Is the US still a Global Hegemonic Power - Dissertation Example

Is the US still a global hegemonic power Introduction. In the years immediately following the Second World War most analysts would have agreed that the Soviet Union and the United States shared a “superpower” status which held the world in a state of uneasy balance that was given the name “The Cold War.” It could be said that they were holding each other in check with the mutual threat of nuclear war, and racing with each other to achieve supremacy in economic, political, military and cultural domains. In the years since the second world war, there are countries which have demonstrated comparable population size (China and India) or economic strength (Japan, the European Union if seen as a single unit, and rising “tiger economies”), or political and cultural influence (the European Union) but Russia and the United States were key players in all of those dimensions. The break-up of the Soviet regime in the late twentieth century, however, changed all that, leaving the United States in a uniquely powerful position in the world. This situation has been labelled a “global hegemony” based on the Greek word hegemon meaning leader. A hegemony demonstrates supremacy and leadership, but it also implies that there are others who more or less willingly follow this leadership and sustain the hegemony with their support. In modern times the phrase “global hegemony” the phrase has been defined with an emphasis on economics as a situation which “requires a preponderance of material resources, in terms of raw materials, sources of capital, market dominance and advantages in the production of highly valued goods.” (Kehoane, 1984, p. ) The supremacy of the United states in technology and its ability to influence international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund , which support capitalist free market economy ideals, has helped to ensure that America maintained a hegemonic position in the mid twentieth century. Other analysts view the situation of the United States in terms of a “theory of hegemonic stability” which maintains that “the presence of a single, strongly dominant actor in international politics leads to collectively desirable outcomes for all states in the international system.” (Snidal, 1985, 579) Snidal argues that the dominance can be exercised in both coercive leadership and benevolent leadership and of course the leader can determine at any point which type to apply. There are two ways in which such a hegemonic power can decline: “the absolute decline of the dominant actor (e.g. Spain beginning in the late 16th century) or from positive but differential growth rates through which secondary powers ‘catch up’ with a former leader (e.g. the ‘decline with growth of the United States after 1960).” (Snidal, 1985, 585) It seems that in the new millennium a number of other players have finally begun to “catch up” with the United States, notably the European Union which increasingly acts in a unified strategy on international issues, and China, which is emerging as a new world economic power which has the potential to dwarf even the United States. American hegemony is now being questioned both in terms of its current ability to provide benefits for other countries lower down in the hierarchy, and in terms of its ability to sustain itself in the face of emerging competition. This paper starts from the assumption that the United States was a global hegemonic power, jointly with the U.S.S.R. from 1945 and then in its own right from the late 1980s at least. It then examines arguments which support the idea that the United States is still a global hegemonic power and arguments against. Economic, political, military and cultural factors are considered in turn, and then the arguments are discussed, explaining why the hegemonic power of the United States is currently under threat, and concluding in the end that the United States is still a hegemonic power, but that this situation is not likely to last very much longer. 2. Arguments supporting the view that the US is still a global hegemonic power. 2.1 Economic reasons. The clearest evidence of United States global hegemony can be seen in the fields of finance, and the regulation of world trade. The dollar has, until very recently, been regarded as the key currency upon which other currencies depend, and the whole system of international trade operates on the dollar as a benchmark. The United states was also a leading influence along with some European nations in the setting up of multilateral treaties and agreements which set the rules for international trade. Clearly a country with a well-developed legal tradition, and ample resources to launch initiatives, objections and appeals has a better chance of benefiting within a system that is created in its own image. Countries which have different legal traditions, and especially those which have limited cash resources tend to have little option but accept the rules and conditions which are set by organizations like the IMF and the WTO: In the multilateral trade system, where market access is the agenda, bargaining power is in large part a simple function of market size.” (Smith, 2004, 545) America’s technological supremacy also gives it a head start in trade negotiations, and since most countries depend on this knowledge to develop their own industries, there is a great incentive to keep friendly relations with the United states in order to access all the beneficial technologies that are required in a modern state. Political reasons In pursuing a strategy of alliance with developed countries particularly in Europe, the United states builds on an established network of power that has been in operation since the sixteenth century. In 1945 Europe was in such a state of exhaustion and poverty that America, which was far less severely damaged by this dreadful war, stepped in and was welcomed with open arms, taking the role of protector and savior of the embattled Western allies against Fascism. This is a role which lingers on in the minds of Americans, and can be heard in the speeches of American politicians who extol the virtues of freedom and democracy and oppose regimes, notably socialist or communist ones, which favour a more authoritarian and dictatorial style. As so often in history, it is the winners of wars who determine the rules of the game for those who survive into the phase which follows. The world of the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries is characterized by the rise in a number of non-governmental players which include multinational corporations, multilateral organisations with specific policy making and regulatory functions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations etc, and charity organisations which attempt to mitigate the extremes of poverty in the world. These forces also rest on a general acceptance of a free market economy and work together in ways which enhance the dominance of developed countries at the expense of developing ones, and the United States has from the beginning been at the heart of these multilateral players. The ability to determine the rules of the world trading game, and the economic and military power to effectively punish those who break those rules, gives the United States a key position in the world. One of the reasons for this is that the IMF and the World Bank were set up in a way that did not reflect the users of the institutions, and especially areas such as Africa, which were most affected by them. (Woods, 2001, pp. 84-85) Another is that the role of these organisations has expanded, but their accountability has not, since they are neither elected nor subject to any higher authority. Furthermore, trans national non-governmental agencies have been gaining informal power and influence in the world and are increasingly consulted by the IMF and World Bank, which erodes the rights of under-represented developing countries still further. (Woods, 2001, pp. 90-95) America is not likely to give up these advantages any time soon. 2.2 Military reasons Of all the countries in the world with substantial military power, the United States has been one of the most eager to get involved in conflicts outside its own immediate geographical area to defend its interests and increasingly also to take on the role of “world policeman” curtailing the activities of states which are perceived to be acting unlawfully against weaker states. The recent raid in Pakistan which captured and executed Osama bin Laden is an example of this hegemony. Ventures in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan demonstrate American military prowess and serve as a warning to other states against resisting American objectives. Cultural reasons. The United States, thanks to efforts of a previous global hegemony, the British Empire of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, has inherited a position of cultural dominance largely due to its English language and largely European cultural base. The second language, Spanish, is also a product of earlier colonial expansion from Europe. By operating in these two languages, America has easy access to wide expanses of the globe who speak English or Spanish as first, or as second official languages. China, in comparison, faces a huge barrier because it has been closed to large areas of the world and familiarity with its language and customs is relatively weak in areas outside its immediate area of influence. American ideas like neoliberalism are communicated along with American cultural artifacts like films and commercial products. This is the exercise of so-called “soft power” which facilitates a gradual advance of American world view across the globe. Cultural factors like this are not the cause of American hegemony, but they certainly make it easier for American leaders to communicate their goals and persuade other states to follow their lead. 3. Arguments against the view that the US is a continuing global hegemonic power. 3.1 Economic reasons One of the most striking features of globalization is that states have become much more interdependent. Former colonialist structures operated under a clear hierarchy of wealth and power. In modern times there is still a hierarchy of power due to the more advanced technological abilities of first world countries, and vast areas of economic deprivation in developing countries. The inequalities between northern and southern hemispheres are well documented but change is underway, and resistance to coercive hegemony is increasing (Arrighi et al, 2003). Despite this, there are now many areas in which developing countries have significant advantages. The lower labor costs in India, for example, have enabled that country to attract international investment and shift service jobs away from high labor cost countries like the UK and the United States. Key resources such as coffee, hard woods and many valuable minerals are located in the third world, and as post industrialist countries have high demands for such goods, but little or no production capacity, they are forced to trade even when market prices are unfavorable. Former colonies are no longer in a situation where they are forced to provide these goods at exploitative prices, and so a pattern of collaboration is a logical strategy that both parties can use to sustain mutually beneficial arrangements. A more extensive network of collaborative agreements is beginning to undermine the influence of the United States and recent disasters like the global recession of 2009-2010 add weight to the theory that the age of the dominance of the dollar on world currency markets may be coming to an end. The role of other economies in stabilizing world markets is growing, and now that developed countries are seeking assistance from the likes of China in dealing with debt problems the balance of power is beginning to shift. (Viotti, 2009, p. 730) America is not immune to problems like insurmountable debt, currency fluctuation and natural disasters, and as some of these take on truly global proportions, America is beginning to lose its status as a provider of assistance for others, and is becoming increasingly also a victim who needs the support of allies to overcome its internal problems. 3.2 Politicial reasons. There are some new forces coming to fore in world politics, and these include emerging economies that have been increasing their capabilities in recent years and raising their voices to demand change in the power structures that govern international affairs. A new group called the BRICs countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are not allies in any true sense but they share similar dissatisfaction with the dominance of the United States, and they offer individually and collectively a challenge to the status quo. In a meeting in September 2010, representatives from these four countries met and issued a press release calling for “a substantial shift in voting power in favour of emerging market economies and developing countries to bring their participation in decision making in line with their relative weight in the world economy.” ( CNN business news, 16 April, 2010) This argument has been put forward again and again in recent years by developing countries, and some very powerful economies like Japan and other East Asian countries who see that the institutions which govern so many world affairs are made up from an increasingly out-dated and unrepresentative sample of the old colonial elite powers along with the United States. Issues like permanent seats on the UN Security Council, voting rights and veto powers on many committees and in many organizations are so far removed from the relative importance of the different nation states that the legitimacy of these official bodies is very hard to defend. When one realizes that in the year 2000 the United States held 19.6 per cent of the votes on the IMF, and a veto power on any constitutional changes to this body, it is obvious that such a situation cannot continue much longer. (Rapkin, Elston and Strand, 1997, p. 172) Gilpin refers to this scenario as “institutional lag” which means in effect that America’s post war hegemony has been built into the structures that are used to manage world affairs internationally. These outdated forms are increasingly under pressure and the United States is gradually being pushed out of its pole position and into the sidelines. Military reasons Some observers note that the economic and political shifts outlined above herald the approaching end of American hegemony . Two of the BRICs countries, in particular raise the spectre of global conflict which could arise when an old hegemony fails and a new one rises, “Perhaps this is because China and Russia appear to pose a greater military threat, as both are long-declared nuclear states with large standing armies.” (Armijo, 2007, p. 27) The evident military strength of these two, coupled with the growing economic and political clout of the BRICs constellation could signal the start of a new multi-polar system. This could come about by means of gradual evolution of the world’s political and economic systems, but scholars have noted that this may not be the most likely outcome: “the principal mechanism of change throughout history has been war, or what we shall call hegemonic war (i.e. a war that determines which state or states will be dominant and will govern the system). The peace settlement following such a hegemonic struggle reorders the political, territorial and other bases of the system.” (Gilpin, 1984, p. 15) Following this analysis it seems likely that a hegemonic war is brewing, in which the United States is likely to be forced to surrender its unfair advantage under the current systems, while a new redistribution of power will form the basis of the next period of equilibrium. 3.4 Cultural reasons. Besides the economic impact, one of the other the major effects of globalization is that it brings countries into closer contact with a range of different ideologies. The age of the internet has seen vast areas of the globe competing for the hearts and minds of particularly younger people who are disappointed at the low pace of development in some third world countries, and the slow industrial decline in most developed countries. Recent uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa region have sharpened divisions between ruling elites and disadvantage majorities within Arab nations, but they have also highlighted the abject failure of so many international initiatives in these countries. When countries see no hope for improvement in their internal structures, and still worse exploitation in outside multilateral organizations, then there is plenty of room for extremism to take root and grow. America likes to depict uprisings in Muslim countries as being fed by terrorist groups like Al Qaida but in fact the arrogant and greedy activities of American companies and agencies, not to mention military units on many occasions, hardens attitudes towards the United States and encourages people to reject all aspects of Western Culture. When rhetoric such as the “War on Terror” campaign of President Bush, and more recently also President Obama, is used to justify the flouting of international law, then it is not surprising that even moderate Muslims are outraged. The recent capture and killing of Osama bin Laden was an ostentatious use of “hard power” and is likely to provoke understandable accusations of hypocrisy and a spate of further terrorism as Muslims seek to avenge what is patently an unjust means, even if the end of removing Osama bin Laden from an active role in terrorist activity was a legitimate end. American culture is not admired throughout the world, and as other countries catch up economically and politically, they gain an incentive and the ability to stand up to American cultural hegemony. American artefacts, and American trade goods become a symbol of evil in such a context, and this in turn favors the entry of newcomers with no recent history of such behavior. 4. Discussion The arguments outlined above both for and against the US continuing in its present hegemonic role reveal that the world is currently in a phase of significant change. The United States appears to be sustaining its efforts to exercise both hard power and soft power just as much as ever, and so far, there appears to be no counterbalancing state power, of the kind that the Soviet Union used to represent, or any alternative world order emerging to replace the accustomed hegemonic order of international relations. It can certainly be argued that the United States is declining, in economic terms, as recent financial crises have tied emerging economies more fully into the global markets, often stepping in to bail out failed United States policy decisions which have destabilized international markets. Dissatisfaction with neo-liberalism, and indeed with global capitalism in general is high, but it is difficult to determine what kind of ideology could usefully replace it. There is no doubt that America is in a period of decline. Long and costly wars in the Gulf and in Afghanistan are increasingly unpopular with the American public, and the new global “war on terror” has caused a retrenchment in public opinion towards “homeland security” and away from large scale military intervention. If the future brings more guerrilla-style tactics, such as terrorist attacks and undercover raids, as seems likely, then all the nuclear weapons and high tech armies in the world will not be effective ways to maintain supremacy. A key question will be who makes the rules for international collaboration and who enforces them (or does not enforce them). If there is weak global governance, then US is likely to dominate for many decades still, using its political clout to manipulate official bodies. Non governmental organizations are gaining in importance and the the US is losing influence here as new collaborations begin to be formed. Other countries, even China, are unlikely to be a threat to US military and political power in the short term. Economic and cultural areas are less certain: the recent credit crunch and resistance to US culture have damaged US reputation. 5. Conclusion The rhetoric of being a guardian of world freedom and democracy is wearing very thin, when one considers the many military interventions that the US have made, or have participated in, across the world in the years since the end of the Second World War. The American hegemonic position is declining, and there are multiple other forces coming to the fore. There are international organizations and agreements to curtail any one country from having too much power but they do not work very effectively. If China becomes more politically secure and integrates more fully into world affairs, then it could replace the US as a global hegemonic power within 20 years. If not, then the outcome is likely to be a continuation of the present hegemonic status with increasing, resistance in many parts of the world. The more conflict there is in the world, the stronger the US is likely to remain. The biggest threat to US hegemony is if other countries group together and ensure that hegemony by any one country is not possible any more. An equally possible, but less predictable scenario is that a hegemonic war will develop. It is true to say, therefore that the United States still is a hegemonic power and will retain this position for a while, but the longer term (more than 20 years from now) could look very different. References Arrighi, G., Silver, B.J.and Brewer, B.D. (2003) Industrial convergence, globalization, and the persistence of the North-South divide. Studies in Comparative International Development 38 (1), 3-31. Armijo, L.E. (2007) The Brics Countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) as an analytical category: mirage or insight? Asian Perspective 31(4), 7-42. Campbell, H. (2008) China in Africa: challenging US global hegemony. Third World Quarterly 29 (8), 9 – 105. CNN business news (April 16, 2010) “BRIC leaders: IMF, World Bank has ‘legitimacy deficits,”. Available online at: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/04/15/bric.summit.brazil/index.html Beeson, M. (2009) Comment: Trading places? China, the United States and the evolution of the international political economy. Review of International Political Economy, 16 (4), 729-74 Garrett, G. (2010) G2 in G20: China, the United States and the world after the Global Financial Crisis. Global Policy 1 (1), 29-39. Gilpin, R. (1981) War and Change in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gilpin, R. (2000) The Challenge of Global Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Keohane, R. (1984) After Hegemony: Co-operation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Nye, J. (2002) The Paradox of American Power. New York: Oxford University Press. Rapkin, D.P., Elston, J.U. and Strand, J.R., (2000) Institutional adjustment to changed power distributions: Japan and the United States in the IMF. Global governance 3 (2), 171-195. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Roberts, C. (2010) Polity Forum: Challengers or Stakeholders? BRICS and the Liberal World Order. Polity 42 (1), 1-13 Smith, J. (2004) Inequality in international trade? Developing countries and institutional change in WTO dispute settlement. Review of International Political Economy. 11 (3), 542-57. Snidal, D. (1985) The limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory. International Organization 39 (4), 579-614. Viotti, P. and Kauppi, M. (1999) International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. Wade, R. H. (2003) What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The World Trade Organization and the shrinking of ‘development space’. Review of International Political Economy, 10 (4), 621-64. Wilkinson, R. (2001) The WTO in Crisis: Exploring the Dimensions of Institutional Inertia. Journal of World Trade. 35 (3), 397-419. Woods, N. (2001) Making the IMF and the World Bank More Accountable. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 77 (1), 83-100. Woods, N. (2010) Global Governance after the Financial Crisis: A New Multilateralism or the Last Gasp of the Great Powers? Global Policy Vol. 1 (1), 51-63. Read More