Superpower: Difference between revisions
missing s |
Reverted to revision 588440629 by Antiochus the Great (talk). (TW) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{About|the geographic and political term|the powers of superheroes|Superpower (ability)|other uses|Superpower (disambiguation)}} |
{{About|the geographic and political term|the powers of superheroes|Superpower (ability)|other uses|Superpower (disambiguation)}} |
||
{{Merge from |Hyperpower|date=December 2013}} |
{{Merge from |Hyperpower|date=December 2013}} |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | [[Image:Reagan and Gorbachev hold discussions.jpg|250px|thumb|[[President of the United States|US President]] [[Ronald Reagan]] (left) and [[General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Soviet General Secretary]] [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], former leaders of the [[Cold War]]'s two rival superpowers, meeting in [[Geneva]] in 1985. The [[Suez Crisis]], which ended British Empire's status as superpower and the [[dissolution of the Soviet Union|dissolution]] of the [[Soviet Union]] in 1991 left the [[United States]] as the only superpower. This remains unchanged.<ref name="Nossal" />]] |
||
A '''superpower''' is a [[Sovereign state|state]] with a dominant position in [[international relations]] and is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert [[Sphere of influence|influence]] or [[Power projection|project power]] on a global scale through the means of both military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and [[Soft power|soft power]] influence. Traditionally superpowers are preeminent among the [[great power]]s (i.e as the [[USA]] is today). The term first applied to the [[British Empire]], the [[United States of America]] and the [[Soviet Union]]. However following [[World War II]] and the [[Suez Crisis]] in 1956, the British Empire's status as a superpower status was diminished; for the duration of the [[Cold War]] the United States and the Soviet Union came to be generally regarded as the two remaining superpowers, dominating world affairs. After the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, only the United States appears to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower.<ref name="Nossal">{{cite conference|url=http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm|title=Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era|conference=Biennial meeting, South African Political Studies Association, 29 June-2 July 1999|accessdate=2007-02-28|author=Kim Richard Nossal}}<!-- subtitle: "Paper for presentation at the biennial meetings of the South African Political Studies Association Saldanha, Western Cape 29 June-2 July 1999 --></ref> |
|||
A '''superpower''' is a [[Sovereign state|state]] with a leading position in the [[international relations|international system]] which has the ability to dominate, [[Sphere of influence|influence]] events, leverage its own interests, and project [[Power in international relations|power on a worldwide scale]]. A superpower is a step higher than a [[great power]]. |
|||
Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the [[Naval Postgraduate School]]) defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global [[hegemony]]."<ref name="stanford">{{cite web|last=Miller |first=Lyman |url=http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/6.1.03_miller.html |title=www.stanford.edu |publisher=www.stanford.edu |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> |
Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the [[Naval Postgraduate School]]) defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global [[hegemony]]."<ref name="stanford">{{cite web|last=Miller |first=Lyman |url=http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/6.1.03_miller.html |title=www.stanford.edu |publisher=www.stanford.edu |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> |
||
⚫ | The term "[[Potential Superpowers|Emerging Superpower]]" has been applied by scholars to the possibility that the [[China|People's Republic of China]] could soon [[China as an emerging superpower|emerge]] as a superpower on par with the [[United States]].<ref>http://books.google.ca/books?id=g5s_uDDZSjoC&pg=PA155&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a</ref><ref>http://books.google.ca/books?id=PIRkvshH5NYC&pg=PR9&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a</ref><ref>http://books.google.ca/books?id=6ubh-K1gBooC&pg=PT563&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a</ref><ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19995218 A Point Of View: What kind of superpower could China be?]</ref> Additionally, it is widely believed by various academics that the [[European Union]] and [[India]] may have the [[Potential superpowers|potential of achieving superpower status]] within the 21st century too.<ref>{{cite news|last=Khanna |first=Parag |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin |title=Waving Goodbye to Hegemony |location=Qatar;China;Iran;Pakistan;Russia;India;Europe;China;Turkey;Libya;Indonesia;Abu Dhabi;Uzbekistan;Afghanistan;Kyrgyzstan;Kazakhstan |publisher=Nytimes.com |date=2008-01-27 |accessdate=2011-06-12}}</ref> |
||
It was a term first applied to the [[British Empire]], the [[United States of America]] and the [[Soviet Union]]. Following [[World War II]], the British Empire's superpower status transferred to the United States; the United States and the Soviet Union came to be generally regarded as the two superpowers, and compete each other in the [[Cold War]]. |
|||
⚫ | There have been attempts to apply the term superpower retrospectively, and sometimes very loosely, to a variety of past entities such as [[Ancient Egypt]], [[Ancient Greece]], [[China]],<ref name="oecdbookshop.org">[[Angus Maddison]] (2003). [http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?K=5LMQCR2K1TG3&lang=EN&sort=sort_date%2Fd&sf1=kwords&st1=maddison&sf3=SubjectCode&st4=not+E4+or+E5+or+P5&sf4=SubVersionCode&ds=maddison%3B+All+Subjects%3B+&m=8&dc=27&plang=en ''The World Economy: Historical Statistics''], [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris.</ref>[[India]],<ref name="oecdbookshop.org"/> the [[Persian Empire]], the [[Ottoman Empire]], the [[Roman Empire]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Schaefer |first=Brett |url=http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/hl917.cfm |title=www.heritage.org |publisher=www.heritage.org |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=9780631226444 |title=www.blackwellpublishing.com |publisher=www.blackwellpublishing.com |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> the [[Mongol Empire]], the [[Portuguese Empire]], the [[Spanish Empire]],<ref>KAMEN, H., ''Spain's Road To Empire: The Making Of A World Power, 1492–1763'', 2003, [[Penguin Books|Penguin]], 640p.</ref><ref name="Isabella: Catholic Queen and Madam of Spain">{{cite book | last=Edwards | first=John | year=2005 | title=Isabella: Catholic Queen and Madam of Spain | publisher=Tempus Publishing | isbn=0-7524-3331-8}}</ref> and [[France]].<ref>Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Mark Greengrass, ''The Ancien Régime'' 1998 Wiley-Blackwell, page 512</ref><ref>Steven Englund, ''Napoleon: A Political Life'', 2005, Harvard University Press, page 254</ref> Recognition by historians of these older states as superpowers may focus on various superlative traits exhibited by them. |
||
After the Cold War, only the United States appears to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower.<ref name="Nossal">{{cite conference|url=http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm|title=Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era|conference=Biennial meeting, South African Political Studies Association, 29 June-2 July 1999|accessdate=2007-02-28|author=Kim Richard Nossal}}<!-- subtitle: "Paper for presentation at the biennial meetings of the South African Political Studies Association Saldanha, Western Cape 29 June-2 July 1999 --></ref><ref>The US is NOT a Superpower Anymore |
|||
⚫ | |||
Additionally, it is widely believed that the [[European Union]] and [[India]] may have the [[Potential superpowers|potential of achieving superpower status]] within the 21st century.<ref>{{cite news|last=Khanna |first=Parag |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin |title=Waving Goodbye to Hegemony |location=Qatar;China;Iran;Pakistan;Russia;India;Europe;China;Turkey;Libya;Indonesia;Abu Dhabi;Uzbekistan;Afghanistan;Kyrgyzstan;Kazakhstan |publisher=Nytimes.com |date=2008-01-27 |accessdate=2011-06-12}}</ref> A few heads of states,<ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/11/world/fg-russia-chavez11 Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez recognizes independence of breakaway Georgia republics] by Megan K. Stack. Sept 9, 2009</ref><ref>[http://freevideo.rt.com/video/1759 Netanyahu declares Russia as superpower] Russia Today News 15 Feb 2010</ref> politicians<ref>[http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929 Washington Acknowledges Russia as a Superpower] Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs by Kommersant News May 26, 2007</ref> and news analysts<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=eC6HdSYZhRgC Russia in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower] by Steven Rosefielde, Cambridge University Press, 2004</ref> have even suggested that [[Russia]] may have already reclaimed that status.<ref>New York Times by Ronald Steel professor of international relations August 24, 2008 (Superpower Reborn)[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html]</ref><ref>The Globalist – June 2, 2010 cite: “An Insecure Foothold for the United States; Russia is certainly still a superpower comparable only to the United States”[http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=8498]</ref><ref>"Russia the Best of the BRICs" – AG Metal Miner News by Stuart Burns – Sept 19, 2010 [http://agmetalminer.com/2010/09/29/russia-the-best-of-the-brics/comment-page-1/#comment-22796]</ref><ref>"The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" – Project-Syndicate News by Sergei Karaganov – April 29, 2010 [http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/karaganov14/English]</ref> According to various academics, the [[European Union]] has revived a style of European (a [[Supranational union|supranational entity]]), likening the union to an ''superpower'' of sorts. The term commonly used is [[Eurosphere]].<ref name=ziel>Zielonka, J. (2006), ''Europe as Empire'', [[Oxford University Press]]: Oxford.</ref> |
|||
⚫ | Some people doubt the existence of superpowers in the [[post Cold War era]] altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now [[Polarity in international relations|multipolar]]. However, the military dominance of the United States remains unquestioned, and its international influence has made it an eminent world power.<ref name="The Global list (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3553|title=The Multipolar World Vs. The Superpower|accessdate=2006-06-10 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20060613215234/http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3553 <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2006-06-13}}</ref><ref name="Washington Post (No superpower)">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030302055.html|title=The Multipolar Unilateralist|accessdate=2006-06-10 | work=The Washington Post | date=5 March 2006 | first=David | last=Von Drehle}}</ref><ref name="Globalpolicy.org (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2005/0315chinapower.htm|title=No Longer the "Lone" Superpower|accessdate=2006-06-11}}</ref><ref name="A Times (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED05Ak01.html|title=The war that may end the age of superpower|accessdate=2006-06-11}}</ref> |
||
==Terminology== |
==Terminology== |
||
[[File:Yalta summit 1945 with Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin.jpg|thumb|right|The "[[Allies of World War II|Big Three]]" at the Yalta Conference: [[Winston Churchill]], [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and [[Joseph Stalin]] in 1945. The political leaders of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union.]] |
|||
⚫ | The term ''superpower'' was used to describe nations with greater than [[great power]] status as early as 1944, but only gained its specific meaning with regard to the [[United States]], the [[British Empire]] and the [[Soviet Union]] after [[World War II]]. This was because the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union had proved themselves to be capable of casting great influence in global politics and military dominance. The term in its current political meaning was coined by Dutch-American geostrategist [[Nicholas Spykman]] in a series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order. This formed the foundation for the book ''The Geography of the Peace'', which referred primarily to the unmatched maritime global supremacy of the British Empire and United States as essential for peace and prosperity in the world. |
||
⚫ | There have been attempts to apply the term superpower retrospectively, and sometimes very loosely, to a variety of past entities such as [[Ancient Egypt]], [[Ancient Greece]], [[China]],<ref name="oecdbookshop.org">[[Angus Maddison]] (2003). [http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?K=5LMQCR2K1TG3&lang=EN&sort=sort_date%2Fd&sf1=kwords&st1=maddison&sf3=SubjectCode&st4=not+E4+or+E5+or+P5&sf4=SubVersionCode&ds=maddison%3B+All+Subjects%3B+&m=8&dc=27&plang=en ''The World Economy: Historical Statistics''], [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris.</ref>[[India]],<ref name="oecdbookshop.org"/> the [[Persian Empire]], the [[Ottoman Empire]], the [[Roman Empire]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Schaefer |first=Brett |url=http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/hl917.cfm |title=www.heritage.org |publisher=www.heritage.org |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=9780631226444 |title=www.blackwellpublishing.com |publisher=www.blackwellpublishing.com |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> the [[Mongol Empire]], the [[Portuguese Empire]], the [[Spanish Empire]],<ref>KAMEN, H., ''Spain's Road To Empire: The Making Of A World Power, 1492–1763'', 2003, [[Penguin Books|Penguin]], 640p.</ref><ref name="Isabella: Catholic Queen and Madam of Spain">{{cite book | last=Edwards | first=John | year=2005 | title=Isabella: Catholic Queen and Madam of Spain | publisher=Tempus Publishing | isbn=0-7524-3331-8}}</ref> and [[France]].<ref>Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Mark Greengrass, ''The Ancien Régime'' 1998 Wiley-Blackwell, page 512</ref><ref>Steven Englund, ''Napoleon: A Political Life'', 2005, Harvard University Press, page 254</ref> |
||
Recognition by historians of these older states as superpowers may focus on various superlative traits exhibited by them. For example, at its peak the British Empire was the [[List of largest empires|largest in history]] with 1 in every 4 people in the world living under its flag. |
|||
===Origin=== |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | The term in its current political meaning was coined by Dutch-American geostrategist [[Nicholas Spykman]] in a series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order. This formed the foundation for the book ''The Geography of the Peace'', which referred primarily to the unmatched maritime global supremacy of the British Empire and United States as essential for peace and prosperity in the world. |
||
⚫ | A year later, [[William Thornton Rickert Fox|William T.R. Fox]], an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book ''The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace'' (1944), which spoke of the global reach of a super-empowered nation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.casaasia.es/pdf/9200595422AM1127202862621.pdf |title=China Superpower |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> Fox used the word Superpower to identify a new category of power able to occupy the highest status in a world in which, as the war then raging demonstrated, states could challenge and fight each other on a global scale. |
||
According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: [[British Empire]], the [[United States]], and the [[Soviet Union]]. The British Empire was the most [[World's largest empires|extensive empire]] in world history and considered the foremost great power, holding sway over 25% of the world's population<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> and controlling about 25% of the Earth's total land area,<ref>[http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''], hostkingdom.net, [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography]. Retrieved March 11, 2007.</ref> while the United States and the Soviet Union grew in power in [[World War II]]. |
|||
⚫ | A year later, [[William Thornton Rickert Fox|William T.R. Fox]], an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book ''The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace'' (1944), which spoke of the global reach of a super-empowered nation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.casaasia.es/pdf/9200595422AM1127202862621.pdf |title=China Superpower |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> Fox used the word Superpower to identify a new category of power able to occupy the highest status in a world in which, as the war then raging demonstrated, states could challenge and fight each other on a global scale. According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: [[British Empire]], the [[United States]], and the [[Soviet Union]]. The British Empire was the most [[World's largest empires|extensive empire]] in world history and considered the foremost great power, holding sway over 25% of the world's population<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> and controlling about 25% of the Earth's total land area,<ref>[http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''], hostkingdom.net, [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography]. Retrieved March 11, 2007.</ref> while the United States and the Soviet Union grew in power in [[World War II]]. |
||
==Characteristics== |
|||
⚫ | |||
[[Image:USS Nimitz in Victoria Canada 036.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Military assets such as [[United States Navy|U.S.]] [[Nimitz class aircraft carrier|''Nimitz''-class aircraft carrier]]s combined with a [[blue water navy]] are a means of [[power projection]] – one hallmark of a superpower.<ref name="stanford"/> Ten countries are currently in control of [[aircraft carrier]]s; eight countries control just one, [[Italy]] controls two. The US Navy currently has between ten and eighteen, depending on how the ships are deployed.]] |
|||
The criteria of a superpower are not clearly defined<ref name="Nossal"/> and as a consequence they may differ between sources. |
The criteria of a superpower are not clearly defined<ref name="Nossal"/> and as a consequence they may differ between sources. |
||
Line 42: | Line 23: | ||
In the opinion of Professor [[Paul Dukes (historian)|Paul Dukes]], "a superpower must be able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world; to command vast economic potential and influence; and to present a universal ideology". Although, "many modifications may be made to this basic definition".<ref>[http://abe.etailer.dpsl.net/Home/html/moreinfo.asp?bookid=536885601 abe.etailer.dpsl.net]{{dead link|date=June 2011}}</ref> According to Professor June Teufel Dreyer, "A superpower must be able to project its power, soft and hard, globally."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/125.200702.dreyer.chineseforeignpolicy.html |title=www.fpri.org |publisher=www.fpri.org |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> |
In the opinion of Professor [[Paul Dukes (historian)|Paul Dukes]], "a superpower must be able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world; to command vast economic potential and influence; and to present a universal ideology". Although, "many modifications may be made to this basic definition".<ref>[http://abe.etailer.dpsl.net/Home/html/moreinfo.asp?bookid=536885601 abe.etailer.dpsl.net]{{dead link|date=June 2011}}</ref> According to Professor June Teufel Dreyer, "A superpower must be able to project its power, soft and hard, globally."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/125.200702.dreyer.chineseforeignpolicy.html |title=www.fpri.org |publisher=www.fpri.org |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> |
||
{{clear}} |
|||
==Cold War== |
==Cold War== |
||
{{Main|Cold War}} |
|||
{{Original research|section|date=November 2009}} |
|||
⚫ | [[Image:Reagan and Gorbachev hold discussions.jpg|250px|thumb|[[President of the United States|US President]] [[Ronald Reagan]] (left) and [[General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Soviet General Secretary]] [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], former leaders of the [[Cold War]]'s two rival superpowers, meeting in [[Geneva]] in 1985. The [[Suez Crisis]], which ended British Empire's status as superpower and the [[dissolution of the Soviet Union|dissolution]] of the [[Soviet Union]] in 1991 left the [[United States]] as the only superpower. This remains unchanged.<ref name="Nossal" />]] |
||
[[Image:Cold War Map 1980.svg|thumb|250px|This map shows two essentially global spheres during the [[Cold War]] in 1980. Consult the legend on the map for more details.]] |
|||
The 1956 [[Suez Crisis]] suggested that [[British Empire|Britain]], financially weakened by two world wars, could not then pursue its [[foreign policy]] objectives on an equal footing with the new superpowers without sacrificing [[convertibility]] of its [[reserve currency]] as a central goal of policy.<ref>Adam Klug and Gregor W. Smith, 'Suez and Sterling', ''Explorations in Economic History'', Vol. 36, No. 3 (July 1999), pp. 181–203.</ref> As the majority of World War II had been fought far from its national boundaries, the United States had not suffered the industrial destruction nor massive civilian casualties that marked the wartime situation of the countries in [[Europe]] or [[Asia]]. |
The 1956 [[Suez Crisis]] suggested that [[British Empire|Britain]], financially weakened by two world wars, could not then pursue its [[foreign policy]] objectives on an equal footing with the new superpowers without sacrificing [[convertibility]] of its [[reserve currency]] as a central goal of policy.<ref>Adam Klug and Gregor W. Smith, 'Suez and Sterling', ''Explorations in Economic History'', Vol. 36, No. 3 (July 1999), pp. 181–203.</ref> As the majority of World War II had been fought far from its national boundaries, the United States had not suffered the industrial destruction nor massive civilian casualties that marked the wartime situation of the countries in [[Europe]] or [[Asia]]. |
||
The war had reinforced the position of the United States as the world's largest long-term creditor nation<ref>"Getting Serious About the Twin Deficits |
The war had reinforced the position of the United States as the world's largest long-term creditor nation<ref>"Getting Serious About the Twin Deficits |
||
" by Author: Menzie D. Chinn - September 2005 by Council on Foreign Relations Press [http://www.cfr.org/economics/getting-serious-twin-deficits/p8933]</ref> and its principal supplier of goods; moreover it had built up a strong industrial and technological infrastructure that had greatly advanced its military strength into a primary position on the global stage.<ref>[http://www.oldenburger.us/gary/docs/TheColdWar.htm The Cold War: The Geography of Containment] Gary E. Oldenburger by Oldenburger Independent Studies; December 2002</ref> |
" by Author: Menzie D. Chinn - September 2005 by Council on Foreign Relations Press [http://www.cfr.org/economics/getting-serious-twin-deficits/p8933]</ref> and its principal supplier of goods; moreover it had built up a strong industrial and technological infrastructure that had greatly advanced its military strength into a primary position on the global stage.<ref>[http://www.oldenburger.us/gary/docs/TheColdWar.htm The Cold War: The Geography of Containment] Gary E. Oldenburger by Oldenburger Independent Studies; December 2002</ref> Despite attempts to create multinational coalitions or legislative bodies (such as the [[United Nations]]), it became increasingly clear that the superpowers had very different visions about what the post-war world ought to look like, and after the withdrawal of British aid to [[Greece]] in 1947 the United States took the lead in [[Containment|containing]] Soviet expansion in the [[Cold War]].<ref>Robert Frazier, 'Did Britain Start the Cold War? Bevin and the Truman Doctrine', ''Historical Journal'', Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 715–727.</ref> |
||
Despite attempts to create multinational coalitions or legislative bodies (such as the [[United Nations]]), it became increasingly clear that the superpowers had very different visions about what the post-war world ought to look like, and after the withdrawal of British aid to [[Greece]] in 1947 the United States took the lead in [[Containment|containing]] Soviet expansion in the [[Cold War]].<ref>Robert Frazier, 'Did Britain Start the Cold War? Bevin and the Truman Doctrine', ''Historical Journal'', Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 715–727.</ref> |
|||
The two countries opposed each other ideologically, politically, militarily, and economically. The Soviet Union promoted the ideology of [[communism]]: [[planned economy]] and a one-party state, whilst the United States promoted the ideologies of [[liberal democracy]] and the [[free market]]. This was reflected in the [[Warsaw Pact]] and [[NATO]] military alliances, respectively, as most of Europe became aligned with either the United States or the Soviet Union. These alliances implied that these two nations were part of an emerging bipolar world, in contrast with a previously multipolar world. {{Citation needed|date=August 2008}} |
The two countries opposed each other ideologically, politically, militarily, and economically. The Soviet Union promoted the ideology of [[communism]]: [[planned economy]] and a one-party state, whilst the United States promoted the ideologies of [[liberal democracy]] and the [[free market]]. This was reflected in the [[Warsaw Pact]] and [[NATO]] military alliances, respectively, as most of Europe became aligned with either the United States or the Soviet Union. These alliances implied that these two nations were part of an emerging bipolar world, in contrast with a previously multipolar world. {{Citation needed|date=August 2008}} |
||
⚫ | The idea that the Cold War period revolved around only two blocs, or even only two nations, has been challenged by some scholars in the post–Cold War era, who have noted that the bipolar world only exists if one ignores all of the various movements and conflicts that occurred without influence from either of the two superpowers.<ref>[http://www.signalalpha.com/Cold_War.html Conflicts of Superpower] by Signal Alpha News Achieve Press 2005</ref> Additionally, much of the conflict between the superpowers was fought in "[[proxy war]]s", which more often than not involved issues more complex than the standard Cold War oppositions.<ref>[https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fordham.htm Economic Interests, Party, and Ideology in Early Cold War Era U.S. Foreign Policy] Benjamin O. Fordham by World Peace Foundation; Massachusetts Institute of Technology April 1998</ref> |
||
⚫ | After the Soviet Union disintegrated in the early 1990s, the term [[hyperpower]] began to be applied to the United States, as the sole remaining superpower of the Cold War era.<ref name="Nossal"/> This term, coined by French foreign minister [[Hubert Védrine]] in the 1990s, is controversial and the validity of classifying the United States in this way is disputed. One notable opponent to this theory, [[Samuel P. Huntington]], rejects this theory in favor of a multipolar [[balance of power in international relations|balance of power]]. |
||
⚫ | Other international relations theorists, such as [[Henry Kissinger]], theorize that because the threat of the Soviet Union no longer exists to formerly American-dominated regions such as Japan and Western Europe, American influence is only declining since the end of the Cold War, because such regions no longer need protection or have necessarily similar foreign policies as the United States.<ref>Henry Kissinger, ''Diplomacy'', p. 24,26</ref> |
||
The Soviet Union and the United States fulfilled the superpower criteria in the following ways: |
The Soviet Union and the United States fulfilled the superpower criteria in the following ways: |
||
Line 86: | Line 69: | ||
<nowiki> & </nowiki>'''Geographic''' |
<nowiki> & </nowiki>'''Geographic''' |
||
| Had a population of |
| Had a population of 286.7 million in 1989, the third largest on Earth behind [[People's Republic of China|China]] and [[India]].<ref name="USLOCstudies">{{cite web|url=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0006) |title=Library of Congress Country Studies |publisher=Lcweb2.loc.gov |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> |
||
Largest country in the world, with a surface area of 22.27 million km².<ref name="USLOCstudies">{{cite web|url=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0006) |title=Library of Congress Country Studies |publisher=Lcweb2.loc.gov |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> |
Largest country in the world, with a surface area of 22.27 million km².<ref name="USLOCstudies">{{cite web|url=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0006) |title=Library of Congress Country Studies |publisher=Lcweb2.loc.gov |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> |
||
Line 94: | Line 77: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
⚫ | The idea that the Cold War period revolved around only two blocs, or even only two nations, has been challenged by some scholars in the post–Cold War era, who have noted that the bipolar world only exists if one ignores all of the various movements and conflicts that occurred without influence from either of the two superpowers.<ref>[http://www.signalalpha.com/Cold_War.html Conflicts of Superpower] by Signal Alpha News Achieve Press 2005</ref> Additionally, much of the conflict between the superpowers was fought in "[[proxy war]]s", which more often than not involved issues more complex than the standard Cold War oppositions.<ref>[https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fordham.htm Economic Interests, Party, and Ideology in Early Cold War Era U.S. Foreign Policy] Benjamin O. Fordham by World Peace Foundation; Massachusetts Institute of Technology April 1998</ref> |
||
⚫ | After the Soviet Union disintegrated in the early 1990s, the term [[hyperpower]] began to be applied to the United States, as the sole remaining superpower of the Cold War era.<ref name="Nossal"/> This term, coined by French foreign minister [[Hubert Védrine]] in the 1990s, is controversial and the validity of classifying the United States in this way is disputed. One notable opponent to this theory, [[Samuel P. Huntington]], rejects this theory in favor of a multipolar [[balance of power in international relations|balance of power]]. |
||
⚫ | Other international relations theorists, such as [[Henry Kissinger]], theorize that because the threat of the Soviet Union no longer exists to formerly American-dominated regions such as Japan and Western Europe, American influence is only declining since the end of the Cold War, because such regions no longer need protection or have necessarily similar foreign policies as the United States.<ref>Henry Kissinger, ''Diplomacy'', p. 24,26</ref> |
||
==Post Cold War== |
==Post Cold War== |
||
⚫ | |||
[[File:North Atlantic Treaty Organization (orthographic projection).svg|thumb|right|[[NATO]] has expanded eastwards into the former Warsaw Pact and parts of the former Soviet Union since the end of the Cold War.]] |
|||
After the dissolution of the [[Soviet Union]] in 1991 that ended the [[Cold War]], the post–Cold War world was sometimes considered to be a [[Unipolarity|unipolar]] world,<ref name="Krauthammer1">Charles Krauthammer, [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19910201faessay6067/charles-krauthammer/the-unipolar-moment.html The Unipolar Moment], ''Foreign Policy Magazine'' (1991).</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaikoforum.com/P03_19_122.pdf |title=www.gaikoforum.com |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> with the [[United States]] as the world's sole remaining superpower<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1217752.stm Country profile: United States of America], BBC News. Retrieved March 11, 2007.</ref> |
After the dissolution of the [[Soviet Union]] in 1991 that ended the [[Cold War]], the post–Cold War world was sometimes considered to be a [[Unipolarity|unipolar]] world,<ref name="Krauthammer1">Charles Krauthammer, [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19910201faessay6067/charles-krauthammer/the-unipolar-moment.html The Unipolar Moment], ''Foreign Policy Magazine'' (1991).</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gaikoforum.com/P03_19_122.pdf |title=www.gaikoforum.com |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> with the [[United States]] as the world's sole remaining superpower.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1217752.stm Country profile: United States of America], BBC News. Retrieved March 11, 2007.</ref> In the opinion of [[Samuel P. Huntington]], "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power – economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural – with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."<ref name="affairs">[http://www-stage.foreignaffairs.org/19990301faessay966/samuel-p-huntington/the-lonely-superpower.html www-stage.foreignaffairs.org]</ref> |
||
[http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/11/world/fg-russia-chavez11]</ref><ref>“Netanyahu declares Russia as superpower” – Voa News News – Feb 15, 2010 [http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Netanyahu-Heads-to-Russia-with-Call-for-Crippling-Sanctions-on-Iran-84341537.html]</ref><ref>”Russia is a Superpower CNN, US Senators telling the truth” – CNN News August 30, 2008 [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9079543725663390621#]</ref><ref>“Russia in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower” – University Press by Steven Rosefielde PhD, Cambridge, 2004 [http://books.google.com/books?id=eC6HdSYZhRgC]</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.rian.ru/international_affairs/20100830/160392437.html |title="Guam Back to Life" – RIA Novosti by Bogdan Tsirdya – August 3, 2010 |publisher=En.rian.ru |date= |accessdate=2011-06-12}}</ref> In the opinion of [[Samuel P. Huntington]], "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power – economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural – with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."<ref name="affairs">[http://www-stage.foreignaffairs.org/19990301faessay966/samuel-p-huntington/the-lonely-superpower.html www-stage.foreignaffairs.org]</ref> |
|||
Experts argue that this older assessment of [[global politics]] was too simplified, in part because of the difficulty in classifying the [[European Union]] at its current stage of development. Others argue that the notion of a superpower is outdated, considering complex global economic interdependencies, and propose that the world is [[Polarity in international relations#Multipolarity today|multipolar]].<ref name="The Global list (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3553|title=The Global list (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-10 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20060613215234/http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3553 <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2006-06-13}}</ref><ref name="Washington Post (No superpower)">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030302055.html|title=Washington Post (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-10 | work=The Washington Post | date=5 March 2006 | first=David | last=Von Drehle}}</ref><ref name="Globalpolicy.org (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2005/0315chinapower.htm|title=Globalpolicy.org (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-11}}</ref><ref name="A Times (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED05Ak01.html|title=A Times (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-11}}</ref> According to Samuel P. Huntington, "There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar. A unipolar system would have one superpower, no significant major powers, and many minor powers." Huntington thinks, "Contemporary international politics" ... "is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers."<ref name="affairs"/> |
Experts argue that this older assessment of [[global politics]] was too simplified, in part because of the difficulty in classifying the [[European Union]] at its current stage of development. Others argue that the notion of a superpower is outdated, considering complex global economic interdependencies, and propose that the world is [[Polarity in international relations#Multipolarity today|multipolar]].<ref name="The Global list (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3553|title=The Global list (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-10 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20060613215234/http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3553 <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2006-06-13}}</ref><ref name="Washington Post (No superpower)">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030302055.html|title=Washington Post (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-10 | work=The Washington Post | date=5 March 2006 | first=David | last=Von Drehle}}</ref><ref name="Globalpolicy.org (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2005/0315chinapower.htm|title=Globalpolicy.org (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-11}}</ref><ref name="A Times (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED05Ak01.html|title=A Times (No superpower)|accessdate=2006-06-11}}</ref> According to Samuel P. Huntington, "There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar. A unipolar system would have one superpower, no significant major powers, and many minor powers." Huntington thinks, "Contemporary international politics" ... "is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers."<ref name="affairs"/> |
||
Line 111: | Line 87: | ||
A 2012 report by the [[National Intelligence Council]] said that America's superpower status will have eroded to merely being first among equals by 2030, but that the USA would still be the most important country in the world because of its influence in many different fields and global connections that the great regional powers of the time would not match.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2012/intell-121211-rferl01.htm "Forecast Sees Eroded U.S. Power."]</ref> |
A 2012 report by the [[National Intelligence Council]] said that America's superpower status will have eroded to merely being first among equals by 2030, but that the USA would still be the most important country in the world because of its influence in many different fields and global connections that the great regional powers of the time would not match.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2012/intell-121211-rferl01.htm "Forecast Sees Eroded U.S. Power."]</ref> |
||
⚫ | Some people doubt the existence of superpowers in the [[post Cold War era]] altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now [[Polarity in international relations|multipolar]]. However, the military dominance of the United States remains unquestioned, and its international influence has made it an eminent world power.<ref name="The Global list (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3553|title=The Multipolar World Vs. The Superpower|accessdate=2006-06-10 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20060613215234/http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3553 <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2006-06-13}}</ref><ref name="Washington Post (No superpower)">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030302055.html|title=The Multipolar Unilateralist|accessdate=2006-06-10 | work=The Washington Post | date=5 March 2006 | first=David | last=Von Drehle}}</ref><ref name="Globalpolicy.org (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2005/0315chinapower.htm|title=No Longer the "Lone" Superpower|accessdate=2006-06-11}}</ref><ref name="A Times (No superpower)">{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED05Ak01.html|title=The war that may end the age of superpower|accessdate=2006-06-11}}</ref> |
||
==Hyperpower== |
==Hyperpower== |
||
Among those political commentators who felt that the United States had moved beyond superpower status after the fall of the Soviet Union, some felt a new term was needed to describe the United States' position.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? |url=http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm |author=Kim Richard Nossal |work=McMaster University |date=2 July 1999 |accessdate=4 November 2010}}</ref> French Minister [[Hubert Védrine]] used the term "hyperpower" in a speech in March 1998,<ref>[http://www.wordspy.com/words/hyper-power.asp Definition and Use of the Word ''Hyperpower'']</ref> the earliest recorded use. It has also been applied retroactively to dominant empires of the past, including the British, French, Roman, and Chinese Empires. In this use, it is usually understood to mean a power that greatly exceeds any other in its political environment along several axes; Rome did not dominate India or China, but did dominate the entire Mediterranean area militarily, culturally, and economically. |
Among those political commentators who felt that the United States had moved beyond superpower status after the fall of the Soviet Union, some felt a new term was needed to describe the United States' position.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? |url=http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm |author=Kim Richard Nossal |work=McMaster University |date=2 July 1999 |accessdate=4 November 2010}}</ref> French Minister [[Hubert Védrine]] used the term "hyperpower" in a speech in March 1998,<ref>[http://www.wordspy.com/words/hyper-power.asp Definition and Use of the Word ''Hyperpower'']</ref> the earliest recorded use. It has also been applied retroactively to dominant empires of the past, including the British, French, Roman, and Chinese Empires. In this use, it is usually understood to mean a power that greatly exceeds any other in its political environment along several axes; Rome did not dominate India or China, but did dominate the entire Mediterranean area militarily, culturally, and economically. |
||
The [[Persian Empire]], [[Roman Empire]], [[Umayyad Caliphate|Arab Caliphate]], [[French Empire]], [[Mongol Empire]], [[Ottoman Empire]] and the [[British Empire]] have all been described as Hyper-powers.<ref>Amy Chua, Days of Empire, http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Day-of-Empire/Amy-Chua/e/9780385512848</ref> |
|||
==Potential superpowers== |
==Potential superpowers== |
||
{{Main|Potential superpowers}} |
{{Main|Potential superpowers}} |
||
[[File:Potential Superpowers.svg|300px|thumb|left|Present day governments that currently are or have the potential to become a superpower within the 21st century. |
|||
⚫ | Academics, institutions, and other qualified commentators sometimes identify potential superpowers thought to have a strong likelihood of being recognized as superpowers in the 21st century. The record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example in the 1980s some commentators thought [[Japan]] would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967823,00.html?promoid=googlep time.com] 1988 article "Japan From Superrich To Superpower"</ref> However, Japan's economy crashed in 1991, creating a long period of economic slump in the country known as ''[[Lost Decade (Japan)|The Lost Years]].'' As of August 2012, Japan has not fully recovered from the 1991 crash.<ref>{{cite news|title=Japan eyes end to decades long deflation|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/17/japan-economy-estimate-idUSL4E8JH1TC20120817|author=Leika Kihara|publisher=Reuters|date=August 17, 2012|accessdate=September 7, 2012}}</ref> |
||
{{legend|#edd400|<big>[[United States of America]]</big><small> </small> <small><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1217752.stm Country profile: United States of America], BBC News, Accessed July 22, 2008</ref><ref name="Paper for presentation at the biennial meetings of the South African Political Studies Association Saldanha, Western Cape 29 June-2 July 1999">{{cite web|url=http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm|title=Analyzing American Power in the Post-Cold War Era|accessdate=2007-02-28}}</ref></small>}} |
|||
{{legend|#75507b|<big>[[Brazil]]</big>}} |
|||
{{legend|#cc0000|<big>[[China]]</big>}} |
|||
{{legend|#3465a4|<big>[[European Union]]</big>}} |
|||
{{legend|#73d216|<big>[[India]]</big>}} |
|||
{{legend|#f57900|<big>[[Russia]]</big>}}]] |
|||
⚫ | Academics, institutions, |
||
Due to their large markets, growing military strength, and economic potential and influence in international affairs the [[India|Republic of India]], the [[European Union]], the [[Brazil|Federative Republic of Brazil]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Martinez |first=Patricio |url=http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2009/11/01/alumna-analyzes-brazil%E2%80%99s-emergence |title=Alumna Analyzes Brazil’s Emergence | The Cornell Daily Sun |publisher=Cornellsun.com |date=2009-11-02 |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.brazzil.com/articles/195-august-2008/10098-while-the-us-looks-eastward-brazil-is-emerging-as-a-nuclear-superpower.html |title=While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower |publisher=Brazzil.com |date=2008-08-12 |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html |title=Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower |publisher=Transnational.org |date=2006-01-27 |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> the [[China|People's Republic of China]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=848 |title=US-China Institute :: news & features :: china as a global power |publisher=China.usc.edu |date=2007-11-13 |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/ Visions of China], CNN Specials. Retrieved March 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[[John McCormick (political scientist)|John McCormick]],(2007). The European Superpower. Palgrave Macmillan.</ref><ref>[http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/leonard_irish_times_18feb05.html Europe: the new superpower by Mark Leonard], Irish Times. Retrieved March 11, 2007.</ref> and the [[Russia|Russian Federation]],<ref name="cnn121206">{{cite news| url=http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/12/russia.oil/index.html | work=CNN | title=Russia: A superpower rises again – CNN.com | accessdate=24 May 2010}}</ref><ref name="telegraph041307">{{cite news| url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/13/do1303.xml | work=The Daily Telegraph | location=London | title=Russia on the march – again | first=Con | last=Coughlin | date=13 April 2007 | accessdate=24 May 2010}}</ref><ref name="cambridgeRussia">{{cite web|url=http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521545297&ss=fro |title=Russia in the 21st Century – Cambridge University Press |publisher=Cambridge.org |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> are among the powers which are most often cited as having the ability to influence future world politics and reach the status of superpower in the 21st century.<ref name="Krauthammer1" /><ref>{{cite web|title=China's Not a Superpower|url=http://carnegieendowment.org/2009/12/29/china-s-not-superpower/1rgl|accessdate=29 April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=MARTINEZ-DIAZ|first=LEONARDO|title=Brazil in the Global Crisis: Still a Rising Economic Superpower?|url=http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/0713_brazil_economy.aspx|publisher=Brookings Institute|accessdate=29 April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Stubb|first=Alexander|title=Will the EU Ever Become a Superpower?|url=http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2008/07/17/will-eu-ever-become-superpower/15e|publisher=Carnegie Endowment|accessdate=29 April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Biswas|first=Soutik|title=Why India Will Not Become a Superpower|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17350650|publisher=BBC India|accessdate=29 April 2012|date=2012-03-13}}</ref> Pertinently, a country would need to achieve [[Great Power|great power]] status first, before they could develop superpower status, and it could be disputed whether some of the countries listed above (e.g., Brazil and India) are presently great powers. |
Due to their large markets, growing military strength, and economic potential and influence in international affairs the [[India|Republic of India]], the [[European Union]], the [[Brazil|Federative Republic of Brazil]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Martinez |first=Patricio |url=http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2009/11/01/alumna-analyzes-brazil%E2%80%99s-emergence |title=Alumna Analyzes Brazil’s Emergence | The Cornell Daily Sun |publisher=Cornellsun.com |date=2009-11-02 |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.brazzil.com/articles/195-august-2008/10098-while-the-us-looks-eastward-brazil-is-emerging-as-a-nuclear-superpower.html |title=While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower |publisher=Brazzil.com |date=2008-08-12 |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html |title=Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower |publisher=Transnational.org |date=2006-01-27 |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> the [[China|People's Republic of China]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=848 |title=US-China Institute :: news & features :: china as a global power |publisher=China.usc.edu |date=2007-11-13 |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/ Visions of China], CNN Specials. Retrieved March 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[[John McCormick (political scientist)|John McCormick]],(2007). The European Superpower. Palgrave Macmillan.</ref><ref>[http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/leonard_irish_times_18feb05.html Europe: the new superpower by Mark Leonard], Irish Times. Retrieved March 11, 2007.</ref> and the [[Russia|Russian Federation]],<ref name="cnn121206">{{cite news| url=http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/12/russia.oil/index.html | work=CNN | title=Russia: A superpower rises again – CNN.com | accessdate=24 May 2010}}</ref><ref name="telegraph041307">{{cite news| url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/13/do1303.xml | work=The Daily Telegraph | location=London | title=Russia on the march – again | first=Con | last=Coughlin | date=13 April 2007 | accessdate=24 May 2010}}</ref><ref name="cambridgeRussia">{{cite web|url=http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521545297&ss=fro |title=Russia in the 21st Century – Cambridge University Press |publisher=Cambridge.org |date= |accessdate=2010-08-27}}</ref> are among the powers which are most often cited as having the ability to influence future world politics and reach the status of superpower in the 21st century.<ref name="Krauthammer1" /><ref>{{cite web|title=China's Not a Superpower|url=http://carnegieendowment.org/2009/12/29/china-s-not-superpower/1rgl|accessdate=29 April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=MARTINEZ-DIAZ|first=LEONARDO|title=Brazil in the Global Crisis: Still a Rising Economic Superpower?|url=http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/0713_brazil_economy.aspx|publisher=Brookings Institute|accessdate=29 April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Stubb|first=Alexander|title=Will the EU Ever Become a Superpower?|url=http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2008/07/17/will-eu-ever-become-superpower/15e|publisher=Carnegie Endowment|accessdate=29 April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Biswas|first=Soutik|title=Why India Will Not Become a Superpower|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17350650|publisher=BBC India|accessdate=29 April 2012|date=2012-03-13}}</ref> Pertinently, a country would need to achieve [[Great Power|great power]] status first, before they could develop superpower status, and it could be disputed whether some of the countries listed above (e.g., Brazil and India) are presently great powers. |
Revision as of 14:30, 31 December 2013
It has been suggested that Hyperpower be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2013. |
A superpower is a state with a dominant position in international relations and is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale through the means of both military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence. Traditionally superpowers are preeminent among the great powers (i.e as the USA is today). The term first applied to the British Empire, the United States of America and the Soviet Union. However following World War II and the Suez Crisis in 1956, the British Empire's status as a superpower status was diminished; for the duration of the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union came to be generally regarded as the two remaining superpowers, dominating world affairs. After the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, only the United States appears to fulfill the criteria of being considered a world superpower.[1]
Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School) defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony."[2]
The term "Emerging Superpower" has been applied by scholars to the possibility that the People's Republic of China could soon emerge as a superpower on par with the United States.[3][4][5][6] Additionally, it is widely believed by various academics that the European Union and India may have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century too.[7]
There have been attempts to apply the term superpower retrospectively, and sometimes very loosely, to a variety of past entities such as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, China,[8]India,[8] the Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire,[9][10] the Mongol Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire,[11][12] and France.[13][14] Recognition by historians of these older states as superpowers may focus on various superlative traits exhibited by them.
Terminology
The term superpower was used to describe nations with greater than great power status as early as 1944, but only gained its specific meaning with regard to the United States, the British Empire and the Soviet Union after World War II. This was because the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union had proved themselves to be capable of casting great influence in global politics and military dominance. The term in its current political meaning was coined by Dutch-American geostrategist Nicholas Spykman in a series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order. This formed the foundation for the book The Geography of the Peace, which referred primarily to the unmatched maritime global supremacy of the British Empire and United States as essential for peace and prosperity in the world.
A year later, William T.R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace (1944), which spoke of the global reach of a super-empowered nation.[15] Fox used the word Superpower to identify a new category of power able to occupy the highest status in a world in which, as the war then raging demonstrated, states could challenge and fight each other on a global scale. According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union. The British Empire was the most extensive empire in world history and considered the foremost great power, holding sway over 25% of the world's population[16] and controlling about 25% of the Earth's total land area,[17] while the United States and the Soviet Union grew in power in World War II.
The criteria of a superpower are not clearly defined[1] and as a consequence they may differ between sources.
According to Lyman Miller, "The basic components of superpower stature may be measured along four axes of power: military, economic, political, and cultural (or what political scientist Joseph Nye has termed “soft power”).[2]
In the opinion of Kim Richard Nossal of Queen's University, "generally this term was used to signify a political community that occupied a continental-sized landmass, had a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a superordinate economic capacity, including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; enjoyed a high degree of non-dependence on international intercourse; and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity (eventually normally defined as second strike capability)."[1]
In the opinion of Professor Paul Dukes, "a superpower must be able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world; to command vast economic potential and influence; and to present a universal ideology". Although, "many modifications may be made to this basic definition".[18] According to Professor June Teufel Dreyer, "A superpower must be able to project its power, soft and hard, globally."[19]
Cold War
The 1956 Suez Crisis suggested that Britain, financially weakened by two world wars, could not then pursue its foreign policy objectives on an equal footing with the new superpowers without sacrificing convertibility of its reserve currency as a central goal of policy.[20] As the majority of World War II had been fought far from its national boundaries, the United States had not suffered the industrial destruction nor massive civilian casualties that marked the wartime situation of the countries in Europe or Asia.
The war had reinforced the position of the United States as the world's largest long-term creditor nation[21] and its principal supplier of goods; moreover it had built up a strong industrial and technological infrastructure that had greatly advanced its military strength into a primary position on the global stage.[22] Despite attempts to create multinational coalitions or legislative bodies (such as the United Nations), it became increasingly clear that the superpowers had very different visions about what the post-war world ought to look like, and after the withdrawal of British aid to Greece in 1947 the United States took the lead in containing Soviet expansion in the Cold War.[23]
The two countries opposed each other ideologically, politically, militarily, and economically. The Soviet Union promoted the ideology of communism: planned economy and a one-party state, whilst the United States promoted the ideologies of liberal democracy and the free market. This was reflected in the Warsaw Pact and NATO military alliances, respectively, as most of Europe became aligned with either the United States or the Soviet Union. These alliances implied that these two nations were part of an emerging bipolar world, in contrast with a previously multipolar world. [citation needed]
The idea that the Cold War period revolved around only two blocs, or even only two nations, has been challenged by some scholars in the post–Cold War era, who have noted that the bipolar world only exists if one ignores all of the various movements and conflicts that occurred without influence from either of the two superpowers.[24] Additionally, much of the conflict between the superpowers was fought in "proxy wars", which more often than not involved issues more complex than the standard Cold War oppositions.[25]
After the Soviet Union disintegrated in the early 1990s, the term hyperpower began to be applied to the United States, as the sole remaining superpower of the Cold War era.[1] This term, coined by French foreign minister Hubert Védrine in the 1990s, is controversial and the validity of classifying the United States in this way is disputed. One notable opponent to this theory, Samuel P. Huntington, rejects this theory in favor of a multipolar balance of power.
Other international relations theorists, such as Henry Kissinger, theorize that because the threat of the Soviet Union no longer exists to formerly American-dominated regions such as Japan and Western Europe, American influence is only declining since the end of the Cold War, because such regions no longer need protection or have necessarily similar foreign policies as the United States.[26]
The Soviet Union and the United States fulfilled the superpower criteria in the following ways:
Political | Strong Communist state. Anti-colonialist movements and labour parties. Permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Strong ties with Central and Eastern Europe, countries in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Also had an alliance with the People's Republic of China up until 1961. | Strong capitalist federation/constitutional republic. Permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council plus two allies (France and Britain) with permanent seats. Strong ties with Western Europe, some countries in Latin America, the Commonwealth of Nations, and several East Asian countries. |
Cultural
|
Press explicitly controlled and censored. Promoted, through the use of propaganda, its Communist and Socialist ideal that workers of all countries should unite to overthrow capitalist society and what they called the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and replace it with a socialist society where all means of production are publicly owned. Rich tradition in literature, classical music, and ballet. | Maintained constitutional guarantees for freedom of speech and freedom of press, though the ongoing Cold War did lead to a degree of censorship, particularly during the Vietnam War era and the Second Red Scare when censorship was the heaviest. Rich cultural influence in music, literature, film, television, cuisine, art, and fashion. |
Military | Possessed largest armed forces and air force in the world, and the second of the world's largest navies. Possessed bases around the world, Also held the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons for the second half of the Cold War. Founder of Warsaw Pact with satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe. Global intelligence network with GRU and the First Chief Directorate of KGB. Ties with paramilitary and guerrilla groups in the developing world. Large armament production industry with global distribution. | Highest military expenditure in the world,[27] with the world's largest navy surpassing the next 13 largest navies combined,[28][29] and an army and air force rivaled only by that of the Soviet Union. Possessed bases around the world, particularly in an incomplete "ring" bordering the Warsaw Pact to the West, South and East. Largest nuclear arsenal in the world during the first half of the Cold War. Powerful military allies in Western Europe (NATO) with their own nuclear capabilities. Global intelligence network, the CIA. Ties with paramilitary and guerrilla groups in the developing world. Large armament production through defense contractors along with its developed allies for the global market. |
Economic | GDP of $2.9 trillion in 1990. Second largest economy in the world.[30] Enormous mineral energy resources and fuel supply. Generally self-sufficient using a minimal amount of imports, though suffered resource inadequacies such as in agriculture. Marxist economic theory based primarily on production: industrial production directed by centralised state organs leading to a high degree of inefficiency. Five-year plans frequently used to accomplish economic goals. Economic benefits such as guaranteed employment, free healthcare, free education on all levels formally assured for all citizens. Economy tied to Central and Eastern-European satellite states. | GDP of $5.2 trillion in 1990. Largest economy in the world. Capitalist free market economic theory based on supply and demand: production determined by customers' demands, though it also included rising income inequality since 1979.[31] Enormous industrial base and a large and modernized farming industry. Large volume of imports and exports. Large resources of minerals, energy resources, metals, and timber. High standard of living with accessibility to many manufactured goods. Home to a multitude of the largest global corporations. U.S. Dollar served as the dominant world reserve currency under Bretton Woods Conference. Allied with G7 major economies. Supported allied countries' economies via such programmes as the Marshall Plan. |
Demographic
& Geographic |
Had a population of 286.7 million in 1989, the third largest on Earth behind China and India.[32]
Largest country in the world, with a surface area of 22.27 million km².[32] |
Had a population of 248.7 million in 1990, at that time the fourth largest on Earth.[33]
Fourth largest country in the world (after the Soviet Union, Canada, China), with an area of 9,526,468 km².[34] |
Post Cold War
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 that ended the Cold War, the post–Cold War world was sometimes considered to be a unipolar world,[35][36] with the United States as the world's sole remaining superpower.[37] In the opinion of Samuel P. Huntington, "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power – economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural – with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."[38]
Experts argue that this older assessment of global politics was too simplified, in part because of the difficulty in classifying the European Union at its current stage of development. Others argue that the notion of a superpower is outdated, considering complex global economic interdependencies, and propose that the world is multipolar.[39][40][41][42] According to Samuel P. Huntington, "There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar. A unipolar system would have one superpower, no significant major powers, and many minor powers." Huntington thinks, "Contemporary international politics" ... "is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers."[38]
Additionally, there has been some recent speculation that the United States is declining in relative power as the rest of the world rises to match its levels of economic and technological development. Citing economic hardships, Cold War allies becoming less dependent on the United States, a declining dollar, and the rise of other great powers around the world, some experts have suggested the possibility of the United States losing its superpower status in the future.[43][44][45][46]
A 2012 report by the National Intelligence Council said that America's superpower status will have eroded to merely being first among equals by 2030, but that the USA would still be the most important country in the world because of its influence in many different fields and global connections that the great regional powers of the time would not match.[47]
Some people doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar. However, the military dominance of the United States remains unquestioned, and its international influence has made it an eminent world power.[39][40][41][42]
Hyperpower
Among those political commentators who felt that the United States had moved beyond superpower status after the fall of the Soviet Union, some felt a new term was needed to describe the United States' position.[48] French Minister Hubert Védrine used the term "hyperpower" in a speech in March 1998,[49] the earliest recorded use. It has also been applied retroactively to dominant empires of the past, including the British, French, Roman, and Chinese Empires. In this use, it is usually understood to mean a power that greatly exceeds any other in its political environment along several axes; Rome did not dominate India or China, but did dominate the entire Mediterranean area militarily, culturally, and economically.
The Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Arab Caliphate, French Empire, Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire and the British Empire have all been described as Hyper-powers.[50]
Potential superpowers
Academics, institutions, and other qualified commentators sometimes identify potential superpowers thought to have a strong likelihood of being recognized as superpowers in the 21st century. The record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example in the 1980s some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time.[51] However, Japan's economy crashed in 1991, creating a long period of economic slump in the country known as The Lost Years. As of August 2012, Japan has not fully recovered from the 1991 crash.[52]
Due to their large markets, growing military strength, and economic potential and influence in international affairs the Republic of India, the European Union, the Federative Republic of Brazil,[53][54][55] the People's Republic of China,[56][57][58][59] and the Russian Federation,[60][61][62] are among the powers which are most often cited as having the ability to influence future world politics and reach the status of superpower in the 21st century.[35][63][64][65][66] Pertinently, a country would need to achieve great power status first, before they could develop superpower status, and it could be disputed whether some of the countries listed above (e.g., Brazil and India) are presently great powers.
See also
References
- ^ a b c d e Kim Richard Nossal. Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower? Analyzing American Power in the post–Cold War Era. Biennial meeting, South African Political Studies Association, 29 June-2 July 1999. Retrieved 2007-02-28.
- ^ a b Miller, Lyman. "www.stanford.edu". www.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=g5s_uDDZSjoC&pg=PA155&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
- ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=PIRkvshH5NYC&pg=PR9&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
- ^ http://books.google.ca/books?id=6ubh-K1gBooC&pg=PT563&dq=china+%22Second+Superpower%22&client=firefox-a
- ^ A Point Of View: What kind of superpower could China be?
- ^ Khanna, Parag (2008-01-27). "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony". Qatar;China;Iran;Pakistan;Russia;India;Europe;China;Turkey;Libya;Indonesia;Abu Dhabi;Uzbekistan;Afghanistan;Kyrgyzstan;Kazakhstan: Nytimes.com. Retrieved 2011-06-12.
- ^ a b Angus Maddison (2003). The World Economy: Historical Statistics, OECD, Paris.
- ^ Schaefer, Brett. "www.heritage.org". www.heritage.org. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ "www.blackwellpublishing.com". www.blackwellpublishing.com. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ KAMEN, H., Spain's Road To Empire: The Making Of A World Power, 1492–1763, 2003, Penguin, 640p.
- ^ Edwards, John (2005). Isabella: Catholic Queen and Madam of Spain. Tempus Publishing. ISBN 0-7524-3331-8.
- ^ Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Mark Greengrass, The Ancien Régime 1998 Wiley-Blackwell, page 512
- ^ Steven Englund, Napoleon: A Political Life, 2005, Harvard University Press, page 254
- ^ "China Superpower" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ Angus Maddison. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective (p. 98, 242). OECD, Paris, 2001.
- ^ To Rule the Earth..., hostkingdom.net, Bibliography. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
- ^ abe.etailer.dpsl.net[dead link]
- ^ "www.fpri.org". www.fpri.org. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ Adam Klug and Gregor W. Smith, 'Suez and Sterling', Explorations in Economic History, Vol. 36, No. 3 (July 1999), pp. 181–203.
- ^ "Getting Serious About the Twin Deficits " by Author: Menzie D. Chinn - September 2005 by Council on Foreign Relations Press [1]
- ^ The Cold War: The Geography of Containment Gary E. Oldenburger by Oldenburger Independent Studies; December 2002
- ^ Robert Frazier, 'Did Britain Start the Cold War? Bevin and the Truman Doctrine', Historical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 715–727.
- ^ Conflicts of Superpower by Signal Alpha News Achieve Press 2005
- ^ Economic Interests, Party, and Ideology in Early Cold War Era U.S. Foreign Policy Benjamin O. Fordham by World Peace Foundation; Massachusetts Institute of Technology April 1998
- ^ Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, p. 24,26
- ^ John Pike. "World Wide Military Expenditures". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ Gates, Robert M. "A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon or a New Age". Council On Foreign Relations. Retrieved 8 December 2008.
- ^ Weighing the US Navy Defense & Security Analysis, Volume 17, Issue 3 December 2001 , pages 259–265
- ^ "1990 CIA World Factbook". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
- ^ Stone, C. "A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality" (PDF). Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. pp. 7–11. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ a b "Library of Congress Country Studies". Lcweb2.loc.gov. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ "www.census.gov" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ "United States". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 31 January 2010.
- ^ a b Charles Krauthammer, The Unipolar Moment, Foreign Policy Magazine (1991).
- ^ "www.gaikoforum.com" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ Country profile: United States of America, BBC News. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
- ^ a b www-stage.foreignaffairs.org
- ^ a b "The Global list (No superpower)". Archived from the original on 2006-06-13. Retrieved 2006-06-10. Cite error: The named reference "The Global list (No superpower)" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b Von Drehle, David (5 March 2006). "Washington Post (No superpower)". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-06-10. Cite error: The named reference "Washington Post (No superpower)" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b "Globalpolicy.org (No superpower)". Retrieved 2006-06-11. Cite error: The named reference "Globalpolicy.org (No superpower)" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b "A Times (No superpower)". Retrieved 2006-06-11. Cite error: The named reference "A Times (No superpower)" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Unger J (2008), U.S. no longer superpower, now a besieged global power, scholars say University of Illinois
- ^ Almond, Steve (2007-08-22). "Seizing American supremacy". Salon.com. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ "The Coming End of the American Superpower". Counterpunch.org. 2005-03-01. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ April 28, 2007 – (2007-04-28). "U.S.: A Losing Superpower?". Brookings.edu. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ "Forecast Sees Eroded U.S. Power."
- ^ Kim Richard Nossal (2 July 1999). "Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower?". McMaster University. Retrieved 4 November 2010.
- ^ Definition and Use of the Word Hyperpower
- ^ Amy Chua, Days of Empire, http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Day-of-Empire/Amy-Chua/e/9780385512848
- ^ time.com 1988 article "Japan From Superrich To Superpower"
- ^ Leika Kihara (August 17, 2012). "Japan eyes end to decades long deflation". Reuters. Retrieved September 7, 2012.
- ^ Martinez, Patricio (2009-11-02). "Alumna Analyzes Brazil's Emergence | The Cornell Daily Sun". Cornellsun.com. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ "While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower". Brazzil.com. 2008-08-12. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ "Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower". Transnational.org. 2006-01-27. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ "US-China Institute :: news & features :: china as a global power". China.usc.edu. 2007-11-13. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ Visions of China, CNN Specials. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
- ^ John McCormick,(2007). The European Superpower. Palgrave Macmillan.
- ^ Europe: the new superpower by Mark Leonard, Irish Times. Retrieved March 11, 2007.
- ^ "Russia: A superpower rises again – CNN.com". CNN. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
- ^ Coughlin, Con (13 April 2007). "Russia on the march – again". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
- ^ "Russia in the 21st Century – Cambridge University Press". Cambridge.org. Retrieved 2010-08-27.
- ^ "China's Not a Superpower". Retrieved 29 April 2012.
- ^ MARTINEZ-DIAZ, LEONARDO. "Brazil in the Global Crisis: Still a Rising Economic Superpower?". Brookings Institute. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
- ^ Stubb, Alexander. "Will the EU Ever Become a Superpower?". Carnegie Endowment. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
- ^ Biswas, Soutik (2012-03-13). "Why India Will Not Become a Superpower". BBC India. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
Bibliography
- Belt, Don (2004). "Europe's Big Gamble". National Geographic. pp. 54–65.
- Brzezinski, Zbigniew (1997). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02726-1.
- Fox, William (1944). The Super-powers: the United States, Britain, and the Soviet union—their responsibility for peace. Harcourt, Brace a. Co.
- Kamen, Henry (2003). Spain's Road To Empire: The Making Of A World Power, 1492–1763. Penguin. pp. 640p.
- Kennedy, Paul (1988). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. ISBN 0-679-72019-7.
- McCormick, John, John (2007). The European Superpower. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Todd, Emanuel (200X). After the Empire – The Breakdown of the American Order.
- Rosefielde, Steven (2005). Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower (PDF). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-83678-6. Retrieved 2007-10-07.
- Erik Ringmar, "The Recognition Game: Soviet Russia Against the West," Cooperation & Conflict, 37:2, 2002. pp. 115–36. – an explanation of the relations between the superpowers in the 20th century based on the notion of recognition.