Talk:Great power

For older discussion, see archives: 1

Italy on the list?

Frankly, I don't think Italy meets the criteria of being a major power nowadays. She is no doubt a middle power or regional power, but her international significance and influnce can hardly be comparable to that of USA, UK, France, Germany, India, China and Russia.

• First, you should sign, to know who you are.

Then if you look at the archive you will see many links and sources about Italy having the capacities of a Great Power.

Also in your list you missed Japan either. Italy is in the G-8 from the begining, when it was G-6, so it's one of the Major Industrialized Countries of the World. It's GDP was the 5th in the world from 1986 to 1998/9. Don't you think that to be a Great Power? So why is Germany or even Japan? They only have powerfull economies, isn't that enough? They have a strong military and strong participation on Peace Missions and they are major contributors to UN.The second and third net contributors and since USA doesn't pay for almost 15 years they are first and second, Italy is fifth or sixt net contributor to UN budget and is much more involved in UN and other missions. In the past 60 years, Italy was in many International Missions and Wars. Japan and Germany because of WWII have more restricted Constitutions than Italy, altough Italy Constitution is a bit restrictive about wars. Japan cannot atack anyone, Germany first participation in a war after WWII was in 1999,while Italy since 1970 could participate in International Wars.

The World created after WWII isn't the same anymore, so UN should be renowed, specially the Security Council. But India for eg. has any International clout? It has many troops in missions because of it's huge population and it's deployement of troops is proportional, but economically is India so huge? It has a growing GDP, but because it has more than 1 Billion people. For that population it has a very tiny GDP.And its importance as a Global Player it's more regional; it's importance in the World is growing but more in economy due to it's cheap labour.But economically Italy is much more important.Italy's production it's a self-production, with Know-how, while China and India are in the major part production of multi-nationals. They have a good industrial output only due to the fact of cheap labour. When someone buys a Philips TV or a Kodak camera made in China, do you think that person associates the TV set as being a Chinese product? Of course no. They associate with China and India low quality trademarks and know that many things are done there because of costs.
Made in Italy is very different, it has quality and even if clothes of italian brands are made in other places they are regarded as italian ones.
In terms of economy, industry, World awareness Italy is years ahed of India, China or Russia, it's on the same league of France, UK and Germany.

In World Geopolitics, it's more important than India too. It is as I said a major contributor to UN, in troops, peace missions and to it's budget. It's a rich country, not a receiver of anything. Inside EU Italy is the third major contributor to EU budget, so it has Power inside the major International Bloc of Trade and Economic/political integration of different Nations. You have the vision that anglo-saxon and germanic press makes on people, a close-minded one. If you looked at many more articles, papers and many other sources you would realise Italy's dimension, but the fault it's not yours, it's of the media and propaganda. For these media Italy is only a good country to go on vacation, with friendly people but that is very bellow France, UK, Germany and now even India, China or Russia. For them it's a sort of Greece, only a little bigger. Even when Italy was the 5th major economy on earth, that fact was rarely mentioned or even taked into account.
And if we consider the undeground/shadow economy, Italy's GDP is bigger than that of France and maybe UK.

And in military terms, Italy is a strong player too, it has the World's sixht most powerfull Navy, has indigeneous military products like ships, helicopters, aircrafts, missiles and participates in Major International consortiums and projects like Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-35/JSF, as matter of fact, Italy was regarded as the european constructor of F-35's and is the third major contributor to this aircraft, that will be one of the most sold in the world, it will replace in Air Forces through the World the F-16.

Even in space Italy is important, besides being one of the major shareholders of ESA and it's Ariane rocket, it has it's own rocket-the Vega, 70% of the project belongs to ASI-Italian Space Agency, the other 30% to ESA. It was also the third country to put a satellite on space, had a nuclear program, that was abandoned but gave the ground to the Vega rocket and has the Know-how to built Nuclear Program in two years if it wanted to. People talk a lot of Iran Nuclear, but if Iran continues to pursue that objective it could only have Nuclear weapons by 2015, unless some other country helped it. Italy is different-doesn't want, but has the capability to built one in 2 years or even less time.

Think on all this and say me that Italy is not a Great Power. ACamposPinho 4 August 2006, 19:18

Great Power - the criteria

I have found a source listing what a great power is and how to know when a country is one. The following is an excerpt.

The Idea of “Major Powers”

Although major powers have been shaping international events since ancient times, the phrase major powers or great powers did not appear in the official diplomatic or scholarly discourse until the early nine- teenth century. Leopold Ranke’s seminal essay “The Great Powers,” published in 1833, established a precedent for historians to use this phrase, but Ranke was merely following of‹cial diplomatic usage. For their part, diplomats did not use the term before the Congress of Vienna (1814–15), when “Great Powers” were recognized for the first time through the establishment of “The Concert of Europe.” The diplomatic precedent for using the term appeared in Castlereagh’s cir cular letter sent to British ambassadors on February 13, 1814, where Castlereagh announces a great victory for his policy of building the post-Napoleonic peace through the Concert of Great Powers

'It affords me great satisfaction to acquaint you that there is every prospect of the Congress terminating with a general accord and Guarantee between the great Powers of Europe, with a determina- tion to support the arrangement agreed upon, and to turn the gen- eral influence and if necessary the general arms against the Power that shall first attempt to disturb the Continental peace. (Webster 1931, 307}'

When the Stakes Are High

Only a month later, the distinction between the great powers and other states was formally recognized by other powers as well in the Treaty of Chaumont (Webster 1931, 229).

The expression major powers has come into a common usage more recently, replacing the original phrase great powers. However labeled, it is important to understand the meaning that is directly or implicitly attached to this term. In this respect, major powers are usually specified through one or more defining elements.

1. The power dimension reflecting the sheer size of a nation’s capabilities. Despite a number of methodological disagreements, such as those over the amount of capabilities necessary for a nation to qual- ify as a major power, power potential is nevertheless routinely acknowledged as a necessary de‹ning requirement for major powers.

2. The spatial dimension that refers to geographic scope of inter- ests, actions, or projected power. Although often neglected in the liter- ature, the spatial criterion is especially significant for distinguishing major powers from regional powers.

3. The status dimension indicating a formal or informal acknowledgment of the major power status. Since the official or unofficial status of a major power also requires the nation’s willingness to act as a major power, it is the most subjective and thus a more difficult criterion to establish empirically. Although some of these elements require more subjective assess- ment, particularly status, a fairly reliable list of major powers can be developed by evaluating states consistently along each dimension. Moreover, the spatial dimension that gives states some degree of global reach seems to be a more appropriate indicator of the upper layer of great powers, often labeled as global contenders (or superpowers). The chapter concludes with the listed composition of major powers and global contenders for the period from 1895 to 1985. This list of powers is developed from a historical survey of each nation that is generally considered to meet one or more of the above criteria during most or some part of the observed ninety-year period. The concluding list of major power composition will then provide the pool of nations for the empirical analyses in subsequent chapters.

Reference: http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472112872-ch2.pdf

Hadrian1 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done! That is a brilliant catch and will greatly help this article's growth. But I'm afraid there's an issue with it, it doesn't support the stance on Italy that you've been taking all this time. In fact it reads clearly Italy's short history as a great power ended dramatically with Mussolini's fall in 1943. Unlike France or West Germany, it never succeeded in reestablishing itself as a great power in the postwar order. It states that Italy was a great power from 1895-1943. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If France, Germany, and Japan are listed as current Great Powers because of "economic power". Italy is in the same league, perhaps Canada too. Italy is very close to France in economic strength. The Big 4 of Europe are indeed France, Italy, Germany, UK. 71.105.96.238 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Finally someone who knows and views the truth. I and Hadrian1 posted here lots of facts, links, articles that showed Italy as a country with all the characteristics of a Great Power.
  

But people asked more and more sources, saying they were never enough, while for the other countries I didn't see any sources. Some said the other countries were in the list because everybody knew they were Great Powers. Well, that is very subjective. If people wanted sources for Italy, should give sources for other countries too.
And if they want more I have read more articles and sources that proof Italy's status as a Great Power. If they don't consider Italy, so Germany, Japan, India or even other traditionally considered Great Powers like UK or France shouldn't be included either.
And for these above mentioned countries were are all the sources? France and UK were always considered Great Powers because they won WWII and were allowed to have a strong military and international influence during the Cold War. But in the French case it is even harder to get thru with this argument, since France was occupied by Nazi Germany and what war did Free French Forces really fight and won? Of course they were an Allied Nation and fight alongside USA and UK, but almost only to liberate France.Poland, Brazil, Australia, Canada and India(part of Bristish Empire) fighted too and not to liberate themselves only, they fought to liberate all Europe. Italy changed sides and fighted alongside Allied troops to liberate itself too, but was only considered co-beligerant while France was an Ally with all that this implicates thru today, like having Nuclear Weapons, major military forces and UN Security Council Permanent Seat.
And for the ones who say that Italy has no international clout; where was the Meeting of UN and Major Nations to talk about Lebanon crisis? In Berlin? Tokyo? No, in Rome, because Italy has for more than 30 years an history of mediator and has strong ties with Arab World. The meeting didn't resolved the problem, but Italy hosted it and tried. Others have tried too after that and failled too, the issue is that Italy has international clout and it's involved inmany missions and italian troops are well regarded by UN and the World in general.

ACamposPinho 3 August 2006, 1:21

well, to be blunt: as if they are going to trust the British, French, or Germans. Italy globally leaves very few people with a bad taste in their mouth. I have seen this from travels to Asia, from Japan to Taiwan, people have a good impression of Italy, the culture, warmth, etc. 71.105.96.238 06:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's because of Italy different aproach, a more diplomatic one and it has a huge Soft Power, the other countries mentioned are more agressive and tend to dominate, while Italy tends to mediate.

ACamposPinho 4 August 2006, 19:21

Missing Section Near East/Southwest Asia

Europe is listed as incomplete but barring the Holy Roman Empire or maybe Venice it covers pre-modern Europe pretty well. What actually is missing is the Near and Middle-east. No Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, or Persian empires are listed prior to Alexander the Great and no Muslim powers except for the Ottoman Empire. Dates and exact membership in lits like this are tricky, of course, but, IMO, this is a major oversight. Eluchil404 14:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Europe (especially Southeastern Europe), the Near East, and North Africa had a level of cultural, political, and economic exchange that they basically formed a single area of larger civilization until the Islamic Empire, at which point that larger civilization finally splits into "European" and "Middle Eastern". Unfortunately for our purposes, that happened long before 1500. The best solution I could think up would be to simply rename the Europe section as Europe and the Middle East and lump them all together.

I'll also say that that section should have the following added (including your suggestions here): Carolingian Empire, Holy Roman Empire (at least the Ottonian Dynasty), the Islamic Empire and likely some of its successor states, the Ilkhanate, the Golden Horde, the Persian Empire (in all its incarnations), the Parthian Empire, Venice, Babylon, Chaldea (as in the neo-Babylonian Empire), the Hittites, the various Egypts, Assyria. Sumeria is up for debate, I'd think. It was perhaps the first and most advanced civilization of its age, but how much "power projection" did it have that we know about? The article says some of its early rulers may have had territories approaching the Mediterranean, but it seemed speculative. The Akkadians might be on the list, though. Other possibilities may be the Medes, the Mittani, and possibly some of the Greek city-states (they did ward off the Persians, after all, and I do seem to remember the term Athenian Empire . . .--RemiCogan 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A section on Pre-Columbian American would be nice to help fight systematic bias, but would be quite difficult given the limit records that are availible. Aztecs, Incas, Teotihuacan[1], Tikal, Calakmul, Chichen Itza, and Mayapan would be good candidates to evaluate. Eluchil404 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add them...I was actually thinking that once this list gets a bit long we move it to List of pre-modern great powers. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. The page has a tidiness problem, after all.--RemiCogan 06:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Portugal on list?

I was the person who created this list, and have came back finding Denmark, Poland-Lithuania, and Portugal removed from the list. I can see why people debate about Denmark and Poland; however Portugal was a major great power during the age of exploration, and deserves a spot on the list. Casey14 01:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I Agree both countries used to be great powers during the age of colonization and do belong on the list as former great powers. Signature^brendel 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Japan is listed as a present Great Power. Just because of "economic power"? In that case, any and all G7 nations should be listed as Great Powers, and for the reason of economic power. For example, France, Germany, and Japan, but not Italy? One could even make the argument to include Canada. 71.105.96.238 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is even debatable if the UK is still a so-called Great Power. One can argue that UK has fallen to being no more powerful than France, Italy, Germany, and Japan. Arguably the nation is a servant to the US. Not trying to start a political discussion or get the Brit's knickers in a knot, but it is a valid argument. 71.105.96.238 06:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Germany is great power, and more powerful than the UK. No Western European country is a servant to the US as they are developed themselves and the economic interdependcies between industrialized countries run both ways. Many experts say that in this world there two types of countries, those who consume and own and captial and those who support the lifestyle of the consumer/owner nations. Indeed all of Western Europe, just like the US and Japan are consumer nations and not supporter nations. Mexico is a supporter nation but not the UK. Besdies, don't understimate the economic clout of any of the countries on the list of great powers. The UK is still able to influence US policy much like the US is able to influence the domestic policy of other countries. In other words only Western Europe is powerful enough to influence the US-rember steel tarrifs? The EU literally forced the Bush admin to repeal them. Yes the UK is less powerful than Germany but still very powerful and it is a consumer nation with a high degree of Economic freedom and thus not a servant to anyone. Signature^brendel 07:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a European as well, but I don't share your opinion. Perhaps I am more cynical. It's fine, we'll agree to disagree. Thanks for taking the time to reply, I'll think about your arguments. 71.105.96.238 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Brendel you say Germany is a Great Power, you're right but more powerful than UK? Based on what? GDP and exportations. Germany is a bigger Economic Power than UK but not a more powerfull Great Power, because a Great Power is more than economy. If that was the case; Russia which is a Great Power and almost a SuperPower again wouldn't be more than a Regional Power, because of it's GDP being far lower than that of UK and it's exportations that are growing but are still well bellow any of the G-7 countries level of exportations/importations, plus the fact that russian exportations are almost of energy and raw materials.

ACamposPinho 1:01, 3 August 2006

• The GDP and GDP/capita of Germany is not exactly in a league of itself either:
  

Canada: GDP: $1.114 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $34,000 (2005 est.)
France: GDP: $1.816 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $29,900 (2005 est.)
Germany: GDP: $2.504 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $30,400 (2005 est.)
Italy: GDP: $1.698 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $29,200 (2005 est.)
Japan: GDP: $4.018 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $31,500 (2005 est.)
UK: GDP: $1.830 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $30,300 (2005 est.)
USA: GDP: $12.360 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $41,800 (2005 est.)

If Germany goes down $2.3 trillion, is it out of the Great Power club? If you look at GDP - per capita of the EU countries, it is almost within numerical noise. What is more interesting from this discussion is you see some cultures (no offense Germany, France, etc.) that must shout out, "we are a great power!". Emperor's New Clothes perhaps? Bizarre. 71.105.96.238 06:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Has this page matured

I remember the earlier, horribly Eurocentric versions. Great evolution fellows!