Global Political Order
What are the fundamental building blocks of global politics? On the verge of 2023 I offer my perspective on Substack. Subscribe and stay tuned to the fundamentals of global politics.
Leave your mail address and my posts will reach your mailbox.
Power projection and regional dynamics
Capabilities are the key to making an accurate geopolitical analysis. It is not the only thing to take into account. But it is one of the things that must be taken into account, describing the relation between polities in the global political order. On the base of the strength of its internal cohesion, a polity projects power from its capital towards its designated borders and beyond into the oceans, mountains and other polities: Global politics takes place on the planet in concrete settings where power is projected onto specific areas. We understand power projection as concrete distribution of force and the perception of intent. In this way we could describe a doctrine by counting troops, equipment, and their placement, evaluate their force and range, and then add a consideration concerning their potential use. Hereby we come to a point, from where we can begin to reconstruct intent as a theater of conflict unravels. In a following post we shall examine what we call The Putin Doctrine in relation to current events in Ukraine. Dynamics between local powers are understood as regional dynamics. Such regional dynamics can be penetrated and dominated by global dynamics. In clusters of major and minor regional powers there are sustained tensions between entities, intensely so in East and South Asia.
Structural balance of power between states
The relative proliferation, intensity, and endurance of conflicts in The Middle East can be sought explained by the absence of major regional powers where the proximity and proliferation of minor regional powers sustains tension. The difference between major, minor and superpowers, is made on the basis of their relative capabilities in the concrete regional context. A quick way to count relative capabilities is to divide military budget by number of security forces. A formula for precise assessment of military strength for a polity shall be revealed, where GDP, internal stability, alignments, and security of supply are factored in, but for now, take the rule of thumb, that a large ‘military budget’ can be used for developing striking and parading capabilities where a huge standing army is most often directed at internal stability hence the suggested ratio between them is a good indicator of here and now ability to strike or defend against strikes from other polities. Note that high tech weapons are very effective, but also very expensive. A good learning case could be to make this calculus for Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1992, 2002, 2012 and 2022. Multiply the number of security forces, that are counted in hundreds of thousands with 1000, and divide that number into the military budget, that is counted in billions => military budget/number of security forces x 1000, and compare the result of the calculation for the two states. This will give you a good idea what is meant by the term: structural power balance between states, and the understanding, that Armenia is currently under pressure, since Azerbaijan grows stronger and stronger, continuously and rapidly, while the territory of Armenia is at first consolidated around 1992, but later contracted around 2020ies.
Distinction between powers
In the Global Polity Theory, we distinguish between 4 types of powers on the criteria of their strength relative to their surroundings:
1) Superpower: a superpower is a great power with global reach. Such reach requires a large presence and substantial capabilities. A superpower sustains regional hegemony hence exercise total domination in its own region. USA is a superpower.
2) Great power: a power is great, when all actors in the system must take potential grievances of such a power into account, while acting in the global polity. A great power is a major regional power exercising domination on its territory. China and EU are great powers. Great powers are major regional powers with strong economic force that are recognized for their interests by its peers and the Superpower.
3) Major regional power: a major regional power is a power with strong capabilities. A major regional power is striving for hegemony in its regional context, but only the Superpower can actually claim to dominate its region. Major regional powers have larger capabilities than the surrounding powers in the region: U.K., Japan, Russia, India, Australia and Brazil are considered major regional powers.
4) Minor regional powers: a minor regional power exercises influence beyond its borders and participate as a force projecting substantive power within a regional dynamic. In the Middle East there are 6 minor regional powers: Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, and Turkey. In Maghreb there are 2: Algeria and Morocco.
The Geopolitical Pyramid
Figure 1 Global power distribution
In terms of actual capabilities, polities differ to a large degree. Some are immensely strong in absolute terms, locally, regionally, or globally, while others may be weak in global comparison, but relatively strong compared to their immediate surroundings. Here polities are placed in a pyramid, indicating a hierarchy of relative strength, to illustrate the difference between the elite and the mass in Global Polity. There are four tiers in reference to the classification of polities above; there are more polities in the lower tiers hence the shape of a ‘pyramid.’ In the first tier of the pyramid, we find USA. Second tier are China and EU. Third tier are Russia, Brazil, India, U.K., Australia, and Japan. In the fourth tier we find minor regional powers: North Korea, Iran, South Africa, Nigeria, Pakistan, Vietnam, Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Ukraine (dissolving), Canada, and Israel.
Global elite polities and global mass polities
The geopolitical pyramid gives an intuition of the distribution of power in the global polity. We see a difference in notation between I and O. China may display challenges with its internal coherence, and China may not be an unproblematic administrative monolith, but its display of political unity differs from that of the security community we name EU. This entity is an anomaly. EU is an affiliation of polities. In the pyramid, EU is marked with an O to indicate that it is different to the other entities that are all marked I. There is a radical difference between the distribution of power in and from the EU and the distribution of power in and from other entities, but in many respects, the power of the EU is heavy in the global polity, not least due to its cultural and economic leverage, being the locus of origin of ‘The West’, its close relations to the superpower, and the size of its market. The relative strength of the EU creates tensions vis a vis its surroundings. We shall see how the projection from the EU have created a sphere of political instability around it while it has embarked on a slow process of integration into what we call a security community. A major point is that EU together with USA, U. K., Australia, and Japan (arguably Switzerland, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Uruguay could be counted in here) creates an elite in the global polity and thus sustains a line of division vis a vis the others, namely China, Russia, Brazil, and India, at times referred to as the BRIC, forming the top of a mass of states, we, after a term coined by Fareed Zaharia, name ‘The Rest’ (where South Africa and all other polities could arguably be counted as well). Although the elite has a lot of power, the mass is many and represents around 7 billion people. In terms of GDP per capita and political stability the entities in the global elite are much richer and much more developed both militarily, politically and economically. This difference and its auspices will all be clearer, when we get deeper into Global Polity Theory, but at this point it is important to grasp the polity division in the global polity, through which we come to explain the actions and aspirations of Russia, India, Brazil, and China, but also the doctrine of the EU, and, of course, the behavior of the superpower: like in all societies, the society of states has an elite, seeking to sustain its norms, and a mass, that has to navigate vis a vis these norms and the projection of power they entail.
Global political institutions
The elite sustains norms through political institutionalization; by creating and forming institutions the elite can uphold its status and exercise dominance. Geopolitics is basically regulated by four different institutions: balance of power, sovereignty, diplomacy, and war. Balancing between sovereign entities entails distribution of power between entities. Such distribution may be sought regulated through diplomacy and war. This regulation has been sought distributed through the creation of a so called secondary institution, on top of the primary institutions: diplomacy, sovereignty, and war, namely The United Nations. It is important to grasp that despite the secondary institutions created by the elite after WW II, global politics is still mostly regulated by the basic, or primary institutions. Balance of major power creates macro-structures in the global political order expressed by the means polities invoke relative to the polarity of global polity; for instance: a power can find its incentives to act mediated by the fear that a larger power may intervene in its affairs. The superpower has had such regulating function, due to the sheer magnitude of its power distribution, but other polities may rise in its shadow thus altering polarity in the global polity. We speak of a fading unipolar moment (1991 – 2017) after bipolarity reigned during the standoff between USSR and USA (1949 – 1990). The latter period, often referred to as ‘The Cold War’, saw the rise of quite stable secondary institutions such as UN, WTO, WB/IMF but also a dominant military alliance, namely NATO. The domination of these secondary institutions and the strong alliance between countries in the EU, U.K., USA, Canada and Turkey forms a conglomerate that amounts to the back bone of an enduring but very weak global political form.
Polarization
Tensions between elite and mass is growing, undermining the stability of the Global Polity as the institutionalization of the global political order becomes weaker and more fragile, not least due to lack of state capacities and polity collapse. Nowadays, we understand unipolarity to fade into multipolarity, with several nodes forming around the capitals of the major powers. Between two of these capitals the contour of a new axis is being formed, namely between Moscow and Beijing. We shall come to a deeper understanding of what that may entail already in next month in the post named: A Pragmatic Partnership. The undermined sovereignty of Kiev during the intra-state conflict in Ukraine, led to an invasion by Russia: as diplomacy was unable to mediate the conflict in Ukraine, it turned into war. Interestingly, the Ukraine, backed by NATO, managed to balance Russia on the battlefield. A stalemate has occurred along the frontline with scarce movement from both sides. We shall deal with this conflict zone in the post named The Ukraine Question already in a few weeks. Later, we shall come to discuss The Taiwan Question, as well. When China was recognized by the UN, Taiwan became unrecognized. Secondary institutions and alliances play a substantial role in the diplomacy of global politics, but primary institutions are named primary for obvious reasons: this is where structural changes take place.
The main issue
Since wars are few and diplomacy proliferate, the overarching issue on the agenda is sovereignty and the presence of state capacities, in a world where balance of power rules. The internal balance of entities, strengthening sovereignty and developing states to perform well, is in Global Polity Theory the main issue concerning global political stability and the source of global political disorder. When sovereignty ceases, states may collapse into ‘civil war,’ as it was once called, but no longer, since there is nothing civil about these conflicts; they are rather as ‘uncivil’ as conflict can get, stemming from intra-structural breakdown of tension between legitimacy and monopolization of violations: in such conflicts neighbor can be pitched against neighbor, and when faith in government is lost while the police cannot sustain order, things may turn ugly. These conflict are often dominated by arbitrary molestation. We name these conflicts ‘intra-state conflict.’ Despite the inherent havoc they create, intra-state conflict generates malice and spawn refugees and further havoc to its surroundings. An essential state capacity is the development of vehicles for distribution of force. This specific state capacity we name capabilities. In the extreme, development of weapons of mass destruction and their potential in the hands of actors including non-state actors is a top priority for the great powers to handle. Standoff between states and potential escalation of standoff between great powers could lead to use of weapons of mass destruction. This potential has regulated the frequency and frenzy of interstate conflict through bipolarity and unipolarity, but in the face of multipolarity and state collapse, the global political order is challenged on all levels and prone to increased instability. Interstate wars are less frequent than intra-state conflict. The weakening of entities and the rise of intra-state conflict are the prevalent factors of global instability.
Struggling major powers
A vital part of power projection is internal coherence. Strong sovereignty is vital. When polity is struggling to keep itself together, battling infra- or intra-polity issues it needs to strengthen its coherence. That can be done by increasing government legitimacy and through deployment of forces to police the realm. Building institutions to sustain viable power distribution in society is paramount in sustaining and developing state capacities. The imperative of strengthening polity through strengthening sovereignty and develop state capacities contains major obstacles. When major powers struggle to accumulate sufficient state capacities, they may spawn political instability. And here we are at the core of the matter, since most major powers do struggle with internal coherence: Russia, India, Brazil, China, the EU, and even to some extent the USA. The major powers all have very different but notable challenges when it comes to strengthening sovereignty and developing state capacities. Polities demand stability and public services. We start by focusing on two major powers and their internal and external struggles: Russia and China. First, we address The Ukraine Question.