Superpowers and changing geopolitics

Eggy Baby!

Okay, so I've been wondering a lot lately what countries in the near future will become true superpowers (not just giant military powers or giant economic powers, an actual superpower must excel in everything). Obviously we'll disregard America cos it already is.

Russia is intent on regaining its superpower status. It's economy is expanding and modernising, as is its army. It wields huge clout in terms of natural resources and has a broad and strong network of allies. It has a large population (which is equalising), a strong industrial tradition and a strong military tradition. Russia also has a long tradition of excellence in research and technological investment. It, IMO, has the mettle to be a superpower, it just has that special quality, that confident magic which is conducive to it becoming a superpower. It can pursue superpower-ship, and it can achieve it. It has a vast quantity of nuclear weapons.

China is pretty popular in the media these days. It has a huge economy and population, a huge army (although how good it is is open for debate as most of it is highly classified) and is on the rise. Some say that it is a superpower already, and is close to overtaking the USA, but I disagree. It has strong allies too and is placed on a dynamite position; smack bang on the Pacific where it can project its influence in every direction. R&D wise, China is still rather backward but it is modernising very rapidly (more people graduate in China than there are people in the USA). It, however, has problems with demographics and stability. Whether or not those two devils will destroy it remains to be seen. Has limited numbers of nuclear weapons.

Brazil is a very stable and young democracy. It has a very large population and holds huge clout in terms of natural resources. Its economy performs very well but it is still developing. Its military is still young but a good investment could change that. Its population are young and this provides large employment which is why Brazil seems to be in a perpetual boom and is a magnet for investment. I believe that this is a dark horse. It may seem to be weak but I believe it is clandestinely growing more powerful in the wings while the other significant potential superpowers use more overt means to gain their power. One to watch. Although whether or not it wishes to pursue this coveted status is unknown. Brazil's government seem to be rather timid.

India is another unusual contender. It has a massive population and a growing economy. Its army is very large, is modernising (in co-operation with Russia) and it is armed with nuclear weapons. Poverty represents a problem to India's global prestige however. It is large and has a strong, minimum-wage based industrial base. Again it has numerous allies and is in a powerful position- near the middle-east. Whether or not it can rise to the task is another question however. Although former colonies (you know who I mean!) have become superpowers in the past.

Other countries which could potentially become powerful entities are:
Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Argentina.

So what's your opinion on this? I don't believe the USA will retain its superpower status after the next few decades are over but that's just IMHO.

V_Moth

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Poland

Poland can't into space.

Seriously though, all the countries you mentioned have significant problems to overcome before being able to claim they are superpowers.

Russia: Fast declining population mainly due very high levels of alcoholism and other social problems. Decades of structural underinvestment means most industrial units are outdated and inefficient. Things are slowly improving though.

China: Potential future conflicts between the current leadership and the emerging and independently minded middle class seem probable. Significant problems with environmental pollution, which has become one of the mean areas of protest by Chinese citizens.

Brazil: Significant problems with gangs in urban areas and lawlessness in the wider countryside.

India: The Maoist insurgency in central India has gained some popular support and is continuing to expand its area of influence (currently in 9 states).

Other than China, I don't see any other states emerging as a superpower. I think it will be more like the late 19th Century with various leading nations forming loose alliances to suit their needs.

goose2005

I don't see how you can have that many superpowers: the reason the USA and USSR were 'superpowers' was because there were only 2 of them; if there are about 10 leading countries they'd only be "Great Powers", maybe.

blatantrereg

China already is a superpower. It owns quite a bit of America you know. China's approach appears to be to consolidate its already strong position.

Russia does appear to have serious ambitions and Putin is as dodgy as they come tbh. It's a bit alarming.

Saudi Arabia appears to be consolidating a strong power base too.

Because China and Saudi Arabia seem to be consolidating power bases, they are more likely to be a moderating influence in foreign relations in general as a result, I think. Russia seems to see itself more as a contender and would strike me as the one most likely to instigate serious trouble with other nations.

This is just my impression and my opinion really.

SamHarris

V_Moth wrote: »

Poland can't into space.

Seriously though, all the countries you mentioned have significant problems to overcome before being able to claim they are superpowers.

Russia: Fast declining population mainly due very high levels of alcoholism and other social problems. Decades of structural underinvestment means most industrial units are outdated and inefficient. Things are slowly improving though.

China: Potential future conflicts between the current leadership and the emerging and independently minded middle class seem probable. Significant problems with environmental pollution, which has become one of the mean areas of protest by Chinese citizens.


Other than China, I don't see any other states emerging as a superpower. I think it will be more like the late 19th Century with various leading nations forming loose alliances to suit their needs.

Russia wont be a super power any time soon. To put its reach into perspective it has 1/2 the population of the US,about 1/8 the economy, where the US has about 60 of the top 100 universities in the world, Russia has 1 to none (this is a very good indicator of its technological and research clout). Even without its enormous demographic problem its not even begining to compete in any of the areas that matter.

With regard to "whats considered a superpower" there is a point to be made that there really cant be more than, say, 3 given that to be considered a superpower a country has to have in the region of 20 -25% of the world economy. But if you consier a superpower to be a country that has significant political, military and technological say in every part of the world then there may be room for a far more multipolar system.

It is interesting in that China is quickly becoming (or is) an economic superpower, without having anywhere near the cultural, academic (and to some extent) military strength of the States. The argument could be made that to truly be a superpower there must at least be the illusion of a competition in those major spheres of power, not just in the economy.

K-9

Whatever about the rest, China is showing classic signs of an economy in a bubble and in a classic mix of a Government that seems to be aware of the problem but also scared of reducing growth and not having eye catching levels of growth, bit like Ireland during the bubble:

Why China Will Have an Economic Crisis | Business | TIME.com

Chuck Stone

We're looking at a multi polar world in the future. The west is on the wane and the east and south are on the rise.

US debt and when the US petrodollar is replaced with some other mechanism will force the US to live within its means.

blatantrereg

K-9 wrote: »

Whatever about the rest, China is showing classic signs of an economy in a bubble and in a classic mix of a Government that seems to be aware of the problem but also scared of reducing growth and not having eye catching levels of growth, bit like Ireland during the bubble:

Why China Will Have an Economic Crisis | Business | TIME.com

Interesting article. He says they're investing in the wrong things, rather than that they're investing too much. It does appear to be all about grand projects to advertise the success of the country, rather than the basic infrastructure that is required. It does remind me of the Bertiebowl plans alright.

I read today that it's illegal for foreign person/agenices to inspect Chinese food production processes. That's consistent with the idea that they're concerned with image over quality. Major discreprencies between statistics published by the Chinese government and independent researchers there are pretty common in pretty much everything too...with the latter being more consistent with logical expectations. So really, who knows how China is really doing.

The bit I'm not so sure about is his argument that China needs to focus more on a consumption-based model than an export-based one. And the way that there's not much credit available (outside of the grand scheme)s is certainly very different to the bubble that was here. Perhaps there is a bubble in direct investment from foreign agencies -- rather than in domestic investment using funds borrowed from foreign agencies - which is what happened here.

K-9

blatantrereg wrote: »

The bit I'm not so sure about is his argument that China needs to focus more on a consumption-based model than an export-based one. And the way that there's not much credit available (outside of the grand scheme)s is certainly very different to the bubble that was here. Perhaps there is a bubble in direct investment from foreign agencies -- rather than in domestic investment using funds borrowed from foreign agencies - which is what happened here.

That would have been my criticism of it. I don't see how credit is going to filter down to the levels of poverty China has, it isn't like Europe or the US, though even that did, to an extent with sub prime mortgages. China has such levels of poverty that I don't see that as conceivable, it happened in the US though, so maybe the markets and financial companies will dream up ways of making it work.

nuac

I think China and India are likely to be great(er) powers - basing this on fact that for generations their citizens have developed businesses all over the world.

Too busy at the moment to think out and debate any deep geopolitical issues - that is my rather simplistic view just now.

However good thread

Jaafa

K-9 wrote: »

Whatever about the rest, China is showing classic signs of an economy in a bubble and in a classic mix of a Government that seems to be aware of the problem but also scared of reducing growth and not having eye catching levels of growth, bit like Ireland during the bubble:

Why China Will Have an Economic Crisis | Business | TIME.com

China just announced that it will try to slow growth down from almost 10% a year, to 7.5%. Though that may have its own problems.

On the regional powers you mention, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. First off Saudi Arabia, is in a decisive period. For the next 20 years or so, oil will start drying up. However this does mean higher prices and thus more income for the Monarchy there. They need to invest heavily in technology and scientific R+D. This is all they have, once the oil is gone they'll have no other exports left. In 2007 non-oil manufacturing contributed only 10% to GDP. And only 6% of total employment.

Compare this to Iran for example, who recently became 17th in the world for PPP (Purchasing power Parity),(Saudi is 23rd), overtaking Poland and Australia. Due to heavy sanctions Iran has had to invest heavily in domestic manufacturing and scientific R+D. Its contribution to world science has increased at 11 times the world rate between 1980-2009. Combining the scientific output of Iran and Turkey (if you go by order it goes Turkey,Iran,Israel) you get a result bigger than the rest of the middle east put together, including Israel. Link. As you can see from the link in terms of scientific output Saudi Arabia is dwarfed by Iran Turkey and Israel. On top of this Iran is largely independent of other nations for much of it's manufacturing needs.

Taking the above into account, it's easy to see that the three big players in the middle east in the next 10-20 years will be Iran Turkey and Israel.For Saudi Arabia to catch up, it will have to invest heavily in the areas mentioned above and reduce their dependence on foreign imports.

Brussels Sprout

In the near future, the only country that can be considered, despite all of its problems, is China. It has:

• World's largest population
• World's second largest economy
• World's second largest military budget
• Third largest country by area
• A massive conveyor belt of graduates year on year
• An ever increasing domestic market
• Made incredible technological advances over the past 30 years
• A largely homogenous, nationalisitic and loyal population
• Large communities of successful ex-pats all over the planet
• Secured deals for the provision of resources and energy from multiple sources
• A population with a strong work ethic
• The confidence and self belief that it will be the next superpower

Of all the countries out there, China is the one that appears to be playing the long game.

RichieC

I'd keep my eye on India as well. Their middle class will soon be larger than the united states. that's a hell of a market.