Transcript Perspectives on US Hegemony

Perspectives on US Hegemony
READINGS:
COX AND STOKES CH 21, NYE, GELB,
ZAKARIA, BACEVICH, FERGUSON, JOFFE
Announcements
 Electronic reserves:
 Ferguson and Bacevich will be up soon
 Supplemental reading
 We will be discussing Kagan 2007 in lecture


Same Kagan 2007 discussed in unit on Russia
 Neo-conservative take on hegemony
Not required reading, but if you want to read/use it for your
final examination, please feel free

http://bit.ly/9HvofI
Guiding Questions
 What is the “security trap”?
 How can the US avoid the “security trap”?
 Why do we care about US hegemony?
 Should the US maintain hegemony? Can it?
 What is meant by “the rise of the rest”?
 Does the “rise of the rest” threaten US foreign policy?
US Hegemony: Who Cares?
 US remains the sole superpower in the post Cold War
world.
 Stance on failed states, democracy, the peace process,
climate change, etc., has international ramifications
 Debates over US decline and its ramifications for
international politics focuses on several questions:
 What role does US hegemony play in international
politics?
 How should the US maintain hegemony?
 Should the US seek to maintain hegemony?
Power without Authority?
 Ikenberry 2008
 Hegemony has created a paradox for US foreign policy
 US is the most powerful state in the world

Yet, its international authority suffered during the Bush administration
 Anti-Americanism on the rise throughout the world creates a situation where
the US has “power without authority”
• Has capacity to act but not the legitimacy to act
 “Power without authority” not a foregone conclusion
 The “End of History” favored US ideals

Liberal democracy, global markets, multilateral governance
 So what happened?
 Weakened authority is a function of unwillingness by US
administrations to realize that a transformation within the
international system is occurring

American power increasingly more controversial and contested during the Bush
administration

Iraq war largest manifestation of this
The Changing International Context and the Security Trap
 Ikenberry 2008
 Three major shifts in the international context are critical for world politics
 Rise of unipolarity


US as the hegemon has greater options and opportunities to act, but this creates resentment
 Incentives to “go it alone” and/or incentives for allies to “free ride” can create conflict
Changing norms of sovereignty have altered the international context


Balancing in not an option in a unipolar context
 Power threatens smaller states regardless of who wields said power
International “rights to intervene” have weakened norms of sovereignty
 Norms such as R2P create the basis for powerful states to intervene in weaker states
•

But these norms are still evolving
Democratization can weaken other states reliance on the US


There is no anti-democratic threat to bind allies together and provide legitimacy for US action
Democracies are unlikely to “fall in line’ behind the US without reason
 Failure to recognize these shifts creates the “security trap”
 The more the US tries to use power/force to solve security issues the more it faces resistance and
becomes more isolated

The way in which the US uses force is key to its legitimacy
 Must accept restraint on its power via international institutions to regain its authority
 Upsetting a “rules based order” creates the impression that the US is a “revisionist”
state
Return to a “Rules Based” Order?
 Ikenberry 2008
 To avoid this security trap, future US administrations must:

1) Signal a willingness to operate within a “rules based” order


2) Find ways to make the use of force contingent upon collective decision making bodies


Return to a WW2 mindset where US not only creates international rules/institutions but also
follows said rules/institutions
 Constrains US power but gives it legitimacy
UN Security Council ideal; NATO also works
 Reduces policy autonomy but creates burden sharing
 Reduces the “footprint of unipolarity”
3) Create a new vision of an international order that de-emphasizes military strength

Advance a liberal world order which is seen as “mutually beneficial” throughout the
international community
 Ikenberry 2010
 Obama administration’s “liberal institutionalist” vision is the right
approach to deal with avoiding the “security trap”
Facilitating Decline?
 Can the US perform all of its “required” roles in this new
international context?
 Gelb 2010
 US leadership is key for solving international problems

But it is a nation in decline


1) Deteriorating infrastructure, schools and political system
2) Diminished economic strength, weaker democratic vitality have created a
“malaise”
 Economic competitiveness and political cohesion are key to US strength
and both are declining
• US as a debtor nation
• Republicans and Democrats do not cooperate
 The “demons of ideology, politics, and arrogance” are
responsible for this decline

Instead, Democrats are too afraid of looking weak and Republicans
engage in swaggering and unwilling to look at facts
Avoiding Decline?
 Gelb 2010
 1) Restore American dynamism and economic
competitiveness
 2) US indispensability is key in the post Cold War era

But this requires ad hoc partnerships to solve pressing problems
NOT necessarily multilateralism
 3) Focus US resources on the most pressing threats

Power requires prioritizing threat in order to be used effectively
 4) Develop policy and coalitions BEFORE a threat arises
 5) Power in the post Cold War world is about more than
just the use of force

Economics and diplomacy are key
American Decline? Not So Fast…
 Nye 2009
 US will remain the pre-eminent in the foreseeable future

Must differentiate between relative and absolute decline
 The latter is problematic for the US
 Rotting “from within” is more likely than challenge from outside
 But even here, the US is more robust than often described
 Power distribution is different today than in previous eras



1st level: military power-US has no rivals
2nd level: economic power-multipolar world
3rd level: transnational relations-power is diffuse
 US must worry about non state actors and ideas
 Competitors have economic and political impediments which will “complicate” its
rise

US immigration policy, economic growth, and university system will enhance its soft
power
 Combining hard power resources while enhancing soft power resources (i.e. smart
power) key for maintaining hegemony
Debunking Decline
 Joffe 2009
 Fears about US decline are nothing new
Pundits and scholars habitually raise concerns about the decline of US
hegemony
 1950’s-1970’s: Soviet Union
 1980’s: Japan
 Today: EU/China
 Even in the midst of a major current crisis, forecasting decline ignores the
unmatched nature of US influence/strength on all real indicators of power
(cultural, economic, military, diplomatic)
 Patterns of “glee and gloom” obscure this reality
 US military and higher educational system places it in a league of its own
 China typically cited as the most likely “threat” to hegemony”
 But China does not threaten US supremacy

US Hegemony as Empire?
 Ferguson 2004
 US hegemony is a fancy term for empire.

Although the US hates the term the US is an “informal empire”
 World benefits from a liberal empire

Protect rule of law, reduce corruption, maintain economic markets,
etc.).

The US is the only state which can play this role
 Accepting the mantle of empire has both materialist and
altruistic components.


Materialist: deposing despots and containing epidemics makes the
US safer.
Altruism: humanitarian intervention is sometimes necessary and
the US is often the only state with the resources to act
US Hegemony as Empire?
Bacevich 2008
 US interventionism often justified on the basis of a supposedly existential threat from
fundamentalist Islam.
 Open-ended “war on terror” motivated by an attempt to consolidate power within the
executive branch and the military-industrial complex.
 US falsely believes that its strength makes it indispensable and that hegemony gives it the
right to impose beliefs and values on other nations.
 Focusing on the periphery is damaging for US foreign and domestic policy.


Belief in invincibility led the US to ignore internal threats (i.e. 9/11).
Resorting to force in the name of freedom undermines US values.
 And boosts and imperial presidency that undermines Constitution
 The belief that the US is beyond challenge fosters a belief amongst the American public
that they deserve more than they are willing to sacrifice
 Led the US into massive debt and increased dependency on foreign goods (and oil)
 Led Americans to believe that their values are universal (and the are not).

Maintaining Empire
 Ferguson 2004
 Yes; the world needs US leadership.

But the US is currently only effective in defeating enemies, it is
not able to rebuild states.
 The US must accept this imperial mantle and fix its internal
politics in order to be effective
▪ Economic deficit: relies far too much on foreign capital;
massive debt is problematic.
▪ Manpower deficit: small military force /should work
with the EU/UN to coordinate peacekeeping forces.
▪ Attention deficit: American public not willing to stay the
course.
▪ The first two can be fixed more easily than the third.
Maintaining Empire?
 Bacevich 2008
 No.
 Iraq war is an example of the worst excesses in this “global unending war
against terror”


But could also be the “last straw” which forces a fundamental rethink of US
foreign policy.
Maintaining the trappings of empire in the name of “freedom”
damages US interests.
▪
▪
▪

Makes US less secure globally.
Undermines US democracy.
Debt is unsustainable and threatens to damage the nation.
Politicians must make it clear to the public that power has its limits.
▪
Bringing our goals in sync with the rest of the world will boost US strength.
▪ Abolishing nuclear weapons
▪ Take a leadership role in fighting climate change
▪ Stop preaching to others about democracy.
Maintaining Hegemony?





Kagan 2007
Yes; the world needs US leadership
 Regional competition could destabilize the system without a strong US influence
 Ensures liberalism retains international viability vs. authoritarianism
 Alliance of democracies critical for signaling international commitment to democracy
 US does not need to blindly push democracy, but the concept is important
Joffe 2009
No alternative; The US is the “indispensible nation”
 The “default power does what others cannot or will not do”
 US flexibility can stave off decline to ensure it remains ‘indispensible”
US advantages coupled with its “warrior culture” critical for ensuring global public goods.
 Warrior culture: military a function of prestige and social advancement
 Liberal empires key for global public goods
• Autocratic states do not concern themselves with global goods
 Excludes China and Russia as alternatives
• Europe lacks the “warrior culture” mentality to take up this mantle
History Repeating Itself?
 Zakaria 2008
 Polls suggest that Americans are feeling less
optimistic about their future.


The “inevitable” rise of China
The fall of the Roman empire and the end of the British
empire “reinforce” this feeling of decline
 But the US is not the British empire; the British
empire had weaknesses the US does not have.


The US has greater economic strength; problems are
political.
The UK had political strength but was weak economically.
Explaining the ‘Rise of the Rest’
 Zakaria 2008
 Overextension in Iraq and Afghanistan will not bankrupt the
country.

The US is not “in decline”
 US demographic and educational flexibility will preserve its
role as global leader far into the future.


US is not facing the same demographic crunches as Europe and Asia.
Emphasis on “how to think” rather than rote memorization will boost
efficiency and innovation.
 What we are witnessing is not the decline of the US but the
“rise of the rest”

The world the US created (predicated on liberal economic norms) is
improving the lives of many around the world.
 This “rise of the rest” does NOT threaten the US.
 Welcoming the “rise of the rest” allows the US to project influence

But US domestic politics is making this difficult
Managing the Rise of the Rest
 Zakaria 2008
 The world benefits from US leadership

But it can only be undermined from within
 Domestic political trends favoring isolationism threaten
US hegemony

Examples:




Trade restrictions against China
Limits on immigration and restricting student visas.
US provincialism (lack of language study etc.)
Puts the US at a strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis the rest of the
world
 Attempting to undermine this rise would result in
nationalism.

Undermines US postwar leadership.
Next Unit
 If You’re Interested…
 Zakaria. The Post American World 2.0
 Kagan. The Return of History and the End of Dreams
 Nye. The Future of Power
 Ferguson. Colossus
 Bacevich. Washington Rules
 Theme: Prospects for US Foreign Policy
 Cox and Stokes CH 22