Latest news with #CongressofVienna
Japan Today
an hour ago
- 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
5 days ago
- 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
Yomiuri Shimbun
31-05-2025
- Business
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Himeji Castle Forms Sister Castle Partnership with Austria's Schoenbrunn Palace; Both UNESCO World Heritage Sites
The Yomiuri Shimbun Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen, center, and Himeji Mayor Hideyasu Kiyomoto, right, at the signing ceremony for the sister castle partnership between Himeji Castle and Schoenbrunn Palace on May 24 in Himeji, Hyogo Prefecture. HIMEJI, Hyogo — A sister castle partnership has been established between Himeji Castle in Himeji, Hyogo Prefecture, and Schoenbrunn Palace in Vienna. Schoenbrunn Palace is now the fourth sister castle of Himeji Castle. A ceremonial signing for the sister castle partnership was held at Himeji Castle with Himeji Mayor Hideyasu Kiyomoto and Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen in attendance on May 24. Van der Bellen's visit to Japan coincided with Austria's National Day event at the 2025 Osaka-Kansai Expo. Both parties agreed to proactively promote tourism exchanges between the city and Austria. Schoenbrunn Palace is known for hosting the Congress of Vienna in 1815 after the Napoleonic Wars. It was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1996. Courtesy of Himeji city government Schoenbrunn Palace in Vienna Last spring, when Austrian government officials visited Himeji Castle, also a World Heritage Site, they proposed the idea of a partnership to Himeji officials. A basic agreement was signed in November. 'I'm confident that the partnership will help promote exchanges in a variety of fields and strengthen the ties between Japan and Austria,' Kiyomoto said. Austrian President Van der Bellen expressed his hope to further strengthen the friendship between the two countries.
India.com
25-04-2025
- Politics
- India.com
This country's army has not had single soldier martyred in war because..., the country is...
The contemporary world is gripped with loss, sacrifice, country at war innocents lives being claimed and soldiers being martyred. War never have a good outcome. Reportedly, there is one country that claims to have no martyrs. While it is positive sign it also seems unbelievable. The country where the army is for peacekeeping and defense, where the happiness quotient is high, the country is Switzerland. Even during the world war, this country was never directly involved in combat but played significant role in terms of diplomacy, economics etc. Wonder how and why? Switzerland adopted the 'permanent neutrality' after The Vienna Congress in 1815. The country has been pursuing this declaration over centuries. Congress of Vienna marks a watershed moment in the history of Europe. It was convened after the Napoleanic wars and aimed to re-establish balance of power. Since the, every nation respect Switzerlands' guaranteed permanent neutrality that allows the state to run with foreign interference, brought in more stability and security and prevailing sovereignty for the nation. Switzerland provides humanitarian aids, mobilises for peace keeping missions and do not engage in warfare. The treaty ensures that that the country does no indulge in warfare in any manner be it become the land of violence or supply troops or weaponry for international warring..
Telegraph
17-04-2025
- General
- Telegraph
‘So dull it makes tofu seem like a flavour adventure': The best and worst supermarket brie
Brie is the king of cheeses: it's official. According to the late, great gourmet André Simon in his book Cheeses of the World, brie was given the title roi des fromages at the Congress of Vienna soon after the Battle of Waterloo. A small but important victory for the defeated nation. Writing in 1956, Simon lists only French brie: brie de Melon, de Monereau and façon Coulommiers, as well as 'the best brie… le brie de Meaux, ' all from the province of La Brie, to the east of Paris. But these days, brie is made all over France – and beyond. The Danes make brie, so do the Americans and Canadians, and we make lots in the UK, especially in Somerset. I'll bear this in mind the next time I get sniffy about Canadian cheddar. I rounded up 22 bries from the supermarkets: British, Danish and, bien sûr, French, including brie de Meaux. Tasting soft cheese is tricky, as much depends on how ripe it is, whether it is oozing or firm, full flavoured or ammoniac. Catching cheeses with identical sell-by dates proved to be impossible, but I kept them close and made allowances for age. While many of the cheeses came from the same producers (something you can check using the discreet traceability code in the oval rondel on the pack), they may have been stored differently, which will affect the flavour and texture. With the budget bries, I needn't have worried so much, as, according to cheese expert Charlie Turnbull, 'the traditional style is where you make a fresh, crumbly cheese, and then let the cultures – the moulds – start breaking it down, so it goes from an acidic cheese, to a gooey, savoury one'. But this is not stable enough for retailers, who want a standardised product, so for more budget cheese, different starters are used that stabilise the brie and make a sort of gel. What these cheaper cheeses won't do is become deliciously runny, with the smell of field mushrooms and an intense savouriness. These cheeses are often cut before the rind has properly developed, so the crust forms all over the wedge, including the cut edges. It does help the cheese last longer, but it's not really the look I'm after for a special cheeseboard. Still, there's plenty out there for all tastes. You can choose your battles, and your bries. How we tested All the cheeses were brought up to room temperature, and then unwrapped and assigned a letter to anonymise the samples. They were tasted blind. Best strong brie Best mild brie
