Emerging Challenge to the Power of the US - Literature review Example

An Emerging Challenge to the Power of the United States in the International System and how the United States has responded to that Challenge By Student’s Name Course + Course Name Professor’s Name University Name City, State Date The 2007 Global Financial Crisis has even to the present day actually sent shockwaves in the neoliberal world thus leading into a forced focus regarding both the inherent risk and instability that underlies the global financial system and also speedily rejuvenated the concept in the decline of the United States’ neoliberal hegemony and hegemonic power in the global or international political economy. Indeed, this analysis depicts that the global financial crisis has marked the start of the end of the American hegemony not only in the realm of international finance but also in international relations as well. However, the United States’ responses towards the global financial crisis have signalled its ability to sustain the hegemonic role in the global political economy and also its ability of upholding the contemporary establishment of the neoliberal order and in retaining its power not only in international finance but also in the general international system (Brown & Lynn,2009). Despite the fact that there have been few arguments who oppose the decline of the power of the US in international systems, it can correctly be argued that there has significant decline in the United States’ hegemonic ability and power in the International system. Finance has now become a core component of the American capitalism’s health. The United States yielded a lot of structural power in that it had the ability or the power of not only shaping but of also determining the international political economy structures through which the other states or nations have to operate. The comprehension of such power within the global political economy is prudent in comprehending the nature of the status of international financial dominance which the United States of America occupied which is viewed in the perspective of structural power internationally and domestically. There has been a major power shift among countries, societies, empires or regions which are nothing in the contemporary world affairs. One certain thing regarding any balance of power is it will change. This is because new powers have continued to emerge while the greatest one like the United States of America continues to decline. The new global or international distribution of power is due to factors that are closely linked to globalization. The dominance of the US as being the only superpower that has remained in the “Post-Cold War” International system has resulted to some talking of a unipolar moment (Arase & Akaha, 2013). Despite the fact that the military prowess of the United States has still remained unrivalled, the economic, technological and scientific aspects of the United States of America is actually becoming less active and dominant in general global terms. As a result, the emergence of a European Union comprising of about 25 or 27 member states has become a very distinctive centre of power within the West. In other parts, other emerging powers; for instance India and China have become mentioned more frequently and are therefore depicted as being increasingly to challenge the leadership of the West and more specifically of the United States of America. Eventually, the two States, that is China, and India are perhaps perceived as having overtaken most if not all of the contemporary great powers. The emerging challenge towards the power of the United States in the international system has emerged from the geoeconomic challenge due to a growth in the power resources of the emerging market. Such a rapid challenge has posed serious implications for the contemporary G7 industrialized nations. Indeed, lots of articles and books, mostly by the Americans have currently been written regarding the apparent trends which warn that the US with its current power is not actually ready for the changes that are coming ahead. For instance, a former Under Secretary of Commerce who served in the Bush Administration known as Jeffrey Garten wrote almost ten years ago that “...dealing with the big emerging markets will be key to our economic well being and to our security in the decades ahead...”. He, therefore, advocated that the United States need a new mindset regarding its social and economic policies and also seek for new strategies for its involvement or indulgence in overseas countries. He asserted that the United States was totally unprepared in tackling this challenge. The ten big emerging markets (BEM) which were identified by Garten based on the criteria of resource bases, large populations, regional influence, expanding market reach, liberalization, international ambitions and high economic growth includes countries like Brazil, China and India which have emerged as being the leading three along with South Korea, Indonesia, Argentina, South Africa, Poland, Turkey and South Africa. Garten therefore argued that the big ten emerging markets would actually become the crux of all the main global dynamics in the coming decades and therefore this would need a massive shift in the way the policy makers in the West think about the nation’s strategic international interests. In essence, the United States of America will, therefore, have to strengthen its relationship with China since it will become the major focus of its entire foreign policy in the next decade (Drezner, 2009). A change in the world disorder due to an expectation of rapid changes has also posed a greater challenge to the United States due to a growth in international policy agendas which have not only become more interconnected but also more complex as well. Recent forecasts have also pointed out the fact that the Asian Giants, China and India have increasingly played a vital role in world affairs, and their superiority has even superseded that of Japan. Indeed, the significance that is played by a shift in the international balance of power that is Asia-Driven was undertaken by the United States’ National Intelligence Council. The prospect of having more multi-polar international states systems in the world has even become more clear and this is not only attributed to the rise of the East Asian Economies like that of China which has threaten the US States international power but also due to China’s strengthened international clout coupled with the other States in East Asia. These could ultimately serve to threaten the United States’ structural power in the international finances and thus further to pose a great threat to its power. In addition to that, such a threat has been further worsened due to the contrary debtor associations that has emerged between the “New Growth Centre Economies” located in East Asia and the United States which genuinely lays the economic independence between the United States and China (Oswald, 2006). Given the genuine fact that the United States of America’s most vital debt o about $10 trillion is owed to China and the Arab States, this has further worsened the financial crisis and as a result, the relationship with Chin is viewed as being an important creditor. This therefore implies that the economic relationship with China is a power relationship in which China as a country is capable of exercising an actual political leverage not only over Washington but also on the United States of America as a whole (Hook, et al 2013). It is therefore through such a relationship that evidence can be depicted regarding the changing nature and status of the global or international States system and the association between the United State’s power in the International system and its power in structural in global or international finance can be evident. This can therefore genuinely assert that that if indeed there is continued threats against the economy and the economic power of the United States, then it is quite obvious that what will follow is actually a direct threat to the hegemony of the United States. This will further become evident that the economic realm of the United States is at the centre of the hegemonic power. It can be genuinely asserted that the economic challenges which are being faced by the United States of America have been further worsened as a result of the global financial crisis. This is because the financial crisis has emerged as a global financial headache has proved to inextricably tangled coupled with a trade and fiscal deficit in the United States (Li, 2009). Despite the fact that the structural power of the United States has been diffused in international finance, it should also be noted the twin deficits which were run by the United States during the 1980’s have resulted in the United States changing from being the world’s largest net creditor to the world’s largest net debtor not only in the current cost terms but also in book value as well. In addition to that, a large US government debt in the economy has further been worsened by the new forms of financial capitalism with the debt of the United States increasing constantly throughout the neoliberal period. If indeed the power of the United States in international finance is based on its ability of ensuring there is control on the international or global financial structures an increase in the accumulation of value capital in such structures, then it is quite evident that such a hegemonic power can be worsened simultaneously by a massive increase in the debt which comes about as a result of the expansion of the volatile sector. It can be genuinely argued that the contradictions at the heart of the United States power in both the international finance and in the financial sector of the capitalist system has further been worsened through the existence of the neoliberal state market’s promotion and protection of the financial system that is debt fuelled. The United States’ financial system has therefore been heavily reliant on the accumulation of the consumer debt and other financial innovation processes which have ultimately ended up in the privatization of the system risk in the global financial system. In addition to that, the power of ascertaining the exchange rates that was given to the foreign exchange market after the fall of the BWS could also have proven to be detrimental to the United States’ power in international finance. This is due to the fact that there has been an increase in the roles or responsibilities of the private international markets thus leading to the erosion of the power market which in turn resulted in the accruing of the reserve currency in nations which were under the “Gold Exchange Standard”. This has therefore enabled other economic powers in the global financial system to quickly accelerate their transitions form a system which is dollar centred to system which is more symmetrical and a multicurrency system in the international political economy thus depicting more evidence of the financial power of the US. It is quite evident that the reaction of the United States towards the financial crisis has portrayed that the United States government is more than willing in not only stepping in but also in maintaining the status of the banking institutions as well as of the financial sector. Given the fact that the state of the market condominium is so vital in order to ensure that there is the maintenance of power in the global or international economy, the financial injections and bailouts of the liquidity into the United States’ economy. This has demonstrated that indeed; there is a great need for the United States government together with its markets to interact to both stabilize its domestic situation and also reinforce its configuration in international power. Indeed, these are two important factors which have contributed to the ongoing commitment of the United States to respond to such challenges (Tellis, et al2011). The United States has, therefore, realized the need of ensuring that the market and the state must work together in order to find numerous solutions towards the numerous financial crises facing the nation. The United States’ refusal of constructing a “global financial regulatory regime” is important for it because it will ensure that the United States continues its dominance in global or international finance. By opposing the formation or creation of a new monetary regime having capital control, the United States of America has ensured that there is continued maintenance of the Status quo in the international system. Reference List Arase, D & Akaha, T2013, The US-Japan Alliance: Balancing Soft and Hard Power in East Asia, New York, Routledge. Brown, M & Lynn, S2009, Primacy and Its Discontents: American Power and International Stability. New York, MIT Press. Drezner, D2009. Avoiding Trivia: The Role of Strategic Planning in American Foreign Policy, New York, Brookings Institution Press. Hook, G, et al 2013, Japan’s International Relations: Politics, Economics and Security, New York, Routledge. Li, M2009, Soft Power: China’s Emerging Strategy in International Politics, New York, Lexington Books. Oswald, F2006, Europe and the United States: The Emerging Security Partnership, New York, Greenwood Publishing Group. Tellis, A, et al2011, Strategic Asia 2011-12: Asia responds to its Rising Powers: China and India, New York, NBR. Read More

The dominance of the US as being the only superpower that has remained in the “Post-Cold War” International system has resulted to some talking of a unipolar moment (Arase & Akaha, 2013). Despite the fact that the military prowess of the United States has still remained unrivalled, the economic, technological and scientific aspects of the United States of America is actually becoming less active and dominant in general global terms. As a result, the emergence of a European Union comprising of about 25 or 27 member states has become a very distinctive centre of power within the West.

In other parts, other emerging powers; for instance India and China have become mentioned more frequently and are therefore depicted as being increasingly to challenge the leadership of the West and more specifically of the United States of America. Eventually, the two States, that is China, and India are perhaps perceived as having overtaken most if not all of the contemporary great powers. The emerging challenge towards the power of the United States in the international system has emerged from the geoeconomic challenge due to a growth in the power resources of the emerging market.

Such a rapid challenge has posed serious implications for the contemporary G7 industrialized nations. Indeed, lots of articles and books, mostly by the Americans have currently been written regarding the apparent trends which warn that the US with its current power is not actually ready for the changes that are coming ahead. For instance, a former Under Secretary of Commerce who served in the Bush Administration known as Jeffrey Garten wrote almost ten years ago that “.dealing with the big emerging markets will be key to our economic well being and to our security in the decades ahead.”. He, therefore, advocated that the United States need a new mindset regarding its social and economic policies and also seek for new strategies for its involvement or indulgence in overseas countries.

He asserted that the United States was totally unprepared in tackling this challenge. The ten big emerging markets (BEM) which were identified by Garten based on the criteria of resource bases, large populations, regional influence, expanding market reach, liberalization, international ambitions and high economic growth includes countries like Brazil, China and India which have emerged as being the leading three along with South Korea, Indonesia, Argentina, South Africa, Poland, Turkey and South Africa.

Garten therefore argued that the big ten emerging markets would actually become the crux of all the main global dynamics in the coming decades and therefore this would need a massive shift in the way the policy makers in the West think about the nation’s strategic international interests. In essence, the United States of America will, therefore, have to strengthen its relationship with China since it will become the major focus of its entire foreign policy in the next decade (Drezner, 2009).

A change in the world disorder due to an expectation of rapid changes has also posed a greater challenge to the United States due to a growth in international policy agendas which have not only become more interconnected but also more complex as well. Recent forecasts have also pointed out the fact that the Asian Giants, China and India have increasingly played a vital role in world affairs, and their superiority has even superseded that of Japan. Indeed, the significance that is played by a shift in the international balance of power that is Asia-Driven was undertaken by the United States’ National Intelligence Council.

The prospect of having more multi-polar international states systems in the world has even become more clear and this is not only attributed to the rise of the East Asian Economies like that of China which has threaten the US States international power but also due to China’s strengthened international clout coupled with the other States in East Asia. These could ultimately serve to threaten the United States’ structural power in the international finances and thus further to pose a great threat to its power.

Read More