Has US Superpower Unipolarity Produced Effective Challengers - Assignment Example

Has US Superpower polarity produced effective challengers? Why? Why not? The collapse of the Soviet Union effectively left the United States the sole superpower. It seemed that this was an opportune time for new up-and-coming players such as India and China to thrust themselves into the limelight, and thus challenge American hegemony. It seems that if the United States had been perceived around the world as being concerned with the needs of the world as a whole, no country would have begrudged America its leadership position, especially since many nations openly admit that their economies depend on America. In other words America would have continued to enjoy the backing of most of the world if it had sought to act always in a manner that reflected thoughtfulness, balance, and fairness. Even though no challengers have emerged against US military power, there have been major cracks in the notion of America's pre-eminence and there have been effective challengers though the turf upon which America is being challenged is not on just military grounds. In effect, even though no other nations have tried to make a bid towards a direct military challenge of the US, America’ seeming impotence in Iraq and Afghanistan, its inability to project even-handedness in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have all opened up the opportunity for challengers though the definition of what it means to be powerful seems to encompass more than the ability to bomb others into oblivion. America’s Image Problem The idea of multipolarity was broached as far back as the 1950s, and has been in and out of fashion as a theory. This is certainly not the first time in which the death of the United States as the sole super power, has been raised. As Wohlforth writes, "The concern that as...other powers rise, the United States will lose its competitive edge" (2007, p44) is not new. It was raised "during the 1950s (Sputknik), the 1970s (Vietnam & Stagflation), and the 1980s (the Soviet threat and Japan as a potential challenger" (Wohlforth 2007, p 44). America’s preeminence was called into question in the instances mentioned above because there were shifts, economic, technological political, social or otherwise, that suggested that a redistribution of power was taking place. "But in each case, analysts' responses to those changes seem to have been overblown. Multipolarity -- an international system marked by three or more roughly equally matched major powers -- did not return in the 1960s, 1970s, or early 1990s, and each decline scare ended with the United States' position of primacy arguably strengthened" (Wohlforth 20007 p 44). In effect, America was able renew itself every time and to set forth into the future with a renewed sense of purpose. While we cannot be sure if the changes that experts are beginning to see, are deep enough, there is no question that the current economic crisis, which apparently emanated from the United States, has tarnished the image of the country. If other countries are emerging as challengers to America, it may not be because these countries are eager to; rather, America’s attitude has left open the possibility for these new players to fill some slots where America seems to have fallen down. No one can deny that the United States is powerful and that it has a formidable military arsenal. As the Vietnamese proved, however, the force of arms may be enough to get attention but not respect. The perception that the United States was an aggressor nation during the Vietnam War, and more recently during the Iraq war, serve to weaken the image of the United States despite its military might. When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, the US image was dented because it seemed as though the country was simply throwing its power around. The limited utility of the military as a force of persuasion became glaringly apparent in 2007 when the US was unable to overcome the Iraqi counterinsurgency and civil. Americana then seemed to have “feet of clay. All the hard data on US military superiority -- its over one-half of global defense spending, some 70 percent of global military. R & D dominance information-intensive warfare - now appear in anew light. The world's most vaunted military machine is not even able to take disorganized Sunni and Shi'ah militias in Mesopotamia" (Wohlforth 2007). In fact, it was not only the Sunni and Shi'ah militias that were unimpressed by American military power. At a time when the United States had thousands of soldiers in Iraq, would-be fighters were trying to make their way across the border, not out of Iraq for fear of being killed by the Americans, but into Iraq from various parts of the Middle East ready to do damage to the US army. Among the things these jihadists have given the US to think about are roadside bombs that have continued to evolve or mutate, and other explosive devices, including rockets fired into the Green Zone, the most fortified part of Iraq. A Parade of Effective Challengers: Iran, Terrorists, China, and the Rest America's military might is already a given. Staying on top, in terms of its power, in the next few years and decades, will depend less on military might than on the willingness of the country to show respect for others and to seek a more multilateral approach to handling global concerns. The fact that Americans have begun to pay attention to the demands of the rest of the world is proof positive that the challenge to America has been effective on many fronts. Already, the new administration of Barack Obama seems to understand that America, despite its formidable arsenal, cannot continue to ignore the concerns of the rest of the world. In addressing the Iranians on video in March of 2009, Obama made references to the great Persian culture and the possibility of re-establishing the two countries' relationship in a spirit of mutual respect. It would take many more overtures for America to win the trust of the Iranian government, but the fact that the US administration is taking this step is an indication of America’s realization that threatening countries with their military power does not work. In the face of Iran’s continued defiance regarding the possible development of nuclear weapons it may be the United States that will be forced to blink. According to Dombey (2009), a policy review commissioned by President Obama has yielded discussions that include the policy that America might have to live with an Iran that has nuclear technology. In effect, “US officials are considering whether to accept Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment, which has been outlawed by the United Nations and remains at the heart of fears that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.” As part of a policy review commissioned by President Barack Obama, diplomats are discussing whether the US will eventually have to accept Iran's insistence on carrying out the process, which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons- grade material. As Dombey writes, "There's a fundamental impasse between the western demand for no enrichment and the Iranian demand to continue enrichment," says Mark Fitzpatrick, a former state department expert now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "There's no obvious compromise between those two positions" (Dombey 2009, 4). While George Bush was president, among the range of options put forward, was the possibility that Iran might have the chance of resuming enrichment of uranium. Dombey further writes that, There is a growing recognition in [Washington] that the zero [enrichment] solution, though still favoured, simply is unfeasible," says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. "The US may still have zero as its opening position, while recognising it may not be where things stand at the end of a potential agreement." (Dombey 2009, 4) Part of what makes the Iranian case compelling is the simple fact that the United States holds numerous nuclear weapons, ostensibly to defend itself. When Iranians ask why it is that America should be free to defend itself with nuclear weapons but that Iranians ought not be able to do so, many people around the world can understand the logic and may take America’s hard stance towards Iran as nothing but hypocrisy. Despite numerous US demands, Iran has accelerated its program. Another country that is effectively challenging the United States is China. China’s goal does not seem to be one of seeking to win a shooting war with the United States. Such an eventuality is unlikely to be of much help to China or its masses whose concerns still revolve around bread and butter issues. This is not to deny that there are strong feelings of nationalism in China as evidenced by the lengths the country went to create a spectacular Olympic Games. Though China’s economic might is growing, Wohlforth points out that economic strength or size is hardly enough to project power. After all, India is estimated to have had a much larger economy than the British Isles when it was colonized in the nineteenth century. Studies of national power in the post-industrial age finds that what matters most today is not just economic size, but wealth and technological development. Indeed, even if China’s overall GDP did come to equal that of the United States, its per capita GDP would still be only one-quarter that of the United States. (Wohlforth 2007, p44) If the United States military might and decisions the country has made in the past have brought widespread distrust of America, why would China want to emulate a similar projection of power. Chinese leaders know the value of talking the long term view, and by laying the foundation for an educated citizenry, the country would reach, sooner or later, the level of technological sophistication that will make it respected in its own right. China’s successful launch of satellites and their manned spacecraft have served notice that even if it does not move as fast as the United States, it is nonetheless moving in a direction of steady progress and in a way that may not seem obnoxious to the rest of the world. It is in recognition of China’s growing clout and importance that the country was invited to take part in the 6-nation group focusing on resolving issues related to North Korea. The US clearly determined that it did not have enough leverage over North Korea to make a difference and that China’s participation could be crucial. The United States implicitly acknowledged that America’s power was limited and that China’s voice and power could add something of value to the mix. China's increase in stature is also evident from the failure of the world to speak up about one of the saddest unfolding tragedies of our era - the case of Tibet. That the United States has been reduced to making excuses every time it receives the Dalai Lama is in itself an admission that the United States does not want to offend China. And what is power if not to have people or nations think twice before acting against your interest? In fact, recently, when Hillary Clinton, the new Secretary of State, visited Beijing, she said that the U.S. was no longer going to harp on human rights but that the U.S. would concentrate on areas of mutual interest with China. As Bezlova (2009) reports, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent remarks en route to China that contentious issues such as human rights "can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises" have been interpreted here as a signal that China is gaining an upper hand in a long and raucous debate about what constitutes human rights for the world's most populous country.” The fact that China holds billions of dollars in US bonds makes the United States vulnerable to China, another indication that China is becoming more and more powerful even if it is not yet at the stature of America’s military might. As Schmid (2008) writes, “Tax rates could double. Spending on education, research, health and even Social Security could be squeezed tighter than ever. And foreign governments could use powerful financial leverage, rather than military force, to impose their economic and political agendas on the United States” (2008). The reason, of course, is the United States’ national deb which has been financed largely by China and various oil producing countries. The US has become beholden to these countries. Conclusion In discussing the issue of whether there are effective challengers to the US, the first thing that comes to mind is the military might of this sole superpower. But many countries are defiant in the face of such power; in fact, too much projection of power is part of the reason America is not so well liked in many areas. China and other countries on the rise do not seem to desire to be in a similar position as the United States. Rather, they seek to promote a new system in which they will remain assertive against the United States but maintain a healthy respect for the nation and its people. Bibliography Betts, Richard K. “The Soft Underbelly of American Primacy. Tactical Advantages of Terror.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 117 no. 1 (Spring 2002). Bezlova, Antoaneta. “Economy-China: Meltdown Silences Human Rights Critics. Global Information Network, (Mar 6, 2009). Bhattacharya, Abanti. “Revisiting China’s “Peaceful Rise”: Implications for India. East Asia, vol 22 no 4(2005):59-80. Brooks, Stephen G. “American Primacy in Perspective.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 81 no 4 (Jul/Aug 2002). Dombey, Daniel. “US may cede to Iran’s nuclear ambition.” Financial Times, (Apr 4, 2009): 4. Schmid, John. “National debt makes U.S. vulnerable, experts say: Londer nations could wage ‘financial warfare.’ McClatchy-Tribune Business News (Jun 30, 2008). Zakaria, Fareed. “The Rise of the Rest.” The New York Times,, vol. 141, no. 7/8 (Dec 1-Dec 15, 2008):10. Wohlforth, William. “Unipolar Stability.” Harvard International Review, vol. 29 no 1 (2007);44. Read More