and stability. However, as Roy Proma stated, current international relations are changing the realities of the 21st century.
Emerging powers or states have a significant rising influence on global affairs. They want to have a more powerful position or role in international relations, either regionally or globally, and possess the resources to make such goals potentially achievable. It can be said that the world is getting larger than big powers in international relations, as more diverse and complex actors and issues require cooperation and coordination among the international community. One of the things that has changed since the end of the last Cold War is that some parts of the world, Asia and South America, have become wealthier.
Emerging powers have actively participated in multilateral negotiations and initiatives to address these challenges, sometimes in cooperation with established powers and sometimes in competition with them. These nations are contributing to solving global issues and problems, such as climate change, poverty, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. They have also provided financial and technical assistance to other developing countries to promote their development and security.
Roy Proma elaborated on the importance of emerging powers: "Emerging powers can use their diplomatic and economic influence to facilitate dialogue, mediation, and cooperation among their neighbors and to prevent or resolve conflicts peacefully. With the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, emerging powers from South Asia and Africa have been balancing the interests of securing energy and food with the presence of external powers that have a stake in the region, such as the United States, the European Union, or China. Middle Eastern countries are also using their strategic resources-- such as oil and military hardware-- to deter or counter any potential aggression or interference from outside actors and to maintain a stable and favorable regional order." She pointed to specific instances of regional order: "Recently, Latin American nations have adopted regional norms and values that reflect the interests and aspirations of the region, such as democracy, human rights, and sovereignty. East Asian nations are using their soft power and cultural influence to shape the identity and behavior of the region and to foster a sense of regional community and solidarity. Southeast Asian nations focus on providing public goods and services that benefit the region as a whole, such as infrastructure, trade, energy, health, education, and security. They are using their resources and capabilities to support regional development and integration in the Mekong Delta and to address common challenges and threats that affect the region and the South China Sea. On the other hand, emerging powers are gaining momentum in global affairs. Some examples of emerging powers are Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, collectively known as the BRICS. BRICS nations seek to increase their representation and voice in the existing global institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. These states have expressed the viewpoint that these institutions are characterized by the influence of the established powers, particularly the United States and its allies, and do not adequately represent the diverse and pluralistic nature of the international community."
Roy Promoa ends her story with a nice thought, as she wants a global politics based on "mutual respect, cooperation, and dialogue among all actors, both established and emerging". She makes a valuable point, and it must be added that the US didn't do a good job of incorporating emerging powers into the international system after the Cold War. The China/Russia block is doing a counterbalancing act and trying to drive the US out of their respective hemispheres.
Is it just as simple as the US removing its presence from other hemispheres and allowing the China/Russia orbit to dominate in those spheres? No, each sphere would engage in a power balancing act, which would mean loads of military spending and a constant threat of war. The internal politics of the China/Russia orbit is also a problem, as it bandwagons with authoritarian and totalitarian countries around the world, an issue that Roy Proma fails to address. The authoritarian/totalitarian orbit states that if a country doesn't want to follow a Western/democratic form of development, it doesn't have to. In promoting authoritarianism and totalitarianism, this orbit is trying to export a way of life around the world and causing a counterbalancing act amongst its opponents. So far, we've seen the current Cold War heating up.
It seems as if the war in Ukraine might be winding down if President-Elect Donald Trump's words are to be believed. However, the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is possible, and a decades-old arms control regime with Russia has mostly broken down.
How do we keep another world war from breaking out? We maintain a reasonable dialog with our adversaries and perhaps try to restart a few rudimentary arms control deals. Renewing New START would be a start. In our diplomatic communications with our adversaries, we should stress how destructive a war between the two main orbits would be. Does it sound like blind faith? Yes, and I hope it works.
Another plus would be maintaining our status as a model democratic nation-state for others to follow. However, it will be difficult for an authoritarian leader to come to power in Washington. Of course, there are other obstacles, like the dominance of money in politics and a polarizing and toxic political environment. The bright spot? There are groups in our country and in places like Russia and China who want to maintain or create a democratic way of life. Remember, democratic nations don't go to war with each other, at least not so far. This is a simple point that President Woodrow Wilson had right, despite everything he had wrong.
Will the democratic way of life win? It might be up to non-state actors living under various forms of government worldwide. Hopefully, pro-democratic versions of our adversaries-- North Korea, China, and Russia-- will emerge as democratic countries and stay that way. Then, serious dialog can emerge in the international system over a solid, rules-based order. Blind faith again? Yes, and I hope I'm right!
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
