What would the world be like with three superpowers?
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
It's an idea that could lead to greater stability. Three stern bosses would govern their own regions, slapping down challengers and troublemakers. They would make major decisions together, or at least with respect for one another's security.
Advertisement
Their rule would also sharply limit the sovereignty of lesser powers that are near one of the three big ones. Canada, Ukraine, and Taiwan would have to follow orders from Washington, Moscow, and Beijing.
Advertisement
Orwell did not invent the idea of dividing vast regions into 'spheres of influence' for great powers. It emerged from the Berlin Conference of 1884, at which European powers divided Africa among themselves. Underlying it is the age-old principle that the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must.
Trump might relish the vision of sitting down to divide the world with two other autocrats, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. It would be a global version of the 1945 Yalta Conference, at which World War II victors decided the fate of European nations. In the modern age, though, it may not be practical.
Nationalism and decolonization have shaped the current generation of leaders in much of the world. That makes it unlikely that smaller countries would now accept guidance from larger ones. Upstarts like Eritrea and Burkina Faso, not to mention middle powers like South Africa and Saudi Arabia, have already shown their willingness to challenge the global titans. Attempts to control them more tightly could lead them to rebel even more forcefully.
Then there is the question of which countries would be the Big Three. In the 1980s, when Russia was tottering and China had not yet reached great-power status, the three forces that came closest to ruling the world were the United States, Japan, and Europe. Today it is clear that the United States and China belong in the top tier. Russia would be the most likely third member. All three of these countries, however, face serious domestic and foreign challenges. They may be top dogs today, but their positions are hardly unassailable. Upheaval in today's world is in part a result of their inability to control unruly disruptors.
Advertisement
An Asia ruled by India might someday be an alternative to the ruthlessness of the Russian and Chinese regimes. North and South America under Brazilian oversight might be more peaceful and socially just than they are under the wing of the United States. As for Europe, it is in the throes of an epochal identity crisis and no longer projects power as it did in past centuries.
The greatest benefit of a tripartite division of the world is that it might lessen the threat of global destruction through nuclear war. Agreement among powerful nations could calm fears that might propel them toward apocalyptic decisions. Given the urgent reality of this threat, anything that lessens it is instantly appealing.
Obstacles to the three-great-powers vision, though, are easy to identify. Today the United States considers most of the world to be its 'sphere of influence.' Drawing new lines would inevitably mean a shrinking of the American domain, something Washington is unlikely to accept. Then there is the question of where those lines would be. Imagining a new world map may be an amusing fantasy project. In real life establishing one would be all but impossible.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to a new division of the world is the highly developed sensitivity of countries that have been victims of imperialism. The United States, Russia, and China were created by seizing land from others. All three have expanded their power at the expense of weaker countries. Those countries, some of them gathered in the BRICS bloc, sense a common threat. Persuading them to accept a return to obedient servitude would require a far better deal than the United States, Russia, or China is prepared to offer.
Advertisement
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Army restores the names of seven bases that lost their Confederate-linked names under Biden
WASHINGTON (AP) — Seven Army bases whose names were changed in 2023 because they honored Confederate leaders are all reverting back to their original names, the Army said Tuesday. The announcement came just hours after President Donald Trump previewed the decision , telling troops at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, that he was changing the names back. Fort Bragg, which was changed to Fort Liberty by the Biden administration , was the first to have its original name restored after the Army found another person with the same last name. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was with Trump at Fort Bragg, signed an order restoring the name in February. 'Can you believe they changed that name in the last administration for a little bit?' Trump said. 'We'll forget all about that.' In March, Hegseth reversed the decision changing Fort Benning in Georgia to Fort Moore. To restore the original names of the additional seven bases, the Army once again found service members with the same last names to honor. Those bases are Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Pickett and Fort Robert E. Lee in Virginia, Fort Gordon in Georgia, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Polk in Louisiana and Fort Rucker in Alabama. The decision strips names chosen in 2023 to honor top leaders, such as President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as well as Black soldiers and women. No women are included in the new Army list. There was no immediate cost estimate for changing all the signs at the bases, just two years after they were revamped. Fort A.P. Hill Originally it was named after Confederate Gen. Ambrose P. Hill, before being renamed Fort Walker after Mary Edwards Walker, a doctor who treated soldiers in the Civil War and later received a Medal of Honor. Now it will be named to commemorate three different people: Medal of Honor recipients Lt. Col. Edward Hill, 1st Sgt. Robert A. Pinn and Pvt. Bruce Anderson for heroism during the Civil War. Fort Pickett Fort Pickett was changed to Fort Barfoot in honor of Tech Sgt. Van Barfoot, a Medal of Honor recipient who served in World War II. It will now honor 1st Lt. Vernon W. Pickett. He received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism during World War II when he fired grenades while pinned down by enemy machine gun fire and destroyed enemy positions. He was captured, then escaped and rejoined his unit, but was killed in action. Fort Lee Fort Lee was changed to a hyphenated name, Fort Gregg-Adams, and was the only one to commemorate someone who remained alive at the time — Lt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg. He was known as a logistics leader and died last year. Lt. Col. Charity Adams — the other half of the name — led the first female Black unit of the Army deployed in World War II. Fort Lee will now be named for Pvt. Fitz Lee, who received the Medal of Honor for heroism during the Spanish-American War, when he moved under fire to rescue wounded comrades. Fort Gordon Fort Gordon was changed to Fort Eisenhower to commemorate the former president's time leading Allied forces in Europe in World War II. It will now be named for Medal of Honor recipient Master Sgt. Gary I. Gordon. He was honored for his valor during the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia, where he defended wounded crew members at a helicopter crash site and held off an advancing enemy force. Fort Hood Fort Hood was changed to Fort Cavazos in honor of Gen. Richard Cavazos, the Army's first Hispanic four-star, who served in the Korean War and got the Distinguished Service Cross. It will now honor Col. Robert B. Hood. He received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism during World War I, when he directed artillery fire in France. Fort Polk Fort Polk was changed to Fort Johnson after Black Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. William Henry Johnson, who served in World War I. It will now honor Silver Star recipient Gen. James H. Polk. Then-Col. Polk was honored for gallantry during World War II, when he led reconnaissance and combat missions under fire. He later served as head of U.S. Army Europe. Fort Rucker Fort Rucker was named Fort Novosel after Medal of Honor recipient Chief Warrant Officer Michael Novosel, who served in World War II and Vietnam. It will now honor Capt. Edward W. Rucker. He received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism in World War I when he flew deep behind enemy lines in a daring air battle over France. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Trump orders names restored to bases that honored Confederate soldiers
President Donald Trump returns to the White House from Camp David on Monday. On Tuesday, Trump gave a speech at Fort Bragg to commemorate the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and announced he would reinstate original names, even Confederate, at all military bases. A military parade is planned for Saturday in Washington, D.C. Photo by Yuri Gripas/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that Army bases, which honored Confederate leaders before 2023, will have their original names reinstated. Trump said, "it's no time to change." Trump made the announcement during a speech at Fort Bragg to celebrate the Army's 250th birthday, which will also be celebrated this weekend in Washington, D.C., with a military parade. "For a little breaking news, we are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Robert E. Lee," Trump said. "We won a lot of battles out of those forts. It's no time to change. And I'm superstitious. I like to keep it going," he added. Fort Bragg's name was recently restored from Fort Liberty after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed an order earlier this year. Instead of honoring Confederate general Braxton Bragg, the base now honors World War II paratrooper and Silver Star recipient Roland Bragg. "Fort Bragg, it shall always remain. That's never going to be happening again," Trump said Tuesday. The Pentagon also restored Fort Moore's original name to Fort Benning, with the retired name honoring a different man and not Confederate general, Lt. Gen. Henry Benning. The Georgia base now honors Corporal Fred Benning, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism during World War I. While most of the bases will be renamed in honor of someone with the same surname, Trump implied that Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Robert E. Lee would not. "We won two world wars in those forts," Trump told supporters last July during a campaign rally, as he criticized the Biden administration for dropping the bases' original names. Former President Biden ordered the bases be renamed in 2021 following Black Lives Matter protests the previous year. Biden signed a bill that created a naming commission to change the names of forts that honored Confederates, while giving the commission three years to complete the job. During Tuesday's speech, Trump also discussed the protests in Los Angeles and his deployment of National Guardsmen and Marines, saying "this anarchy will not stand." "Generations of Army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third world lawlessness here at home, like is happening in California," Trump said. "As commander in chief, I will not let that happen. It's never going to happen. What you're witnessing in California is a full-blown assault on peace, on public order and on national sovereignty carried out by rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion of our country," the president continued. "This week, we remember that we only have a country because we first had an Army -- and after 250 years, we still proudly declare that we are free because you are strong." The Army will continue the celebration of its 250th anniversary with a military parade on Saturday in Washington, D.C. Saturday is also Flag Day and Trump's 79th birthday.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US tariff turmoil makes Spain's flagship foods seek other markets
It's lunchtime in a bar in the southern Spanish city of Seville. The kitchen is humming with activity, and behind the bar a member of staff pours cold beer from a tap into a glass. Nearby, another uses a carving knife to cut slices from a large leg of jamón ibérico, or Iberian ham, placing each one on a plate, to be served as an appetiser. There are few more Spanish scenes. And there are few more Spanish products than jamón ibérico, whose unique salty flavour is renowned across the world, and part of a national cured ham industry worth nearly €750m ($850m; £630m) each year in exports. As he watches the jamón being carved, Jaime Fernández, international commercial director for the Grupo Osborne, which produces wine, sherry and the renowned Cinco Jotas brand of ham, describes it as a "flagship" national foodstuff. "It's one of the most iconic gastronomic products from Spain," he says, pointing out how the pigs used to make the ham are reared in the wild and fed on acorns. "It represents our tradition, our culture, our essence." Winemakers finding Trump's tariffs hard to swallow Trump agrees to extend EU trade talks after 50% tariff threat But jamón ibérico, like products across Spain and the rest of Europe, is facing the threat of trade tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump. There was no tariff on Spanish ham exports to the US until April of this year, when a 20% charge on all European imports was suddenly introduced, dropping to 10% pending negotiations. However, in May Trump unsettled European exporters again when he said that the tariff for all EU goods could rise as high as 50% if trade talks with Brussels do not come to a successful agreement. The current deadline for this is 9 July. "The United States is one of our top, priority markets," says Mr Fernández. "The uncertainty is there, and it complicates our medium-and long-term planning, investments and commercial development." The tariffs, he adds, "pose a threat to our industry." Spain's overall economy is in rude health. The IMF has forecast growth this year of 2.5% – much higher than the other main EU economies – and unemployment is at a 17-year low. But the tariff issue comes as a blow for the country's pork industry, which represents more than 400,000 direct and indirect jobs, and is Europe's largest. Demand for cured ham in the US has grown substantially in recent years, and it has become the biggest importer of Spanish ham outside the EU. But the Spanish industry now faces the prospect of having to raise retail prices for US consumers and therefore losing competitivity to local products, or those not subject to the same tariffs. Spain's olive oil sector is in a similar quandary. The world's biggest producer of olive oil, Spain had set its sights on the US as a burgeoning market whose growth was driven by growing awareness of the health benefits of the product. Yet the the tariff turmoil comes just as Spanish producers and exporters have recovered from a drought that slashed harvests in the south of the country, and sent prices temporarily soaring. The US represents half of world olive oil consumption outside the EU. It is also the country whose imports of the foodstuff from Spain have grown the most in recent years, increasing from approximately 300,000 tonnes per year a decade ago to around 430,000 tonnes, says Rafael Pico Lapuente, director general of the Spanish association of olive oil exporters (ASOLIVA). Much will depend, he says, on the final tariff set for the EU. "If there is a 10% tariff which is permanent, without differentiating between countries of origin, it's not going to create a distortion on the international market," says Mr Pico Lapuente. He explains that American consumers might have to absorb the extra cost. And although local US producers of olive oil or similar products would gain a competitive edge, their output is small enough for it not to concern the likes of Spain. However, he says it would be "a different story" if Trump introduced higher tariffs for the EU than for competitor olive oil countries outside the bloc – such as Turkey, the world's second-largest producer, or Tunisia, an emerging grower. That scenario, he says, would have a major impact on the world market and Spanish producers. But variations in tariffs between countries or trade blocs would also lead to a certain amount rule-bending and even chaos, according to Javier Díaz-Giménez, a professor of economics at the IESE business school in Madrid. He suggests two of Spain's direct neighbours as a hypothetical example. "If Spain has a 20% tariff and Morocco and Andorra have a 10% tariff, all the Spanish products that can go through Morocco or Andorra… will do so." He adds: "They will be first exported to Morocco and Andorra and from there re-exported to the United States with a 10% tariff. "And it's going to be really hard to make sure that these olives came from Andorra proper and not from Spain. Is Trump going to do something about that?" For now, Spanish producers and exporters must hold their breath as EU negotiations take place with Washington. For Mr Pico Lapuente, a big cause of concern is the influence – or as he sees it, lack of influence – his sector wields within the European trade bloc. "The negotiations representing the EU's 27 countries are carried out by Brussels," he says. "In these negotiations, industrial products have a much bigger influence than food. "I wouldn't like it if, in this negotiation, food products like olive oil were used as mere bargaining chips in order to get a better deal for Europe's industrial products. That worries me. And I hope it doesn't happen." A spokesperson for the European Commission told the BBC that in negotiations with the US it will act "in defence of European interests, protecting its workers, consumers and its industries". Jaime Fernández, of the Grupo Osborne, believes his industry could live with the 10% tariff that is currently in place without suffering too much fallout. However, a 20% charge, he says would cause the industry "to reconsider how to accelerate growth in some other markets, which would eventually lead to the relocation of resources from the US". He says his company is already looking at alternative markets in which to invest, such as China, or proven European ham consumers such as France, Italy and Portugal. Mr Díaz-Giménez says that is the logical response to the current uncertainty. "If I was the CEO of any company with a high exposure to the United States… I would have sent my entire sales team to find other markets," he says. "And by now, they would have found them. There would be plan Bs and plan Cs, to make sure that we have reduced this exposure to the US." Chile's salmon farms hope for calmer waters Did Trump really strike Gulf deals worth $2tn? The world's most dangerous country for trade unionists Is the US finally on track to build a high-speed rail network?
