Superpowers = a country that can project its ideas and power globally and influence other countries using its economic, political, military and cultural strengths
power and influence of countries vary bc they have a disproportionate amount of global influence
geopolitical power can be thought about as a hierarchy
hyper power = complete global dominance, no rivals eg USA
superpower = globally dominant, but multiple can exist eg EU
emerging power = globally influential, only in certain things eg BRICs
Regional power = leads on a continental, not global scale eg japan mexico and nigeria
the way ppl view the status of a country is subjective, some ppl view USA as a hyperpower not a superpower bc its sooooo powerful
EU is difficult to classify into a hierarchy bc all 27 countries are a nuclear weapons power (France) and worlds 2nd largest economy after USA 🦅 BUT bc there’s often disagreements it limits their power 🔋 AS well as the UK leaving the bloc in 2020
china is close to the USA in terms of power depsite being an emerging power
power has lots of diff sources
economic = large GDP -> wealth needed to be a global player
political = leading not following within global organisations eg the UN, IMF and the WTO
military = nuclear weapons, large navy and air force -> threaten or force a countries will on others
cultural = media and stuff to influence others which are appealing (soft power)
demographic = power = people to support large economy and military
natural resources = fossil fuels land for farming etc -> self sufficiency
types of power
hard = military and economic influence (trade deals and sanctions) to force a country to act a certain way
soft = political and cultural influence (diplomacy) more subtle way bc they view the persuader as respected and appealing
joseph nye = in 21st century most successful = combine hard and soft power -> smart power
whats more effective
hard = direct action = gets results but is expensive and risky, may be seen as unnecessary or illegal = aggressor may lose allies and moral authority eg Russia 2014 invasion of Crimea
what’s more effective

soft power = country has well respected cultures values and politics = enough to persuade some countries but not all
BUT if applied well its cheaper and is all about creating alliances = friendly and may spread to other countries
international ranking of soft power put the USA, UK and France and Germany at the top of the annual rankings SOOO BASICALLY western liberal democracies
importance of type of power has changed over time
past = hard power = most powerful
19th/20th century = power comes from controlling most land
1904 british geographer Halford Mackinder produced influential geo strategic location theory = Heartland theory
heartland theory (basically the area surrounding Russia) = WAS v influential
persuaded USA, UK and other HICSs that Russia had to be ‘contained‘ so it wouldn’t take over
reinforced idea control of resources = important
NOW heartland theory = old fashioned
modern military tech can reach deep inside a country = size not so important anymore = no protection
physical resources traded internationally = less need to produce domestically
wars/ conflict are no longer normal ways to gain power
soft power = more common NOW bc can still gain influence and maintainpower by creating economic and political alliances BUT hard power still exists +
1991 and 2003 USA and allies invaded Iraq to secure oil supplies
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine/ Crimea in 2014 to ‘protect’ ethnic Russians
From 1500-1950 = imperial era
EU powers conquered land in America, Africa and Asia and built empires that directly controlled territories
to develop these empires it required
powerful navies to transport soldiers and equipment to areas on potential conquest and to protect sea routes and coastlines from enemies
large and advanced armed forces to conquer territory and control it
businesses to exploit resources in the conquered territories by mining and plantation farming
fleet of merchant ships protected by navy to transport goods back home
ppl acting as gov and civil service to run the colonies back home
empires were maintained directly by force
attempts to rebel against colonial power = brutally suppressed
Britain = largest empire, peaked in 1920 when it controlled 24% of worlds land in several continents
empires ended 1950-70
eu countries bc the cost of maintaining empires = too expensive after eu rebuilt after WW2
china = basically a colonial ruler to Tibet = brutally suppressing dissent during rebellions by tibetans in 1959 and 2008
little to no other mechanisms were used other than military to control colonies during the imperial era
British india -> english culture was encouraged to wealthier Indians eg schools language cricket and dress
no superpowers or emerging powers have significant empires EXCEPT
Russian controlled parts of Georgia Ukraine and Moldova = mini empire = control has to be indirect
indirect control
political = dominant decision making role in international things eg within the UN, G7, WTO but some countries = disproportionate influence
military = threat of large powerful armed forces with global reach, selective arms trading provides weapons to key allies but not enemies
economic = trade deals and blocs to create alliances and interdependence
cultural = global media to spread ideologies
indirect power -> important in cold war era
USA and USSR sought allies among other coutnires as part of the USA led ‘west’ or USSR led ‘east’ inc
military alliances eg NATO and Warsaw pact
foreign aid -> way to ‘buy’ support from other nations
support for corrupt and undemocratic regimes in the developing world in return for their support for the superpower
can be argued that western nations STILL control their ex colonies thro neo-colonialism incs
debt aid relationship = developing countries owe money for past loans to HICs but their poverty also means they depend on foreign aid
poor terms of trade = developing countries export low value commodities but have to import expensive manufactured goods from developed countries
loss of smart ppl bc they want to migrate to the HICs if possible
rise of china = emerging power since 2000 -> accused of Neo-colonial actions in Africa
challenging hegemony of the USA and former colonial powers
patterns of power change over time
unipolar = one globally dominant superpower/ hyperpower
bipolar = two opposing superpowers w/ diff ideologies but equal in status
multipolar = man equal powers w/ regional influence but less global influence
1800-1919 (British empire) = unipolar
1919-39 (interwar period) = multipolar
1990-2030???(USA vs USSR Cold War) = unipolar
future 2030 = bipolar? multipolar?
What is the most stable pattern of power
unipolar = stable bc there’s only one person at the top but it is hard to maintain this position eg USA called the ‘worlds policeman’ -> inv in numerous trouble spots all the time
bipolar eg Cold War sitch = inv tense stand off between opposing powers = high risk ‘scary but stable’
between first and second war = multipolar and no dominant power -> power vacuum allowing rise of nazi Germany and imperial japan w/ no country prepared to stop them
implication for the futures,
after 2030 the world could be bipolar -> USA and china
OR
multipolar -> USA China India eu
emerging powers = increasingly more important in global politics, and dominance of USA will decline
most likely to rival USA hegemony = china bc
huge Human Resources
economy grown massively since 1990 and not slowing down
increasingly engages with other parts of the world eg investing in Africa in term of mineral resources and Asia thro its belt and road initiative (BRI)
military ambitions to build a blue water navy beyond its coastline
other bricks countries and G20 countries = significantly more powerful in the future
EU and USA share of world GDP = in decline
china n India = Moore significant to global economy and likely to continue
emerging powers in the near future will
demand more say in global organisations eg UN -> India may have a permanent seat on the security council
more influence over global financial decision making at WB or IMF or WTO
greater role in international peacekeeping missions and disaster response as military grows
BRICS = 42% of global CO2 emissions sooo basically a global environmental governance agreement to tackle global warming needs to include them
at un climate change conference in paris 2015 the bric countries were inv in the agreement unlike the 1997 kyoto protocol only inv developing countries
emerging countries strengths and weaknesses (most important)
countries with ageing populations or declining eg japan russia china = major probs in the future paying for expensive healthcare and pensions at the same time their workforce is shrinking
shortages of physical resources -> derail ambitions of some countries eg india or growing pollution -> stall growth eg china
countries with modern infrastructure , balances economic sectors and good energy supplies eg china brazil -> better than ones yet to develop these eg india nigeria