Latest news with #PeaceofWestphalia
Japan Today
28-07-2025
- Politics
- Japan Today
What makes ‘great powers' great? And how will they adapt to a multipolar world?
By Andrew Latham Many column inches have been dedicated to dissecting the 'great power rivalry' currently playing out between China and the U.S. But what makes a power 'great' in the realm of international relations? Unlike other states, great powers possess a capacity to shape not only their immediate surroundings but the global order itself – defining the rules, norms and structures that govern international politics. Historically, they have been seen as the architects of world systems, exercising influence far beyond their neighborhoods. The notion of great powers came about to distinguish between the most and least powerful states. The concept gained currency after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna in 1815 – events in Europe that helped establish the notion of sovereign states and the international laws governing them. Whereas the great powers of the previous eras – for example, the Roman Empire – sought to expand their territory at almost every turn and relied on military power to do so, the modern great power utilizes a complex tapestry of diplomatic pressure, economic leverage and the assertions of international law. The order emerging out of Westphalia enshrined the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which allowed these powers to pursue a balance of power as codified by the Congress of Vienna based on negotiation as opposed to domination. This transformation represented a momentous development in world politics: At least some portion of the legitimacy of a state's control was now realized through its relationships and capacity to keep the peace, rather than resting solely on its ability to use force. From great to 'super' Using their material capabilities – economic strength, military might and political influence – great powers have been able to project power across multiple regions and dictate the terms of international order. In the 19th-century Concert of Europe, the great powers – Britain, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia – collectively managed European politics, balancing power to maintain stability. Their influence extended globally through imperial expansion, trade and the establishment of norms that reflected their priorities. During the 20th century, the Cold War brought a stark distinction between great powers and other states. The U.S. and the Soviet Union, as the era's two 'superpowers,' dominated the international system, shaping it through a rivalry that encompassed military alliances, ideological competition and economic systems. Great powers in this context were not merely powerful states but the central actors defining the structure of global politics. Toward a multipolar world The post-Cold War period briefly ushered in a unipolar moment, with the U.S. as the sole great power capable of shaping the international system on a global scale. This era was marked by the expansion of liberal internationalism, economic globalization and U.S.-led-and-constructed multilateralism. However, the emergence of new centers of power, particularly China and to a lesser extent Russia, has brought the unipolar era to a close, ushering in a multipolar world where the distinctive nature of great powers is once again reshaped. In this system, great powers are states with the material capabilities and strategic ambition to influence the global order as a whole. And here they differ from regional powers, whose influence is largely confined to specific areas. Nations such as Turkey, India, Australia, Brazil and Japan are influential within their neighborhoods. But they lack the global reach of the U.S. or China to fundamentally alter the international system. Instead, the roles of these regional powers is often defined by stabilizing their regions, addressing local challenges or acting as intermediaries in great power competition. Challenging greatness Yet the multipolar world presents unique challenges for today's great powers. The diffusion of power means that no single great power can dominate the system as the U.S. did in the post-Cold War unipolar era. Instead, today's great powers must navigate complex dynamics, balancing competition with cooperation. For instance, the rivalry between Washington and Beijing is now a defining feature of global politics, spanning trade, technology, military strategy and ideological influence. Meanwhile, Russia's efforts to maintain its great power status have resulted in more assertive, though regionally focused, actions that nonetheless have global implications. Great powers must also contend with the constraints of interdependence. The interconnected nature of the global economy, the proliferation of advanced technologies and the rise of transnational challenges such as climate change and pandemics limit the ability of any one great power to unilaterally dictate outcomes. This reality forces great powers to prioritize their core interests while finding ways to manage global issues through cooperation, even amid intense competition. As the world continues to adjust to multiple centers of power, the defining feature of great powers remains an unmatched capacity to project influence globally and define the parameters of the international order. Whether through competition, cooperation or conflict, the actions of great powers will, I believe, continue to shape the trajectory of the global system, making their distinctiveness as central players in international relations more relevant than ever. Andrew Latham is Professor of Political Science, Macalester College. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
The Hindu
23-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
The reality of the changing dimensions of warfare
Machiavelli believed that in politics, one is guided solely by the harsh realities of political life, viz., a struggle for power and survival. Today, we are at a point in history when old rules that once governed international politics appear to be in terminal decline. Alongside this, the means to achieve dominance are undergoing fundamental changes. To today's power brokers, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 (that sanctified the construct of a nation state), and the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15 have little or no meaning. For most, new weapons are the be-all and end-all of modern politics. The year 2025 is also one that celebrates eight decades of seemingly relative peace following the end of the Second World War, though the years in between did see, and had seen, several conflicts, though not on the scale of the Second World War. For many, even more than the defeat and decline of Nazi Germany, it appeared that it was the apparent invincibility of the United States (wielding the mighty atom bomb — two of which were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945) — that seemed to usher in a new era of peace. Concepts such as a 'rules-based international order' also gained traction at this time. This was, however, at best an illusion of peace, and more of a 'riddle wrapped in an enigma' than the reality. A succession of wars of a lesser magnitude that continued to occur across the world — beginning with Korea, Vietnam and North Africa, not excluding parts of Europe itself — confirmed this. It reinforced a truth embedded in a seminal piece of advice often given to diplomats based in the United Kingdom, viz., 'do not believe anything anyone tells you unless you have checked it yourself'. Already by the 1990s, many of the fundamentals that prevailed had begun to be questioned. The end of the Cold War looked more like the beginning of a new era of conflict. Quite a few new conflicts had begun to emerge which had the potential to shatter any illusion that peace was at hand. Alongside this, it was increasingly becoming evident that a new era in global warfare was emerging. Few, however, admitted that the world was about to enter a new era of conflict. The impact of 9/11 One of the more widely read articles recently harps on the End of Modernity and talks of the current state of the world in some detail. It lists the year 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, as the beginning of a new era in global politics. For many others, however, it was September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers in New York were attacked by terrorists, that seemed to usher in a new beginning. Admittedly, the events of 9/11 did begin a new chapter in global affairs, but it was hardly the curtain-raiser, or even indicative, of the fundamental changes about to take place in the future. What 9/11, perhaps, did was to give the U.S. and certain other nations an opportunity to invade other states based on their perception of what was right and wrong. It was not yet obvious, however, whether the basic fundamentals of conflict would undergo any radical change, and the implications it could have for future generations. The evidence for this is only now beginning to unfold. Even so, the catastrophic consequences of the change are yet to be fully understood or comprehended. For this, perhaps, one needs to go to the early 1990s, and more specifically to 1991, to the impact which the U.S.-led Operation Desert Storm caused at the time, and also its impact on future wars. It was in effect the first modern-era war which would mark a 'dramatic acceleration of warfare and the transformative synthesis of its operative, tactical and strategic elements', and possibly transforming the nature of war and battlefield doctrines itself. It was also, perhaps, the first instance of three-dimensional strikes on a 'preferred' enemy. Even then, it is only very recently that strategists and military planners have become aware of how transformative it was and the impact it would have in the years to come. Ukraine, West Asia and Operation Sindoor At the time, the world was only riveted on the unrivalled power, economic, political and military, of the U.S. It has taken the war (since 2022) between Russia and a Ukraine backed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to fundamentally revise the thinking of war planners and get them to realise how the nature of war itself had changed beyond anything seen in the past. The war in Ukraine and in West Asia have propounded many new doctrines that are very different from those seen previously in the annals of warfare. The very nature of war, it would seem, as also the conduct of warfare had changed, or is changing. Today's wars bear little resemblance to what was seen in the past. Automation has become an essential feature of modern conflicts. The extensive use of drones (with several variations such as drones to gather intelligence and conduct precision strikes; drones able to operate semi-autonomously employing image recognition algorithms to identify high-priority targets, together with 'loitering munitions') have altered the nature of warfare beyond recognition. The India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025 helped provide some glimpses of the fundamental changes seen in modern warfare. Unlike the earlier India-Pakistan conflicts, the conflict this time featured fixed wing and several other kinds of drones, together with 'loitering munitions'. Fighter aircraft were a critical element to ensure air superiority and carry out precision strikes. Also, seen were advanced 'air-to-air missiles', supplemented and complemented with highly accurate GPS-guided and laser-guided bombs. The BrahMos missile was in place and reportedly also used on at least one occasion. Pakistan, for its part, made use of China-supplied PL-15 missiles and also Turkish-supplied Songar drones. Modern warfare, however, entails much more than the mere use of highly sophisticated weaponry. It extends to tactics as well. Militaries are moving beyond traditional hierarchies, to advanced network-centric warfare. The advent of cyber and Artificial Intelligence (AI) has seen battlefields morph into complex multi-domain conflict zones, involving advanced technologies, AI and cyber warfare methodologies. The use of hypersonic weapons capable of travelling at speeds greater than Mach-5 also adds a further critical dimension to the current arms race and to the new forms of warfare. All told, digital strategies and autonomous systems are tending to make traditional concepts of how battles are won, viz., through use of overwhelming physical force, outdated. Future warfare is increasingly set to become digitally autonomous and interconnected. India needs to adapt Hence, the message is loud and clear — and should be to one and all. We are entering a new era of technological warfare. India must adapt rapidly to keep pace with the changes taking place. Incidentally, it also raises questions about India's existing and established military modernisation plans. These may need to be completely revised and revamped. Perhaps the relevance of many existing tenders for certain categories of weapons may require to be reconsidered. Overall, there is considerable room for a rethink about India's future defence procurement plans. China has already produced, and has in place, huge volumes of indigenously manufactured platforms (fighter jets, the J-10 and the J-20 as well as the fifth generation fighter). China is now poised to produce its sixth generation fighter. Available information suggests that India is putting its faith in existing indigenous manufacture and continuing to procure more Rafale fighter jets from France. Clearly, the indigenous development and manufacture of missiles and aircraft are way behind schedule. What is pertinent is that with the emergence of high-altitude, long-endurance, unmanned aerial vehicles that are essential for modern warfare, there is an overwhelming need for India to rethink its defence modernisation plans. Diversification of India's military hardware has become critically important. This does have a direct impact on India's capability to fight future wars, including against Pakistan or China, or worse, a two-front war. M.K. Narayanan is a former Director, Intelligence Bureau, a former National Security Adviser, and a former Governor of West Bengal
![[Ahmet Davutoglu] Trump aims to dismantle postwar US-led order](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F04%2F07%2Fnews-p.v1.20250407.06abf480cb84454c88c51bdbe002e66e_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Ahmet Davutoglu] Trump aims to dismantle postwar US-led order](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
[Ahmet Davutoglu] Trump aims to dismantle postwar US-led order
At the beginning of Donald Trump's first term in the White House, I argued that this would be no ordinary US presidency. The international order, already beset by fundamental weaknesses and disputes over its core values and institutions, was now facing a seismic shift. With the beginning of Trump's second term marked by even greater chaos, what once seemed like an isolated shock has evolved into a full-blown 'systemic earthquake.' Trump's inflammatory rhetoric, often unhinged executive orders, and despotic approach to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine have shaken the very foundations of the multilateral system, which took four centuries of wars and suffering — dating back to the Peace of Westphalia — to build. Trump's actions and pronouncements over the past two months suggest that we are entering an era of profound uncertainty in which crises can erupt and escalate at any moment. A single principle now seems to prevail: might is right. After all, at the heart of international law lies the principle of pacta sunt servanda: treaties must be honored. Yet within weeks of returning to the White House, Trump has violated, invalidated, or withdrawn from numerous agreements and commitments made by previous US administrations, including his own. Trump's broader foreign-policy objective appears to be to dismantle the global order established 80 years ago by a generation scarred by the horrors of World War II and usher in an era of neo-colonial competition. His threats to annex Greenland 'one way or another,' reclaim control of the Panama Canal, and turn Canada into the 51st state — along with his portrayal of Gazans as little more than an obstacle to a real-estate deal — offer a stark glimpse of his neo-imperialist worldview. Despite its oligarchic structure, the United Nations Security Council — dominated by its five permanent members (P5) and led by the United States — stands in the way of Trump's quest for global dominance. Consequently, he has chosen to bypass it in favor of a P2 arrangement that revolves around the US and Russia and echoes Cold War-era US-Soviet bilateralism. He has also openly defied Security Council resolutions, along with a wide range of international conventions. Trump's America First agenda stands in stark contrast to the 'humanity first' principle that underpinned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, crafted in the aftermath of WWII to prevent a resurgence of fascism. That declaration, and the subsequent creation of the UN Human Rights Council, embodied the spirit of an international order that placed human dignity above geopolitics. By rejecting this founding ideal, Trump risks transforming the Security Council into an instrument of brute force. If the four remaining permanent members were to adopt similarly nationalist postures, the result would be a dangerous scramble for dominance. Similarly, Trump's efforts to dismantle key UN agencies like the UNHRC, the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), UNESCO, and the World Health Organization are eroding the foundations of the international order. His destructive approach is not only undermining the UN system but also the Pax Americana that has long underpinned global stability. Unlike the imperial systems that preceded it, the postwar US-led order rested on three pillars: US-dominated multilateral institutions, a global security architecture built around alliances like NATO, and an economic order based on free trade and the dollar's status as the world's main reserve currency. By contrast, Trump's vision of Pax Americana for the twenty-first century is one of unchecked, tech-driven totalitarianism. His bullying tactics — such as his repeated attempts to humiliate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — are part of a broader effort to shock and intimidate global leaders into accepting his 19th-century vision of the world. This shift didn't come out of nowhere. The US-led order has been fraying for years. Since the end of the Cold War, US foreign policy has been marked by strategic discontinuity, with each administration adopting wildly different doctrines. George H.W. Bush's call for a 'new world order' was followed by Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventionism. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fueled George W. Bush's neoconservative rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama's multilateral but often passive diplomacy, in turn, triggered the reactionary reflexes that defined Trump's first term, just as Joe Biden's inconsistent and largely ineffective foreign policy — particularly in Gaza — helped pave the way for Trump's return. Now, with Trump more emboldened than ever, we are witnessing the consequences of America's strategic discontinuity: a neo-colonial order driven by Christian nationalism, empowered by advanced technologies, sustained by irrational impulses, and wrapped in brazen rhetoric. In the spring of 2002, in a lecture at Princeton University, I noted the surge of extreme nationalism in post-9/11 America and warned that the US did not need a Caesar-like leader who seeks domination through military might. Instead, it needed a Marcus Aurelius — a philosopher-statesman capable of leading a complex global order with wisdom, restraint, and respect for international law. For a while, I believed Obama could become such a leader. When he took office in 2009 and chose Turkey as his first overseas destination — followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt — I felt a genuine sense of hope. Alas, I was wrong. But my own experiences as foreign minister and later prime minister of Turkey reinforced my belief in the possibility of balancing diplomacy and force in a way that serves the interests of all countries — not just those of great powers. From Argentina to Turkey, countries around the world face the same fundamental choice confronting the US: Will we succumb to authoritarian Caesars who become more oppressive as their power grows, or will we choose leaders who, like Marcus Aurelius, seek to govern deliberatively? That is the defining question of our time, and we must answer it together. Ahmet Davutoglu is a former prime minister (2014-16) and foreign minister (2009-14) of Turkey. The views expressed here are the writer's own. — Ed.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Holocaust survivor Margot Friedländer, 103, awarded honorary prize
Holocaust survivor Margot Friedländer has received the inaugural honorary award of the International Prize of the Peace of Westphalia. The 103-year-old was awarded the prize in the western German city of Münster by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who praised her long contribution to humanity, tolerance, peace and democracy. Friedländer was born in Berlin in 1921 and was the sole survivor of her nuclear family during the Holocaust, having been transported to Theresienstadt in 1944. Her father died in a concentration camp, while her mother and brother were killed at Auschwitz. After more than 60 years in exile in New York, Friedländer returned to Berlin at the age of 88 and took German citizenship. "But your message is not a reckoning with this country ... a reckoning that you have every right to make," said Steinmeier, addressing Friedländer. Friedländer said she spoke "for all people who were murdered because other people did not respect them as human beings." Amid threats to peace, every individual has an obligation to stand up for peaceful coexistence, respect and democracy, she said. "Because what happened back then must never, ever happen again," said the 103-year-old. The ceremony took place at the second Westphalian Peace Conference, which drew several hundred participants to discuss the changing global order. The Peace of Westphalia relates to two peace treaties signed in 1648 which ended a series of wars in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648.
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - In Ukraine and worldwide, sovereignty is under siege
President Trump's rhetoric about Canada as 'the 51st state' is treated by many as political theater — a ploy by the president to destabilize the opposition, perhaps. But his remarks allude to something much less innocuous and more unsettling. By now, all of us have heard the rather boisterous rhetoric of America's new president. Headlines from Fox News say, 'Trump suggests Canada become 51st state after Trudeau said tariff would kill economy.' Politico reports that 'Trump threatens to retake Panama Canal.' And the Associated Press says 'Trump again calls to buy Greenland after eyeing Canada and the Panama Canal.' Admittedly, audacious remarks from Trump are neither new nor are they taken too seriously in most quarters — just more political messaging by an incoming president with much to live up to. Yet Trump's bold talk about these states does mine something much deeper than mere rhetoric. And while his admonitions may not eventuate, that is beside the point. President Trump is stirring the cauldron of world politics. Comments about tariffs as well as annexing, buying and reclaiming sovereign territories have elicited a caustic response as well as their own share of media humor. Beyond its entertainment value, Trump's provocations (even if he is not aware of it), do point to a subtle and potentially more dangerous issue: Could nation-state sovereignty no longer be the inviolable precept we have believed in since the 17th century? Although the concept of the sovereign nation-state has its origin in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia and the end of the Thirty Years' War of Religion, the 'inviolability of borders' is a relatively recent phenomenon. The idea of a 'right to statehood' emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, embraced by two counterposing entities: the Bolsheviks of Russia and the liberal U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Both sought to dismantle empires — Russia's for ideological reasons and the U.S. to expand its own influence. The result was a proliferation of relatively weak, dependent states that (for all practical purposes) became tools of Moscow and Washington's foreign policy. The sovereignty of these 'neo-states' — essentially reliant on foreign support (militarily, economically and politically) for their existence — was little more than a bargaining chip. This dynamic has persisted beyond World War II into the neoliberal era of today. In fact, nearly every conflict until the mid-20th century ended with redrawn borders. So, here's the question: Are we not doing the same thing today in Ukraine? Certainly, there have been previous examples of sovereignty being sacrificed for peace: the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in 1938, Serbia/Kosovo in 1999 and others. In a world where power increasingly relies on military might, sovereignty has shifted from a precept of international law to an issue of practical control. And the control comes from beyond the borders of the alleged sovereign state — often for the benefit of foreign power agendas. Ukraine's sovereignty is contested for reasons that have little to do with the country itself. Consider the turn of events in Ukraine. Since Moscow's 2022 'special military operation,' (i.e. invasion) that country has been unable to maintain control over about one-fifth (20 percent) of its sovereign territory. Moreover, its prospects for regaining it are diminishing daily. After Tuesday's phone call between Trump and Putin, the process towards a ceasefire and redrawing Ukraine's borders has begun. At the same time, except for the U.S. and a few East European countries like Hungary and Slovakia, Britain and the European Union — in response to Trump's peace initiative — continue to support Ukraine militarily and financially with billions of dollars. And while the response from the United Kingdom and EU appear to support Ukraine's fight against Moscow, these countries have ulterior motives. Britain has historically viewed Moscow through a 'Russophobic lens,' believing it to be a threat to its interests — especially its crown jewel — India. Today, Britain is a 'middle power,' and it is not adjusting well to the loss of empire status. The Europeans actually need Russia as a perceived adversary for two reasons: First, Europe needs an 'enemy' in order to justify spending $840 billion on security out of fear of Trump abandoning them. Second, Russia is needed as a perceived threat in order to hold together Europe's 'Balkanizing' Union. With Trump making deals for energy, natural resources and reintegration of Russia back into the G-7 — who exactly are Britain and the EU rearming to fight? Ukraine is being used in a proxy war for reasons that have nothing to do with what is in the best interest of the country. And the borders of Ukraine are being redrawn and its sovereign territory is being redefined by powers external to the country. In this shifting global landscape, it seems that territory and external control are once again becoming central to international politics. Given this reality, the idea of sovereignty — and the U.S.-led rules-based order that preserves it — must not become a casualty of flawed political initiatives. Trump's comments about annexing Canada, taking back Panama and buying Greenland (from a country that doesn't have the legal right to sell it) highlight the subtle hypocrisy in the international community. Sovereignty, once treated as sacrosanct, increasingly seems to be giving ground to political agendas of assorted foreign policies East and West. Westphalian nation-state sovereignty, the notion of 'sovereign state entities possessing the monopoly of force within their mutually recognized territories' is built on a key premise: The principle of non-interference asserts that no state should interfere in the internal affairs of another state. It upholds the idea that each state has the right to govern itself without external intervention. The entire Ukraine debacle is antithetical to this principle. The 2014 coup to remove President Viktor Yanukovych, which some argue was Western-influenced, the Russian invasion, the sabotage of the 2022 peace talks and the hundreds of thousands killed, speak to the critical lack of regard for the concept of sovereignty within the international community. Could globalism and a troubled EU be symptoms of an underlying malady — an assault on sovereignty? Today, Ukraine is sovereign in name only, with the U.K., U.S., EU and Russia ultimately deciding through territorial concessions and political control what its sovereignty will look like. In the 21st century, the people of Eastern Europe must never take their sovereignty — and the freedom it secures — for granted. Just ask the people of Ukraine today and those of yesterday's Sudetenland. F. Andrew Wolf Jr. is the director of The Fulcrum Institute, an organization of current and former scholars in the humanities, arts and sciences. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
