This text was originally published in the book Latin America in the New Global Geopolitics.
Summary
Most of the indications found in the current geopolitical landscape (characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity) are postulated by the return to the old geopolitics of confrontation between blocs, although it is clear that in a different configuration from that which existed during the Cold War of the twentieth century. During the first third of the twenty-first century, a possible geopolitical path has been defined, called dual bipolarity, which, in all likelihood, meets the conditions to establish the new geopolitical era. In other words, two different conceptions of how the new geopolitical era can be structured have been perceived. On the one hand, the one that is based on the values and principles of democracy and, on the other, the one that is based on authoritarianism, the lack of freedom and a repressive order. In Roman Paladino, a geopolitical competition between democratic geostrategic forces and authoritarian geostrategic forces is glimpsed.
Keywords: Geopolitics, major geopolitical dilemmas, instruments of power, emerging technologies, geostrategy.
Introduction
The geopolitical landscape is changing at an accelerated pace. In reality, we are living in deep international disarray. There is great competition between the two great superpowers, the United States (US) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as well as between great powers and emerging powers that are applying rules and norms in their own regions of influence, different from one another, generating enormous difficulty in establishing a global order that is subject to universal norms and criteria that are accepted by the entire international community.
It is important to note that the wars in Ukraine and Gaza are powerfully affecting the international geopolitical landscape, mainly for four undoubted reasons: (1) because of the impetus given to the existence of some organizations such as the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); (2) by the geopolitical repositioning of superpowers, great powers and emerging powers; (3) by the threat of the revisionist movement that seeks to change the current international system of power established by the West at the end of World War II (WWII); and (4) by the emergence of the Global South with some similarities to the Non- Aligned Movement born in the second half of the 20th century, but with a different and more powerful foreseeable configuration, as yet unarticulated.
There seems to be no doubt that, in the current global vision of the world, we identify four main actors with their own weight in international power relations: (1) the USA still as the international leader of the West in defense of the substantial universal principles and values of democracy; (2) the EU as an actor that represents, together with the USA, the unquestionable democratic values of freedom and equality; (3) the PRC as an emerging great power in a direct revisionist competition with the USA for world predominance; and (4) Russia, with revisionist ambitions for the current Western liberal order and which – as the second nuclear world power – plays a key role in the international security architecture.
Another phenomenon that accompanies us is the contradiction between the simultaneous processes of fragmentation and integration. The former leads to a complexity of intra-state and international relations in which it is very complicated to establish dialogue and agreements not only between different groups within the same country with opposing positions and, at times, calling into question the very authority of the state, but also between states and non-state actors that are difficult to recognize legally worldwide.
The second, the process towards integration as a result of international economic interconnectedness with the instantaneousness of capital transfers across the globe, together with the consideration of security as a single global environment, enhanced by physical interconnectedness, telecommunications and information interconnection and emerging technologies from the internet of things to quantum computing, artificial intelligence, robotics, 5G, Big Data, the metaverse, nanotechnology, biotechnology, cognitive science, the use of outer space or cybernetics in general. This process facilitates the need to achieve solid and stable international relations, which currently, as mentioned above, are not going through a good time.
In particular, in recent years, the dynamics of confrontation, friction and competition have prevailed over those of negotiation and agreement, which has translated in a generalized deterioration of international relations in all their facets: political, economic, technological, diplomatic or military. In addition, the democratic decline experienced in recent years contributes to greater instability and hinders the adoption of joint solutions in an interconnected world.
Recent Global Political Movements
For almost a year now, a series of international events have been taking place whose mere celebration has a highly valuable impact on the present and future international security system, especially when world leaders attend and make decisions of a global nature. In this line, the political movements mentioned below are considered.
From the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) coming into force (in June 2023) to the Peace Summit on Ukraine (in June 2024), through the virtual meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – SCO (in July 2023), the BRICS Summit (in August 2023), the G20 Summit (in September 2023), the visit of the Russian president to Beijing and Pyonyang (in May and June 2024, respectively), the commemoration of the Normandy landings (in June 2024), or the G7 Summit (in June 2024), in all these political events attended by a large part of the world leaders, the war in Ukraine has taken center stage.
With regard to the RCEP (an organization made up of 15 Asian countries and led by the PRC), it can be said that -after its entry into force on June 2, 2023- it represents a clear triumph for Beijing in East Asia, as it is the largest free trade agreement in the world, which will eliminate tariffs on imports for the next 20 years. As for the SCO, at its virtual meeting in July 2023, it was -without a doubt- a triumph for the PRC as it included Iran as a new member and showed its support to Russia in its defense of the constitutional order against the Wagner Group’s uprising, at the same time as the PRC condemned protectionism and multilateral sanctions.
On the one hand, the BRICS Summit (held in Johannesburg in August 2023), which prioritizes political cooperation and security among its members, was another success for the PRC, with the approval of the admission of Saudi Arabia, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia and Iran to the group, although the current Argentine government resigned from such membership. In addition, during the G20 Summit (held in New Delhi in September 2023), the governments of Germany, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the USA, France, India, Italy and the EU signed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, which is conceived as a network of transport routes spanning road, rail and maritime routes, and whose main objective is to promote economic development by fostering integration between Asia, the Arabian Gulf and Europe. This project falls within the framework of the Global Infrastructure Investment Partnership, an initiative led by Western countries to support infrastructure projects around the world, with the overall objective of enhancing trade and international cooperation, becoming a viable alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Finally, and surprisingly, the G20 reached a consensus regarding the war in Ukraine, after a series of discussions and disagreements among the participants prior to the Summit. On the one hand, it avoided condemning Russia, but highlighted the human suffering caused by the conflict. On the other hand, the principle was adopted that States may not use force for the acquisition of territory or to violate the territorial integrity and sovereignty or political independence of other States. In addition, the African Union was included in the group as a full member, giving it the same status as the EU and the other 19 countries that make up the group. This meeting elevated India as an excellent negotiator, raising its prestige on the international scene.
For his part, Russian President Vladimir Putin paid a state visit to the PRC from May 15-17, 2024, where he met with his counterpart Xi Jinping, at a time of tension with the West due to the war in Ukraine. In addition to discussing trade and energy issues, the two leaders addressed the conflict in Ukraine and cooperation in areas such as artificial intelligence and renewable energy. Regardless of the fact that, according to US intelligence, Beijing is providing substantial support to Moscow’s defense industrial base (through machine tools, microelectronics, and engines for drones and turbojets, among others), Russia and the PRC are trying to establish an emerging multipolar world, in response to what they see as US hegemony.
President Vladimir Putin was not invited to the meeting of world leaders participating in the commemoration of D-Day, the Normandy landings, which culminated on June 6, 2024, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, the Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky was invited and supported by all in attendance. These events were held with the war raging in Ukraine, on the borders of Europe. As a result, the events commemorating a key turning point in WWII have had a special impact. At different times, all the leaders expressed the absolute necessity that Ukraine should be supported by the Europeans and allies, as France and the other European states needed to defeat Nazism.
During Putin’s visit to North Korea (June 18-19, 2024), in his search for ammunition for the invasion of Ukraine, a pact was signed between President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, whereby both countries pledge to support each other in a hypothetical war. Of particular importance is Article 4 of that pact, which states that “If one of the parties is in a state of war due to an armed attack by one or more States, the other party will provide military assistance to the full extent of their abilities, in concordance with article 51 of the United Nations Letter and the laws of Russia and North Korea”.[1] This pact radically changes the strategic situation in East Asia as, until now, North Korea’s nuclear program has led to escalation in the region and its international isolation over the past two decades, when the United Nations (UN) imposed sanctions on Pyongyang, backed, at the time, by Russia and the PRC.
Today, the solution to the great geopolitical dilemma of East Asia (to be discussed later), in which North Korea is a key player, will be much more complicated as the pact between Moscow and Pyongyang breaks international policy in this region, reinforcing the aggression that the PRC is carrying out in the South China Sea (SCS) against the coastal countries from which it intends to take away part of their sovereignty in that sea, establishing military bases on certain islands and atolls, once it has expanded and built on their emerged lands.
At the G7 Summit (held in Italy, June 13-14, 2024), the Group’s leaders reiterated their unwavering support for Ukraine and condemned Russia’s aggression against the country. They also pledged to provide approximately 50 billion US dollars, using the proceeds from frozen Russian assets as a guarantee. They also invited the PRC and Iran to stop supporting Russia in the war against Ukraine. During the signing of the ten-year Washington-Kiev security agreement on the sidelines of the G7 meeting, U.S. President Joe Biden stated that the PRC is not supplying Russia with weapons, but with the capacity to produce those weapons and the technology available to do so, so it is in fact helping Russia.
On the Gaza war, the G7 supported the U.S. proposal for a ceasefire and reiterated that it will be necessary to ensure aid to the population of the Strip, as well as to guarantee peace for Israel. Regarding Artificial Intelligence, the G7 reiterated that it is one of the most complex and impactful challenges facing the international community. The Group’s goal is to ensure that this technology remains controlled – at all times – by humans as it develops. In Pope Francis’ exceptional intervention at this forum and in addressing Artificial Intelligence he stated that “no machine should choose to take the life of a human being“. In his opinion, we would condemn humanity to a hopeless future if we take away people’s ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, condemning them to depend on the choices of machines. Likewise, he added that humans should not let powerful algorithms decide their fate.
Finally, the peace summit on Ukraine, organized by President Volodymir Zelenski (held in Switzerland, June 16-17, 2024), which brought together nearly 60 world leaders and representatives of just over 90 governments, ended with a joint declaration calling for nuclear and maritime transit security, as well as an exchange of prisoners of war, although it was not signed by 12 countries, including Brazil, India and South Africa, which form – together with the PRC and Russia – the unique geopolitical group of countries known as BRICS, mentioned above. While the attendees have agreed in defense of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and that the war in Ukraine should cease, not all countries think the same about how to get to that point. According to the Ukrainian executive, one of the objectives of the meeting was to give voice to all kinds of opinions.
As has been seen in all these different political movements, materialized in summits and meetings, the war in Ukraine has occupied a preponderant place. It is a clear symptom of the repercussion and geopolitical impact that this war has on the entire international community, with a view to establishing the global geopolitical order desired by the international community. Undoubtedly, there is a before and an after in the international order as a result of the war in Ukraine.
It is also necessary to highlight the decisions taken at the meetings of the SCO, BRIC, G20, G7 or in the visits made by the Russian President to the PRC and North Korea. On the one hand, the agreements reached at these meetings and visits, especially by the PRC, India and Russia. On the other hand, the PRC’s non- attendance at the G20 meeting, where the West plays an important role, which seems to indicate a Chinese rebuff to the democratic Western world.
The Two Major Geopolitical Unknowns of the 21st Century
In the current geopolitical environment, there are two key unknowns or questions when designing a new holistic geopolitical era that will result in the expected international order to be established in the first third of the 21st century. The first unknown refers to the great existing geopolitical dilemmas, understanding by this term a potential situation of conflict or crisis in a regional strategic zone or area, whose solution or definitive destiny has a strong repercussion on the international security architecture, capable of powerfully influencing the new geopolitical era to come.
At present, four major geopolitical dilemmas are identified on the planet, involving superpowers, great powers and emerging powers. The first of these dilemmas is the Intermarium, a geopolitical challenge that refers to the isthmus between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea and is manifested in the struggle between the EU and Russia. The second is the warlike labyrinth of the Middle East, where local, regional and international actors compete. The third is East Asia, where the Chinese offensive for dominance of the MCM vis-à-vis the coastal countries, the nuclear crisis with North Korea and the interest of other world players all come together. Finally, the fourth is the Indo-Pacific scenario, which is a focus of tension in the context of the rivalry between the USA and the PRC. These four major geopolitical dilemmas are permeated by an unstable, complex and unpredictable context, with uncertain solutions that may produce unpredictable and uncontrollable situations not only for the superpowers or great powers, but also for the current international security system, which is already in a precarious state of balanced functioning.
Africa and Latin America are considered to be two peripheral geopolitical regions on the global geostrategic chessboard, which do not meet capital conditions initially to have a decisive influence on the next international order to be established in the short or medium term in the 21st century. At present, they are in an embryonic state of being able to constitute themselves as geopolitical entities.
The second question is related to the geopolitical model to be implemented for the design of the next global order. It has been taken into account that two geopolitical models have been in place since World War II. The first model, called bipolarity, established a strategic rivalry between the two great powers of the time, the United States and the Soviet Union. This period was also called the Cold War and lasted until 1990, when the Soviet Union was dissolved. The second model, called unipolarity, was instituted at the end of bipolarity and lasted until 2008, when the war in Georgia took place, which the West did not know how to deal with with the proper authority and decision. During this period, in which the US held full world hegemony, there were the Gulf War, the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.
Finally, from 2008, when unipolarity came to an end, and up to the present day, attempts have been made to establish a multipolarity that has not yet been achieved. Throughout this period, there have been wars against Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza, and hybrid warfare and cyberwarfare have emerged.
It is true that both the PRC and Russia are in favor of a multipolar world, but it is also true that the establishment of this new multipolar geopolitical system is very complicated due to the number of different interests supported by the great powers and the emerging powers subject to profound regional and international geostrategic competition. For this reason, some models will be proposed that may fit within the framework of the multipolarity that is being repeatedly announced.
To speak of the geopolitical models that are perceived in this first third of the 21st century, it is necessary, on the one hand, to take as a support those that have existed since the 1950s (practically in the last three quarters of the century), with their profound and enriching experiences, and, on the other hand, to bear in mind a set of emerging countries that will play a special role in the configuration of the aforementioned new international order.
This includes a group of countries -many of them considered emerging countries- with a population of close to 100 million inhabitants, five of them comfortably doubling that number, two close to 1.4 billion and two with a little over 50 million; all of them with a remarkable growth in the last decade. This group is called the G19 and holds – approximately- 98 % of the world’s nuclear power, 70 % of the global economy and 54 % of the world’s population. In addition to the USA, the EU, the PRC and Russia, this group also includes India, Japan, Bangladesh, Brazil, South Korea, Egypt, the Philippines, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the UK, Turkey and Vietnam.
The number of geopolitical models to be considered in the coming years can be reduced to three. The first model is called dual bipolarity, having two rival poles, each composed of two centers of power. One represents the transatlantic, democratic pole, composed of the US and the EU as centers of power, which rests on the transatlantic link. The other is the Asian, authoritarian-communist pole, which is based on the Chinese-Russian strategic partnership.
The second model, simply called bipolarity, can be considered as a new Cold War as it is made up of two unitary poles, the US and the PRC. In this case, each of the poles seeks to dominate the globe vis-à-vis the other, with a different international geopolitical approach in terms of values, principles or norms to be taken into account in exercising power and the corresponding leadership.
Finally, the third model, known as pentapolarity, is made up of the US, the PRC, the EU, Russia and India. India has been included in this model as the fifth pole, a country that is set to become an important geopolitical actor in the coming years, and could act as a counterweight – mainly in Asia – to the authoritarian Sino-Russian partnership, while providing substantial support to the US and European poles.
In these three multipolar geopolitical models, each pole would be accompanied by a group of countries that support its approaches and that, like satellites, orbit around it, following its postulates in relation to the universal principles and criteria that it has presented to the international community and which, it is understood, have been or will be approved by the community.
A Possible Path Toward a New Geopolitical Era
The 21st century has ushered in a radical transformation of the planetary scenario, with its new threats, challenges, and complexities that demand a paradigm shift in understanding and applying the -always complicated and tentative- calculation of the approaching geopolitical era. By virtue of what has been said so far, the configuration of global geopolitics in this first third of the 21st century is outlined below.
Of the three geopolitical models that have been presented, bipolarity between the US and the PRC should not be accepted by the Asian giant since the PRC neither wants nor is interested in establishing a geopolitical rivalry for two main reasons. On the one hand, it does not want to present itself to the international community as a superpower, so it prefers to bring along a fellow traveler, in this case Russia, in its global revisionist stance. On the other hand, it is not in a position to compete with the US alone, bearing in mind that, at the military level -especially in the nuclear field- it is vastly outmatched by the US.
Although some analysts view the PRC as a natural contender to compete with the U.S. for international leadership, there are differing perspectives on its strategic approach. It is true that the PRC has experienced significant economic growth over the past two decades and that its People’s Liberation Army has undergone considerable modernization. However, it is also true that its focus might align more closely with economic development than with military dominance.
As for the pentapolar model, it is a model that may appear rather in the long term as India is neither politically nor strategically ready to take the plunge on the international horizon. It must first seek its geopolitical and geostrategic dominance in the Indian Ocean and assert its regional and international position in the face of the PRC’s territorial ambitions and expansions.
However, the geopolitical model that is most likely to found and manage the new geopolitical era is dual bipolarity, where the four global players (the US, the PRC, the EU and Russia) are the main protagonists. Around them, the rest of the G19 countries will position themselves as satellites. Whether the new international order will lean towards a world governed by universal norms and criteria defended by democratic actors or by other types of rules and guidelines implemented by authoritarian actors will depend on their positioning.
In a short and medium-term perspective of the alignment of the G19 members, the following are the first considerations of the dual bipolarity model, subject to possible changes and variations over the next few years, depending on how international relations evolve in the fields of geopolitics, economics, diplomacy, high technology and global security strategy.
With respect to the four instruments of power (economic, military, political and technological), related to the four fundamental actors of the dual bipolarity model (USA, EU, PRC and Russia), in 2023, the GDP of the democratic pole was more than double that of the authoritarian pole (US$ 43,591,034 million versus US$ 19,553,359 million);[2] military spending is nearly four times higher (US$ 1,504 billion versus US$ 405.405 billion);[3] the organizational and open capacity of the political structure of the democratic pole is clearly superior; and in high technologies there is a balance between the US and the PRC, while the EU and Russia are lagging behind. Having made these comparisons, the position of the remaining 15 G19 players is presented below.
India has positioned itself as a regional and, later, world power, defending the interests of the Global South and forming the world’s largest democracy. India is also a member of the QUAD security forum, together with Australia, the USA and Japan; however, it maintains a historical rivalry with Pakistan, which has resulted in several wars, both countries being nuclear powers. Despite India’s trade ties with the PRC and apparent political activity, there is growing tension centered on territorial disputes, the Indian Ocean and influence in Southeast Asia. Equally, India takes a balanced stance between the two poles, but without completely alienating itself with Western positions. However, in the event of a choice, it would clearly opt for the democratic pole.
Japan is at a geopolitical crossroads. While North Korea continues to develop its nuclear arsenal, the PRC modernizes its military instrument, making incursions into its territorial waters, and Russia adopts an increasingly aggressive posture on its northern borders, Japan seeks to maintain a close attunement with the U.S. and South Korea, while engaging other countries in the quest for denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Additionally, Japan remains an influential country (with the fourth largest GDP in the world), which sees the PRC as the greatest strategic challenge to ensuring peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, aspiring for a free and open Indo-Pacific, as well as being a staunch defender of the liberal international order and clearly committed to the democratic pole. Japan’s gradual increase in defense spending is part of a long- term strategy to expand its international military status.
United Kingdom maintains a special relationship with the US, collaborating closely on security and defense issues. Its exit from the EU (Brexit) has had a strong impact on British geopolitics, with current challenges affecting its global position. Its geographical location has always influenced and influences its foreign policy and maritime trade, being a nuclear power. Despite its decline as a great power, the UK continues to maintain significant influence in the economic, cultural, military and political spheres of the global environment, forming part of the democratic pole. In addition to being one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council with voting rights, it is part of the G7 and NATO. Recently, after the Brexit, 58% of the British people wish to return to the EU.
Iran occupies an important strategic position in the Middle East region, while its military power and its participation in international affairs are key aspects of its geopolitical positioning, sharing the revisionist positions of the PRC and Russia, forming part of the authoritarian pole. Its opaque nuclear program is in question before the international community. Likewise, Iran’s geopolitics is characterized by a quest for national sovereignty that confronts the interests of the West, mainly the US and Israel. As a regional power in the Middle East it controls several armed militias in Arab countries neighboring Israel. Apart from the recent establishment of relations with Saudi Arabia, it maintains a strong dispute with that country for control of the region and for leadership in Islam.
Turkey has a relationship with the Global South based on its Muslim identity and anti-imperialist position. It seeks balances and continues to increase its relations with the PRC and Russia, despite being a NATO member. It plays a crucial role in global geopolitics and its influence extends both towards Central Asia and the Global South, especially Africa. It practices exemplary diplomacy and its positioning bets on the democratic pole. Moreover, Turkey’s geopolitical complexity is strongly marked by its geographic situation, its energy role and the tensions in its periphery. Its role as a bridge between East and West, together with its military power and influence in the Middle East, makes it particularly relevant as an arbiter and geopolitical pivot on the regional and international scene.
Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons and plays a central role in a region bordering Mackinder’s heartland that encompasses part of the PRC, India, Iran and Afghanistan. It occupies a relevant strategic position in the world due to its geography, population, atomic weapons and international relations. Its geopolitical positioning is characterized by a calculated ambiguity between the two poles, being situated between four key players in international politics: the PRC, India, Iran and Afghanistan. Pakistan has strengthened its economic and military ties with the PRC, especially through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The religious difference between Pakistan’s Islam and India’s Hinduism remains a constant source of conflict, particularly around the Kashmir region.
Bangladesh on the other hand, seeks to strengthen friendship and maintain a foreign policy of friendship for all, malice for no one; however, it has geopolitical and economic friction with some neighbors. Bangladesh’s unique geopolitical location is essential for regional and global powers. This country has one of the highest global economic growth rates in the last decade. Its geopolitical positioning bets on calculated ambiguity. According to the UN Committee for Development Policy, Bangladesh would be rid of the onerous Least Developed Country label by 2024. In fact, it has been registering a growth rate of around 8%, above the Asian average. However, according to the IMF, the country’s current account deficit will continue for much of this decade.
Indonesia is a major player in Asia-Pacific. It is the largest economy in Southeast Asia. In case of conflict it could play an important role in blocking Chinese trade. It exercises a relevant role in the global economy and international relations. The India-Indonesia common vision of Indo-Pacific maritime cooperation is a democratic bulwark in the region. Indonesia’s dynamic and balanced foreign policy makes it a regional power in the Indo-Pacific region. It is home to the world’s largest Muslim population and its location (sandwiched between the Pacific and Indian Oceans) gives it special conditions given its membership in ASEAN. Undoubtedly, a strong and stable Indonesia is one of the main obstacles for the PRC to take over the MCM, improving – at the same time – ASEAN’s position in Southeast Asia. Its positioning leans towards the democratic pole.
South Korea is considered a mid-level regional power; however, its prominence in international relations is increasing in the Northeast Asia region mainly due to its international cooperation initiatives in various fields with a multifaceted diplomacy approach. It has always sought to maintain stability on the Korean peninsula and has been actively engaged in diplomatic efforts to address issues related to North Korea. South Korea has also been the world’s most innovative country for seven of the past nine years. Its leadership is based on areas such as patent registration, research and development (R&D), and manufacturing. It has become a diligent and active player in global dynamics, standing out for its innovation, higher education and technological development. It is a key framing member of the democratic pole.
The Philippines, for its part, has emerged as one of the most promising and fastest growing markets in the world. Its GDP experienced a 7.6% growth by 2022, further cementing its position as an attractive destination for foreign investors. Recently, the US has strengthened its military commitment to the Philippines in the event of a confrontation with the PRC. Its location at the maritime gateway to Southeast Asia from the Pacific Ocean makes the Philippines a key player for major Western and Asian powers. From the geopolitical point of view, the country’s stability is crucial to the political, economic and strategic interests of the two rival giants, the US and the PRC. It is positioned in the camp of the democratic pole.
Vietnam has become a driving force in manufacturing and trade, showing a booming economy and gaining international recognition fairly quickly. However, it is at a crossroads between its economic success and its authoritarian political system. It is a major player in regional politics, but concerns remain about the lack of internal political freedoms. The country’s alliances with international organizations such as ASEAN and the UN play a crucial role in its geopolitical development. These institutions provide Vietnam with a platform to play a more active role in regional and international diplomacy, while contributing to its stability and security. Vietnam’s geopolitical situation is of great global significance given its impact on regional stability and the balance of power in Asia. It is situated in the authoritarian pole environment.
Egypt is an important mediator, trying to defuse clashes and reduce tension in the various conflicts in the Middle East. It has reestablished its traditional alliance with the US and the EU, while improving its relations with Israel, Russia and East African countries. It seeks to maintain its relevance in the region and to balance its international interests. In addition, Egypt occupies a special strategic position, being the junction between Africa and the Middle East, affecting up to 10% of the world’s trade routes. The country continues to play a significant role in achieving stability and security in the Middle East. In fact, it is currently participating very actively in the search for peace in the war between Israel and Hamas. It leans towards the democratic pole.
Nigeria faces a painful paradox. Despite being the most populous country on the continent and having a robust economy, inequality and insecurity remain alarmingly high, as it is home to the jihadist Salafist group Boko Haram. Nigeria has the strongest economy in sub- Saharan Africa, but there is a lack of control of its population by the government. Globally, it is the twelfth largest oil producer. Nigeria’s geopolitics is related to its position on the African continent and its relations with neighboring countries and foreign powers. For Nigerian geopolitics, ethnic diversity, natural resources and international relations are fundamental elements. It is postulated towards the democratic pole.
Mexico is economically dependent on trade relations with the U.S., which makes it vulnerable to political and economic decisions made in Washington. On the other hand, its enormous natural resources provide it with a solid platform to project itself on the global geopolitical stage. Thus, Mexico’s geopolitics can be considered complex and multifaceted. As the second largest economy in Latin America and the fifteenth largest in the world, Mexico faces global challenges in areas such as climate change, geopolitical conflicts and the world economy. It has a relevant position in the geopolitical arena, although it has limitations in its capacity for international influence. It is located in the democratic pole current.
Brazil is the largest country in Ibero-America and ranks fifth among the largest countries in the world, forming alliances with different countries. The main objectives of Brazil’s geopolitics are focused on the occupation of its immense territory, approaching the Pacific coast through the Amazon River basin and exercising leadership in South America as a platform to develop its great strategy of global projection. Brazil is the PRC’s main trading partner but seeks to maintain good relations with both Washington and Beijing. It positions itself with the democratic pole as a regional and global power, with neutral diplomacy and ambitious proposals for international peace and security.
In this geopolitical context, Latin America, in the future, may meet the conditions to become an international geopolitical entity and have its own weight in the global power system, and thus be prepared and able to face other world players such as the US, the PRC or the EU. To this end, it has two heavyweights, Brazil and Mexico, which can act as driving forces in the region (in a similar way as France and Germany are doing in the EU) to establish regional entities, initially with the most relevant members and with greater collective bargaining power according to their political, economic, social or legal conditions, to begin the process of integration into the future Union of Latin America as an autonomous and independent geopolitical actor in the new geopolitical era of the near future.
Conclusions
By virtue of what has been explained in this article, in which the latest events in the international arena involving superpowers, great powers and emerging powers, the recent geopolitical history since World War II, the existence of the great geopolitical dilemmas, as well as the most important actors that have and will have a major role in the coming years have been considered, three geopolitical models or paths to be followed by the international community in the short and medium term in the new geopolitical era that is approaching have been defined.
Most of the indications found in the current geopolitical panorama (characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity) suggest a return to the old geopolitics of confrontation between blocs, although it is clear that in a different configuration from that existing during the Cold War of the twentieth century. In this environment, of the three models chosen, one of them, the so-called dual bipolarity, is the one that meets the most suitable conditions for establishing the new geopolitical era that is being heralded.
In other words, two different conceptions of how the new geopolitical era can be structured have been perceived. On the one hand, the one based on the values and principles of democracy and, on the other, the one based on authoritarianism, lack of freedom and a repressive order. In plain English, a geopolitical competition is looming between democratic geostrategic forces and authoritarian geostrategic forces.
In the development of this path of dual bipolarity, the actors of the G19, mentioned in the section on the two main geopolitical unknowns of the 21st century, appear aligned in one of the two blocks or poles considered. In addition to the 4 main countries that constitute the core of the model (USA, EU, PRC and Russia), 2 countries are on the authoritarian side (Iran and Vietnam), 2 countries are in an ambiguous position (Pakistan and Bangladesh) and 11 countries are in the democratic camp (Brazil, South Korea, Egypt, Philippines, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, United Kingdom and Turkey). Thus, of the G19, 13 countries are in the democratic camp, 4 in the authoritarian camp and 2 in an ambiguous position.
Neither Israel nor North Korea, nuclear countries, have been included, as they do not correspond to the typology of emerging countries that characterizes the G19 actors. However, both countries are part of two of the major geopolitical dilemmas, the Middle East and East Asia, and will therefore be directly involved in the final outcome of these major dilemmas.
Finally, the path presented as dual bipolarity in the new geopolitical era responds to the international scenario that, in all likelihood, awaits us in the first third of the 21st century. The solution to the four major existing geopolitical dilemmas, together with the alignment of the G19 players, will play a particularly important role, in the hope that, in the somewhat more distant future, the international community will be able to establish universal principles and values that will be respected and complied with by the entire international community.
Endnotes:
- Cuesta, Javier G. and Abril, Guillermo. “Rusia y Corea del Norte se alían para luchar contra lo que consideran noticias falsas”. El País, June 20, 2024. https://elpais.com/internacional/2024-05-20/rusia-y-corea-del- norte-se-alian- se-allian-para-luchar-con-tra-lo-que-consideran-noticias-falsas.html. ↑
- IMF. “World Economic Outlook Database, October 2023.” International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2023. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/October ↑
- “SIPRI Yearbook 2024.” Stосkholm International Peace Research Institute, 2024. https://www.sipri.org/ yearbook/2024 ↑
