British Empire ex Wiki
The British Empire was composed of the
dominions,
colonies,
protectorates,
mandates, and other
territories ruled or administered by the
United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the
overseas possessions and
trading posts established by
England between the late 16th and early 18th centuries. At its height it
was the
largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost
global power.[1]
By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 per cent
of the world population at the time,[2]
and by 1920, it covered 35.5 million km2 (13.7 million sq mi),[3]
24 per cent of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its
constitutional,
legal,
linguistic, and
cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was
described as "the
empire on which the sun never sets", as the Sun was always shining on at
least one of its territories.[4]
During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated,[5] England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America. Britain became the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent after the East India Company's conquest of Mughal Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. British attention then turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. After the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century and expanded its imperial holdings. The period of relative peace (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon was later described as Pax Britannica ("British Peace"). Alongside the formal control that Britain exerted over its colonies, its dominance of much of world trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[6][7] Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were reclassified as Dominions..
By the start of the 20th century, Germany and the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead. Military and economic tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily on its empire. The conflict placed enormous strain on its military, financial, and manpower resources. Although the empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after the First World War, Britain was no longer the world's preeminent industrial or military power. In the Second World War, Britain's colonies in East Asia and Southeast Asia were occupied by the Empire of Japan. Despite the final victory of Britain and its allies, the damage to British prestige helped accelerate the decline of the empire. India, Britain's most valuable [ sic ] and populous possession, achieved independence in 1947 as part of a larger decolonisation movement, in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire. The Suez Crisis of 1956 confirmed Britain's decline as a global power, and the transfer of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997 marked for many the end of the British Empire.[8][9] Fourteen overseas territories remain under British sovereignty. After independence, many former British colonies joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Fifteen of these, including the United Kingdom, retain a common monarch, currently King Charles III.
Superpowers ex Wiki
A superpower is a
state with a dominant position characterized by its extensive ability to
exert
influence or
project power on a global scale. This is done through the combined means
of economic, military, technological, political and cultural strength as
well as
diplomatic and
soft
power influence. Traditionally, superpowers are preeminent among the
great powers. While a great power state is capable of exerting its
influence globally, superpowers are states so influential that no
significant action can be taken by the global community without first
considering the positions of the superpowers on the issue.[1]
The term was first applied in 1944 during World War II to the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union.[2] During the Cold War, the British Empire dissolved, leaving the United States and the Soviet Union to dominate world affairs. At the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States became the world's sole superpower.[3][4][5] Today, scholars debate which countries and organizations to include in the list of superpowers, with the People's Republic of China, the European Union, the Republic of India, and the Russian Federation all being debated among scholars as potential superpowers.[6]
BRICS
ex Wiki
BRICS is the
acronym
coined to associate five major
emerging economies:
Brazil,
Russia,
India,
China and
South Africa. Additionally
Argentina has formally applied for membership. The BRICS members are
known for their significant influence on world affairs.[1]
Since 2009, the
governments of the BRICS states have met annually at formal summits.
China hosted the most recent
14th BRICS summit on 24 July 2022 virtually. BRICS host New Development
Bank, Contingent Reserve Arrangement, BRICS payment system, and BRICS basket
reserve currency officially announced in 2022.
Originally the first four were grouped as "BRIC" (or "the BRICs") before the induction of South Africa in 2010.[2] The BRICS have a combined area of 39,746,220 km2 (15,346,100 sq mi) and an estimated total population of about 3.21 billion,[3] or about 26.7% of the world land surface and 41.5% of the world population. Brazil, Russia, India, and China are among the world's ten largest countries by population, by area and GDP.
Members of G20, as of 2022, these five states had a combined nominal GDP of US$26.6 trillion, about 26.2% of the gross world product, a combined GDP (PPP) of around US$51.99 trillion (32.1% of the world's GDP PPP), and an estimated US$4.46 trillion in combined foreign reserves (as of 2018).[4][5] The BRICS have received both praise and criticism from numerous commentators.[6][7][8] Bilateral relations among BRICS states are conducted mainly based on non-interference, equality, and mutual benefit.[9]
Global North and Global South
ex Wiki
QUOTE
The concept of Global North and Global South (or
North–South divide in a global context) is used to describe a grouping
of countries along
socio-economic and
political
characteristics. The Global South is a
term often used to identify regions within Latin America, Asia, Africa,
and Oceania. It is one of a family of terms, including "Third World" and
"Periphery", that denote regions outside Europe and North America, most
(though not all) of these countries are low-income and often politically or
culturally marginalized on one side of the divide, the other side being the
countries of the Global North (often equated with
developed countries).[1]
As such, the term does not inherently refer to a geographical
south; for
example, most of the Global South is geographically within the
Northern Hemisphere.[1]
The term as used by governmental and developmental organizations was first introduced as a more open and value-free alternative to "Third World"[2] and similarly potentially "valuing" terms like developing countries. Countries of the Global South have been described as newly industrialized or in the process of industrializing, and are frequently current or former subjects of colonialism.[3]
The Global North mostly correlates with the Western world—with the notable exceptions of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Israel— and the South largely corresponds with the developing countries previously called "Third World," plus the Eastern world. Geographically, the Global South is mostly composed of regions that are neither Western nor Eastern such as the Latin Westand most African countries. The two groups are often defined in terms of their differing levels of wealth, economic development, income inequality, democracy, and political and economic freedom, as defined by freedom indices. States that are generally seen as part of the Global North tend to be wealthier and less unequal with large, well-developed infrastructure as well as advanced technology, manufacturing and energy industries. Southern states are generally developing countries with younger institutions. They tend to be heavily dependent on primary sector exports. The divide between the North and the South is often challenged.[4]
Global South leaders became more assertive in world politics in
the 1990s, a trend that has continued into the 2020s with massive
trillion-dollar initiatives such as China's BNR (Belt
and Road Initiative). South-South cooperation has increased to
"challenge the political and economic dominance of the North."[5][6][7]
This cooperation has become a popular political and economic concept
following geographical migrations of manufacturing and production activity
from the North to the Global South[7]
and the diplomatic action of several states, like
China.[7]
These contemporary economic trends have "enhanced the historical potential
of economic growth and industrialization in the Global South," which has
renewed targeted SSC efforts that "loosen the strictures imposed during the
colonial era and transcend the boundaries of postwar political and economic
geography."[8]
Used in several books and
American Literature special issue, the term Global South, recently
became prominent for U.S. literature.[9]
UNQUOTE
The U.S. Military’s Growing Weakness
ex WSJ
QUOTE
A new Heritage
Foundation report warns about declining U.S. naval and air
power.
U.S. aircraft carrier
USS Ronald Reagan participates with other U.S. and South Korean
navy ships during the joint naval exercises between the United
States and South Korea in waters off South Korea's eastern coast
on Sept. 29, 2022.
Photo: /Associated
Press
Americans like to think their military is unbeatable if politicians
wouldn’t get in the way. The truth is that U.S. hard power isn’t what it
used to be. That’s the message of the Heritage Foundation’s
2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, which is reported here for the
first time and describes a worrisome trend.
Heritage rates the U.S. military as “weak” and “at growing risk of not being able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.” The weak rating, down from “marginal” a year earlier, is the first in the index’s nine-year history.
The index measures the military’s ability to prevail in two major regional conflicts at once—say, a conflict in the Middle East and a fight on the Korean peninsula. Americans might wish “that the world be a simpler, less threatening place,” as the report notes. But these commitments are part of U.S. national-security strategy.
Heritage says the U.S. military risks being unable to handle even “a single major regional conflict” as it also tries to deter rogues elsewhere. The Trump Administration’s one-time cash infusion has dried up. Pentagon budgets aren’t keeping up with inflation, and the branches are having to make trade-offs about whether to be modern, large, or ready to fight tonight. The decline is especially acute in the Navy and Air Force.
The Navy has been saying for years it needs to grow to at least 350 ships, plus more unmanned platforms. Yet the Navy has shown a “persistent inability to arrest and reverse the continued diminution of its fleet,” the report says. By one analysis it has under-delivered on shipbuilding plans by 10 ships a year on average over the past five years.
From 2005 to 2020, the U.S. fleet grew to 296 warships from 291, while China’s navy grew to 360 from 216. War isn’t won on numbers alone, but China is also narrowing the U.S. technological advantage in every area from aircraft carrier catapults to long-range missiles.
The Navy wants to build three Virginia-class submarines a year, and the U.S. still has an edge over Beijing in these fast-attack boats. But the shipbuilding industry has shrunk amid waning demand, and the Navy’s maintenance yards are overwhelmed. Maintenance delays and backlogs are the result of running the fleet too hard: On a typical day in June, roughly one-third of the 298-ship fleet was deployed, double the average of the Cold War.
It’s worse in the Air Force, which gets a “very weak” rating. Aging “aircraft and very poor pilot training and retention” have produced an Air Force that “would struggle greatly against a peer competitor,” Heritage says.
The fighter and bomber forces are contracting to about 40% of what America had in the 1980s. The service has been slowing its F-35 buys even as it needs modern planes to compensate for the smaller fleet. Aircraft have low mission-capable rates, roughly 50% for the F-22. Heritage says the Air Force has “abandoned even the illusion” that it is working toward an 80% aircraft readiness goal. Munitions inventories “probably would not support a peer-level fight that lasted more than a few weeks,” and replacements can take 24 to 36 months to arrive.
A pilot shortage “continues to plague the service,” and the “current generation of fighter pilots, those who have been actively flying for the past seven years, has never experienced a healthy rate of operational flying.” Fighter pilots flew a meager 10 hours a month on average in 2021, up from 8.7 in 2020 but still far below the 200 hours a year minimum needed to be proficient against a formidable opponent.
The story isn’t much better for the Army, which has lost $59 billion in buying power since 2018 due to flat budgets and inflation. The Army is shrinking not as a choice about priorities but because it can’t recruit enough soldiers—nearly 20,000 short in fiscal 2022.
The Marines scored better in the index as the only branch articulating and executing a plan to change, reorganizing for a war in the Pacific in a concept known as Force Design 2030. But the Marines are slimming down to a bare-bones 21 infantry battalions, from 27 as recently as 2011. Mission success for the Marines depends on a new amphibious ship that the Navy may not be able to deliver.
Some will call all this alarmist and ask why the Pentagon can’t do better
on an $800 billion budget. The latter is a fair question and the answer
requires procurement and other changes. But the U.S. will also have to spend
more on defense if it wants to protect its interests and the homeland. The
U.S. is spending about 3% of GDP now compared to 5%-6% in the 1980s. The
Heritage report is a warning that you can’t deter war, much less win one, on
the cheap.
UNQUOTE
See also
https://www.heritage.org/military or
2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength
ex The Heritage Foundation