Reflection 3
The idea of U.S. hegemony is a surprisingly terrifying topic. The United States has extended its influence to the corners of the globe, which although that promotes high levels of prosperity at home, it also creates many tangible dangers. By intervening in such a large number of international affairs, many times uninvited, the U.S. makes enemies. The realist theory of basically every state for itself brings into question the idea of a successful hegemony. Although it is undeniable that the U.S. promotes peace and democracy as a catch phrase around the world, when it engages in mediation, inevitably one side of the argument leaves with a bad taste in their mouth. Therefore one side of the negotiations has negative U.S. sentiments. In regards to the side that was most assisted, despite the fact that the U.S. helped them in a conflict, if we adhere to realist theory, eventually that state will owe nothing to America and once again view its own interests as paramount.
Hegemony promotes economic wealth and national security, but only for a certain amount of time. Regardless of how benevolent the hegemony is or seems to be, eventually it becomes overbearing on friendly states, and those states begin to rally for repossession of their full sovereignty. The fact is that empires fall. In the history of humanity there has not been any empire that has endured from its convocation until today, therefore none has been able to withstand the test of time. For the United States it is only a matter of time before world politics reverts to a more natural bipolar or multipolar state of being, and we as Americans have no way of knowing how or when that will happen, and that is why last Friday scared the crap out of me.
Hmmm. Is the end of US hegemony really such an alarming concept? Many states today (I'm thinking specifically of those in Western Europe) are relatively content with their identity as sovereign, stable, prosperous -- and non-hegemonic -- states. Remember that realists argue that multipolarity is inherently more stable than a unipolar system, since the power in the international system is more "balanced" -- more equally distributed among a group of relevant players, and states can band together to check the hegemonic (and therefore threatening) aspirations of another rising power. Stepping outside the US perspective for a moment, do you think the rest of the world would be more comfortable with a perpetuation of US hegemony or with a multipolar distribution of power? Here you might think of the distinction Layne draws between "extant" superpowers and the rise of superpowers that realist theory tends to think of. Does it make a difference that the US is *already* a superpower, rather than an aspiring one?
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting question, but I think from a security and prosperity stand point it is a discouraging discussion. From the security stand point, if America loses military hegemony, that occurence would not diminish the anti-American sentiments held by terrorist organizations, because these extremist institutions are far more concerned with American ideology and religion than with military or economic influence. So because there would continue to be an increasing terrorist threat, and a decrease in our security capabilities it goes to reason that America would be more vulnerable to attack. Economically, the European countries who have secondary power roles in contemporary IR have far fewer citizens to support, and a relatively less complex economic system. Also they experience stimulus from their part in the EU, through inter-euro trade freedoms. In contrast the U.S. has a larger population to support, and if we were to lose our hegemonic status, we would further be indebted to and under the influence of China. So it is worrisome to consider the fall of the U.S. "empire."
ReplyDelete