Power on the World Stage
Throughout the last 30 years, the international system has been dominated by the United States. After the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, the U.S. exercised a near-unchecked power, imposing its interests on a large number of global issues.
But today, the landscape is showing signs of transformation. Has the U.S. lost influence, or does it simply no longer wish to exercise it with the same intensity? Does the rise of China threaten its supremacy? Are we witnessing a true change in the international system?
The aim here is to provide a framework for analysis to allow us to understand the big players’ moves and to anticipate their possible strategies, without being exhaustive or attempting to cover the totality of international relations.
Variables of Global Power
To understand the current configuration of world power, we must consider several key factors:
- Economic power (production capacity, innovation and trade)
- Diplomacy (ability to negotiate and influence multilateral forums)
- Technological development (artificial intelligence to biotechnology)
- Military power ( not only its volume, but also the willingness to use it)
- Cultural influence (value penetration, consumption patterns and lifestyles)
- Geopolitics (territorial control, access to resources and strategic location)
The relative weight of each variable determines a country’s place on the international stage. There are some nations that have economic power, but lack cultural influence and others that have a lot of military equipment, but are reluctant to engage in other countries’ conflicts.
Poles, Power and Satellites
A power pole is an actor capable of projecting its influence globally, imposing its will upon others. These poles are orbited by satellites, which are countries that align their foreign policy with one of them, with varying degrees of autonomy.
Next, regional powers exercise leadership in their immediate surroundings, but with limited global reach. And lastly, we have scenarios that entail geopolitical areas of interest to large powers and where the countries that integrate them are not important per se but, they are in certain contexts of international disputes.
History shows us diverse configurations:
- Unipolarity (e.g. Roman Empire, U.S. after 1991)
- Bipolarity (e.g., the Cold War of U.S. vs. USSR)
- Multipolarity (e.g., Europe before the Second World War)
Multipolarity may sound fairer (or more democratic), but historically, systems dominated by one or two poles have tended to be more stable, while the multipolar ones were more prone to global conflict.
The Role of the United States
Since the 70s, the U.S. has faced multiple crises that have brought its hegemony into question; examples are the 1973 OAPEC fuel embargo; Watergate; its defeat in Vietnam; and the Great Recession (December 2007 – June 2009).
But the U.S. has always managed to rebuild, thanks in part to its economy’s capacity to reinvent itself along with its technological and military superiority. Today, rather than structural weakening, what’s emerging is an internal debate: some sectors promoting an active global role versus others pushing for a shift toward isolationism.
Donald Trump’s arrival in 2017 was a preview of this tension. Now, in his second presidential term, he could deepen the shift toward isolationism, which could make way for a multipolar system. From Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton, the U.S. has given China every opportunity to become what it is today, from its inclusion in the World Trade Organization to Henry Kissinger’s triangular diplomacy and sending hundreds of American companies and investments to China. Barack Obama made a radical change by militarizing the region and its neighboring countries to contain potential Chinese imperialism.
Russia and China: Emerging Counterweights
Russia
As heir of Soviet military power, Russia seeks to establish itself as a global pole through energy control, nuclear deterrence, and its influence over Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Although its economy is weaker, its ability to destabilize and negotiate through force keeps it in the middle of the board. And undoubtedly, Russia’s geopolitical position is a variable that forces it take an active role in its region. Outside of its immediate area of influence, Russia knows that China is its future challenger; they both know that. There is more of a temporary agreement between these two countries rather than a long-term strategic alliance. There are all kinds of trade-offs, but they both avoid dependence on the other in any matter involving energy, economics or future submission. Let’s remember that both countries have imperial pasts.
China
China’s rise in the last four decades is unprecedented. With sustained economic growth, investment in global infrastructure (the Belt and Road Initiative), rapid technological advancements, and active diplomacy, Beijing is emerging as the main challenger to American hegemony. China has an international integration style that is characterized by a focus on economic, trade, technological, commodities, energy and infrastructural matters, and to date, has shown no interest in military matters outside of its territory. There are clearly two Chinas: one imperial and rigid that displays its military power and doesn’t leave even a meter of land or sea to fate and the other, a China that wears a suit and tie, negotiates everything with everybody without ideology or distrust. The first is regional China, the second is China in the world.
Other Important Actors
India
With a young and growing population, India is advancing as a technological and economic power but still doesn’t have the full capacity to be a power pole. India is currently seen by the United States as a counterweight to China for its geographic location and the size of its population, among other reasons. And then there is Pakistan, India’s troublesome neighbor, which for years has had an intense relationship with China and a very bad relationship with India that involves constant military conflicts, particularly over the area of Kashmir, therein recreating a cold war between the U.S. and China.
Brazil and Mexico
These are regional powers with limited influence outside of Latin America. Both referred to as leaders of America south of the U.S. Rio Grande, they are constantly growing, and although they haven’t quite taken off yet, sooner or later, they will occupy a central position in American geopolitics.
The European Union
The EU is a great economic and cultural power with weaknesses in political and military cohesion. Characterized by an aging population with high living standards, the large consumer has gradually lost global influence since WWII. For example, the UK’s exit (Brexit) from the Union wasn’t a disaster, but simply a noteworthy event.
Japan, Israel, South Africa, United Arab Emirates
They are intermediary powers, with selective involvement in global affairs.
Argentina
With its potential and limitations, Argentina needs to consider its position strategically.
- Strategic resources: Lithium, unconventional gas, foodstuffs and fresh water make Argentina a key player in world energy and food security.
- Geopolitical position: Its projection toward the south of the Atlantic and its proximity to the Antarctic give the country growing value in the context of a dispute over global commons.
- Multi-vector diplomacy: The key will be to avoid excessive dependencies and to maintain practical relationships with all power poles, prioritizing national interests.
As for its regional integration, no Latin American country alone can fight for global influence. Argentina should encourage cooperation mechanisms – such as Mercosur (the Southern Common Market), CELAC* or UNASUR** – that strengthen Latin America’s voice in international forums.
Regarding its innovation and education, no qualitative leap can be made solely from natural sources. Argentina must take a bet on science, technology and the development of human capital to avoid being relegated to being “suppliers of raw materials” in the new international division of labor.
Possible Scenarios According to the Distribution of Global Power
The world is going through a transition period in the distribution of power, and it is likely that the next 20 to 30 years will be marked by disputes between large powers and the redefinition of alliances.
At least three possible scenarios can be predicted:
1. Reinforcement of American unipolarity
If the U.S. manages to overcome its internal tensions and consolidate its technological and military lead, it could maintain relative supremacy. In this scenario, Latin America would remain largely integrated under the U.S. orbit, repeating historical patterns of dependence, but with new opportunities linked to the energy transition and digital commerce.
2. Bipolarity (U.S.-China)
The most likely scenario in the medium term. The region would become a strategic competitive arena for Washington and Beijing, which will look to secure access to critical resources (lithium, food and energy). Latin America could benefit from this bid as long as it manages to negotiate from a position of relative autonomy, avoiding falling into rigid alignments.
3. Diffuse multipolarity
If Europe, India and other players manage to partially equalize with the U.S. and China, a multipolar system with flexible alliances and more regional blocs would emerge. This would make way for Latin America to strengthen its own voice, but it would require policy coordination and higher levels of regional integration.
The world is going through an uncertain transition of power. The U.S. remains the main actor but no longer exercises an unchallenged hegemony. China and Russia challenge its supremacy with discernible strategies, while India and the EU seek to consolidate their place in the world order.
The key unanswered question isn’t just who will lead, but rather how the competition between large powers will be handled. History has shown that unipolar and bipolar systems are more stable than multipolar ones. But in a world of interdependence, international cooperation and the strengthening of multilateral institutions will be vital to preventing competition leading to conflict.
The scenario we are heading toward is that of an unstable multipolarity, in which alliances will be volatile, and power will be fragmented between several actors. The great unknown is whether the dynamic balance can be sustained without falling into past mistakes: wars declared over control of the system.
Editor’s notes:
* CELAC – Community of Latin American and Caribbean States English
** UNASUR – Union of South American Nations
But today, the landscape is showing signs of transformation. Has the U.S. lost influence, or does it simply no longer wish to exercise it with the same intensity? Does the rise of China threaten its supremacy? Are we witnessing a true change in the international system?
The aim here is to provide a framework for analysis to allow us to understand the big players’ moves and to anticipate their possible strategies, without being exhaustive or attempting to cover the totality of international relations.
Variables of Global Power
To understand the current configuration of world power, we must consider several key factors:
- Economic power (production capacity, innovation and trade)
- Diplomacy (ability to negotiate and influence multilateral forums)
- Technological development (artificial intelligence to biotechnology)
- Military power ( not only its volume, but also the willingness to use it)
- Cultural influence (value penetration, consumption patterns and lifestyles)
- Geopolitics (territorial control, access to resources and strategic location)
The relative weight of each variable determines a country’s place on the international stage. There are some nations that have economic power, but lack cultural influence and others that have a lot of military equipment, but are reluctant to engage in other countries’ conflicts.
Poles, Power and Satellites
A power pole is an actor capable of projecting its influence globally, imposing its will upon others. These poles are orbited by satellites, which are countries that align their foreign policy with one of them, with varying degrees of autonomy.
Next, regional powers exercise leadership in their immediate surroundings, but with limited global reach. And lastly, we have scenarios that entail geopolitical areas of interest to large powers and where the countries that integrate them are not important per se but, they are in certain contexts of international disputes.
History shows us diverse configurations:
- Unipolarity (e.g. Roman Empire, U.S. after 1991)
- Bipolarity (e.g., the Cold War of U.S. vs. USSR)
- Multipolarity (e.g., Europe before the Second World War)
Multipolarity may sound fairer (or more democratic), but historically, systems dominated by one or two poles have tended to be more stable, while the multipolar ones were more prone to global conflict.
The Role of the United States
Since the 70s, the U.S. has faced multiple crises that have brought its hegemony into question; examples are the 1973 OAPEC fuel embargo; Watergate; its defeat in Vietnam; and the Great Recession (December 2007 – June 2009).
But the U.S. has always managed to rebuild, thanks in part to its economy’s capacity to reinvent itself along with its technological and military superiority. Today, rather than structural weakening, what’s emerging is an internal debate: some sectors promoting an active global role versus others pushing for a shift toward isolationism.
Donald Trump’s arrival in 2017 was a preview of this tension. Now, in his second presidential term, he could deepen the shift toward isolationism, which could make way for a multipolar system. From Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton, the U.S. has given China every opportunity to become what it is today, from its inclusion in the World Trade Organization to Henry Kissinger’s triangular diplomacy and sending hundreds of American companies and investments to China. Barack Obama made a radical change by militarizing the region and its neighboring countries to contain potential Chinese imperialism.
Russia and China: Emerging Counterweights
Russia
As heir of Soviet military power, Russia seeks to establish itself as a global pole through energy control, nuclear deterrence, and its influence over Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Although its economy is weaker, its ability to destabilize and negotiate through force keeps it in the middle of the board. And undoubtedly, Russia’s geopolitical position is a variable that forces it take an active role in its region. Outside of its immediate area of influence, Russia knows that China is its future challenger; they both know that. There is more of a temporary agreement between these two countries rather than a long-term strategic alliance. There are all kinds of trade-offs, but they both avoid dependence on the other in any matter involving energy, economics or future submission. Let’s remember that both countries have imperial pasts.
China
China’s rise in the last four decades is unprecedented. With sustained economic growth, investment in global infrastructure (the Belt and Road Initiative), rapid technological advancements, and active diplomacy, Beijing is emerging as the main challenger to American hegemony. China has an international integration style that is characterized by a focus on economic, trade, technological, commodities, energy and infrastructural matters, and to date, has shown no interest in military matters outside of its territory. There are clearly two Chinas: one imperial and rigid that displays its military power and doesn’t leave even a meter of land or sea to fate and the other, a China that wears a suit and tie, negotiates everything with everybody without ideology or distrust. The first is regional China, the second is China in the world.
Other Important Actors
India
With a young and growing population, India is advancing as a technological and economic power but still doesn’t have the full capacity to be a power pole. India is currently seen by the United States as a counterweight to China for its geographic location and the size of its population, among other reasons. And then there is Pakistan, India’s troublesome neighbor, which for years has had an intense relationship with China and a very bad relationship with India that involves constant military conflicts, particularly over the area of Kashmir, therein recreating a cold war between the U.S. and China.
Brazil and Mexico
These are regional powers with limited influence outside of Latin America. Both referred to as leaders of America south of the U.S. Rio Grande, they are constantly growing, and although they haven’t quite taken off yet, sooner or later, they will occupy a central position in American geopolitics.
The European Union
The EU is a great economic and cultural power with weaknesses in political and military cohesion. Characterized by an aging population with high living standards, the large consumer has gradually lost global influence since WWII. For example, the UK’s exit (Brexit) from the Union wasn’t a disaster, but simply a noteworthy event.
Japan, Israel, South Africa, United Arab Emirates
They are intermediary powers, with selective involvement in global affairs.
Argentina
With its potential and limitations, Argentina needs to consider its position strategically.
- Strategic resources: Lithium, unconventional gas, foodstuffs and fresh water make Argentina a key player in world energy and food security.
- Geopolitical position: Its projection toward the south of the Atlantic and its proximity to the Antarctic give the country growing value in the context of a dispute over global commons.
- Multi-vector diplomacy: The key will be to avoid excessive dependencies and to maintain practical relationships with all power poles, prioritizing national interests.
As for its regional integration, no Latin American country alone can fight for global influence. Argentina should encourage cooperation mechanisms – such as Mercosur (the Southern Common Market), CELAC* or UNASUR** – that strengthen Latin America’s voice in international forums.
Regarding its innovation and education, no qualitative leap can be made solely from natural sources. Argentina must take a bet on science, technology and the development of human capital to avoid being relegated to being “suppliers of raw materials” in the new international division of labor.
Possible Scenarios According to the Distribution of Global Power
The world is going through a transition period in the distribution of power, and it is likely that the next 20 to 30 years will be marked by disputes between large powers and the redefinition of alliances.
At least three possible scenarios can be predicted:
1. Reinforcement of American unipolarity
If the U.S. manages to overcome its internal tensions and consolidate its technological and military lead, it could maintain relative supremacy. In this scenario, Latin America would remain largely integrated under the U.S. orbit, repeating historical patterns of dependence, but with new opportunities linked to the energy transition and digital commerce.
2. Bipolarity (U.S.-China)
The most likely scenario in the medium term. The region would become a strategic competitive arena for Washington and Beijing, which will look to secure access to critical resources (lithium, food and energy). Latin America could benefit from this bid as long as it manages to negotiate from a position of relative autonomy, avoiding falling into rigid alignments.
3. Diffuse multipolarity
If Europe, India and other players manage to partially equalize with the U.S. and China, a multipolar system with flexible alliances and more regional blocs would emerge. This would make way for Latin America to strengthen its own voice, but it would require policy coordination and higher levels of regional integration.
The world is going through an uncertain transition of power. The U.S. remains the main actor but no longer exercises an unchallenged hegemony. China and Russia challenge its supremacy with discernible strategies, while India and the EU seek to consolidate their place in the world order.
The key unanswered question isn’t just who will lead, but rather how the competition between large powers will be handled. History has shown that unipolar and bipolar systems are more stable than multipolar ones. But in a world of interdependence, international cooperation and the strengthening of multilateral institutions will be vital to preventing competition leading to conflict.
The scenario we are heading toward is that of an unstable multipolarity, in which alliances will be volatile, and power will be fragmented between several actors. The great unknown is whether the dynamic balance can be sustained without falling into past mistakes: wars declared over control of the system.
Editor’s notes:
* CELAC – Community of Latin American and Caribbean States English
** UNASUR – Union of South American Nations
Previous article![]( "US ‘No Kings’ Day Resists ‘New Monarchy,’ Defends Democracy")
