In the most general sense, the United States will remain the leading hegemony, as the concept is understood as the leadership of one country over others in an international framework. The hegemony of the U.S., as a particular kind of international social and political structure, is recognized most when compared to non-hegemonic structures (Stivachtis, 2012). These non-hegemonic countries are constantly at the mercy of powerful, autocratic, rival countries, which often results in conflict since no one country has established and maintained the legitimacy of its control over the non-hegemonic countries (Stivachtis, 2012). This is where the U.S. steps in to save the day. Most of the time in order to preserve “world peace,” the U.S. will break its taxpayers banks to send military and other forms of aid to countries who demand, beg, or just need the help of the “almighty” United States. However, is the enforcement of dominion through a display of military strength sufficient enough for America to fit the definition of “the global hegemon?” And are guidelines set forth from a hegemonic country to be seen as commands or suggestions for social standards? Since the United States is thought by most of the world to be the dominant leader, the answers to those queries are important for the U.S. to continue its enforcement of U.S. policies and strategies abroad. To answer these inquiries, one has to evaluate and possibly redefine one's understanding of "power" (Stivachtis, 2012).
A characterizing historical feature of a hegemonic country is its ability to maintain a capitalist framework and powerful military presence while it battles countries that are competing to rise as its successor. For example, the United States and Germany engaged in fierce battles in the early twentieth century to establish world supremacy; the "winner" was ready and willing to replace Britain as the world’s most feared and most dominant leader. After Germany's second loss, World War II, the U.S. then competed with Russia for global leadership. This battle was less militaristic and more politically, economically, and technologically based. Although the United States had more than established its global dominance after 1945, becoming superior in industry, global politics, military prowess, and social influence, Russia still challenged the U.S. for global supremacy. Russia, unable to sustain its internal and global structures, often fell short of becoming the pre-eminent economic and military power. At that time, and since then, the U.S. has used its military power to remain the world's dominant power. However, given its extensive internal and external conflicts, the U.S. faces global competition and political repositioning, especially from equally powerful countries such as China. While this does not mean the U.S. has lost its status as “the global hegemon,” it does indicate the U.S. may have to take a closer look at its internal political structure, its often disjointed military, and its fluctuating global economic status if it wants to retain its global hegemonic status. Other countries find it hard to relinquish primary control of their countries to the U.S. when the nation often appears socially divided and economically insolvent.
However, Charles A. Kupchan, author of No One's World argues that now when a rising hegemonic country challenges the leading hegemony, the power structures shift in the favor of the challenging countries because they are better able to sustain themselves through the conflict. He argues that since the definitive power structures in these countries is more balanced, no one country, region, or political model will dominate (Kupchan, 2012). Kupchan further states that not only is America’s dominance over resources and goods and services declining, its ideological influence is fading as well. In defense of Kupchan’s theory, powerful countries are more than rising powers that are mapping their own destinies; they are allying themselves with other countries without having to imitate America’s view of modernism. America’s competence at providing balanced and continuous leadership is vulnerable due to internal political polarization and the indifference of its European allies, who are more concerned with sustaining their failing infrastructures.
While Kupchan’s primary theory is centered on the idea that the U.S. is no longer the dominant hegemon, he contradicts himself to also argue that if the United States so desires, it can restore itself to the hegemony it used to be. If the United States seeks to dominate the global economy as it did after WWII, it must first stop obsessing over rising hegemonies, namely China. While it is fact that over the last few decades China has been contending with internal issues, it has made enormous strides as a country to now occupy the number two spot, the United States would not benefit to focus its energies on China. Because of China’s voracious consumption of resources and goods and services, it can be inferred that it will not be able to sustain itself if the country chose to engage in a military conflict with the U.S. Despite the IMF’s projection that the Chinese economy will surpass others by 2016 by becoming the number one producer and exporter products and electronic devices, a significant number of its manufacturing companies are foreign (Shor, 2011). Right now, the U.S. remains the central hegemon because the United States has a stronger military, as well as a larger economic, technological, diplomatic, political, and geographical presence in other countries. Other countries may rival the U.S. in one area or another, but the United States is so multi-dimensional as a dominant power that the nation is in a category of its own. (Shor, 2011).
Likewise, if the U.S. chooses to remind the world of who the dominant hegemon is, it must fully adhere to the literal definition of hegemony as it did during and after World War I and World War II. Given that the dominant hegemon often determines and enforces its laws and social standards at home and abroad, the U.S. government is having a hard time justifying to the current America public why engaging in foreign affairs and wars is important. Questions that Americans in this decade are beginning to ask indicate that most Americans do not want America to be the world’s leading hegemony: What “structure of power” is the U.S. employing? Is the U.S. strictly a hegemon because it has become the world’s police? In what situations should the U.S. send its militaries to intervene between conflicting countries? How much monetary, political, and material aid should the U.S. supply when it gets involved? These questions and others plague Americans as the internal conflict on how to address these questions has escalated. So far, past and present administrations Presidents have never hesitated to suppress any challenge by utilizing its military power over countries who have challenged its hegemony.
Samantha Paige Rosen, author of the article, Taking the Lead, states that it took the United States two world wars and an additional four and a half decades of conflict with Russia to be the world’s primary influencer; to stop now would be akin to quitting a job before the work is finishedthat is if the United States were really serious about relinquishing its head status (Rosen, 2013). Rosen agrees with Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in that the United States is a symbol of fairness, democracy, and prosperity to the world, and it would be doing the world a disservice if it were to continue to look the other way (Rosen, 2013). Both Rosen and Power admit that the United States cannot be the intermediary for every conflict or potential crisis that may arise; nor can the U.S. provide asylum to every refugee (Rosen, 2013). However, both argue that it is the United States’ responsibility to respond to international issues in the manner it has responded in the past (Rosen, 2013). Rosen and Power also agree that the U.S. will lose its title as the dominant hegemony if it continues to respond to major international conflicts in an apathetic manner. Rosen references the United States’ reaction or lack thereof to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide and Power’s comments about the Syrian conflict (Rosen, 2013). Rosen also point out that North Korea and Iran are very eager to use their nuclear weapons; when the United States does not respond to their threats, the international community begins to wonder if the U.S. is validating the use of these weapons (Rosen, 2013).
In spite of opinions from prominent and influential voices in American politics, it seems as if the U.S. is moving toward a more inclusive global structure: distribution of wealth, equal military responsibility, and less interaction between conflicting nations” (Shor, 2011). In that it has been established that the United States, despite its internal and international conflicts, will remain a significant hegemony for quite some time, the new issue Rosen presents is "if the U.S. stops acting like the police of the world, does it lose its title as the world's most prolific superpower?" (Rosen, 2013). She contends the U.S. is considered the global hegemon because it exerted its will over Russia during the Cold War and it has controlled the world’s unique resources since then: to not do these things would strip America of its title. However, the current administration under President Obama is pushing for a “more inclusive global structure.” In a speech to the U.N., Obama cautioned Americans against being so quick to demand that the United States pull its international support and focus solely on national issues (Rosen, 2013).
The World America Made (2012) by Robert Kagan is an investigation of the current state of American issues and the various situations that may arise if the United States were to consider dissolving its association in global relations (Kagan, 2012). Reflecting history and current worldwide patterns, Kagan asks readers to imagine the results if America were to withdraw their engagement in world issues so as to center exclusively on national concerns (Kagan, 2012). Kagan concedes that the world as we know it was not only influenced by America; the world it is too enormous and eclectic for any one country to wield transcendent world order (Kagan, 2012). He contends that America holds an exceptional mix of qualities that no other nation revels in. America's topographical separation among prevailing world superpowers, its mix of free enterprise and majority rule government, and its impressive military have shaped the world into a less volatile place (Kagan, 2012). The world as we know it would look vastly different if China or Russia were in charge. (Kagan, 2012). Therefore, if America were to abdicate from the world stage, Kagan argues that no country would be equipped to successfully run its own country and serve as the world’s leader in the same humanitarian manner. In analyzing the world powers, The People’s Republic of China and Russia are likely candidates, but the political structures of both countries are not conducive to world inclusion in that both countries are autocracies (Kagan, 2012). Moreover, the European Union is trying to repair its crumbling political and financial systems, which have resulted in civil unrest, so the E.U. does not seem prepared or interested in pursuing global hegemony (Kagan, 2012). Finally, while the Middle East controls immeasurable natural resources, the region is volatile and is not interested in sharing its vast oil reserves with the world (Kagan, 2012).
Despite the perception that America is no longer the global hegemony, Kagan argues the contrary: “other countries could share the formidable power America retains, but no other nation has the materials and capital or embraces the dedication to replace the United States as the world’s only relevant superpowerAmerica still remains ahead of the other leading nations with the largest economy in the world and a substantial degree of military power, as well as influence in international relations” (Kagan, 2012). Kagan also argues that America’s ability to negotiate and compromise sets it apart from other governments, which accomplishes “extraordinary feats” (Kagan, 2012). Hegemony demands power, and the U.S. possess structural power, power over natural and technological resources, and power over social standards. Kagan argues that “all dominant powers eventually fall because it is difficult to stay on top all the timeIt is harder for hegemons to expand without appearing to bully other countries, especially when the hegemon has expanded to the point of near perfection (Kagan, 2012). As Rosen declares, the hegemon's responsibility is to keep order, and the U.S. not only keeps order but also shows benevolence in the form of sending aid and resources to countries in need (Rosen, 2013).
In closing, the U.S. will remain the world’s dominant hegemony because it is willing under the present administration to address its constructs of power in relation to moving toward a global society. Nye, author of The Future of Power, examples this theory through his outline of a three-tier, three-component chessboard that illustrates just how international relations work together and against each other (Nye, 2011). From the perspective of the world’s leading nations, a strong military will guarantee the safety and success of that country (Nye, 2011). With this concept, the world is unipolar, and the U.S. is the country with the most formidable military (Nye, 2011). The United States spends billions of dollars on equipping its military with the supplies and weapons it needs to impress upon the world that the U.S. reigns. As far as the second level is concerned, economic influence and capacity, to state that the system is multipolar would be a fair evaluation (Nye, 2011). Currently the United States ranks first in world economies. Its GDP is twice that of China’s, with Japan, Germany, and France round out the top five spots. Finally, the bottom level of Nye’s chessboard, which includes bankers, business men and women, and terrorists, is evenly spread (Nye, 2011). Through trial and error, the U.S. knows that in order to remain the global hegemony it must act in a way that its challengers--China, Russia, and the Middle East--will not act. To retain the status of the global hegemony, the U.S. must assuage the egos of ruling heads of nations and sustain the treaties established with those nations. Furthermore, in the name of international peace and stability, the U.S. must control its domestic issues and continue to push the world toward inclusive globalization, recognizing at home and abroad that substantive norms must be negotiated, not dictated (Stivachtis, 2012).
References List
Kagan, R. (2012). The World America Made. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday Publishing
Group.
Kupchan, C. (2012). No one's world: The West, the rising rest, and the coming global turn. New
York ; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nye, Jr., J. S. (2011). The Future of Power. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group.
Rosen, S. P. (2013, September 24). Taking the Lead: Obligations of the United States as Global
Hegemon. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samantha-paige-rosen/taking-the-lead-the-oblig_b_3979523.html.
Shor, F. (2011). Declining U.S. Hegemony + Rising Chinese Power: A Formula for Conflict?
[Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=4541.
Stivachtis, Y. A. (2012). American Hegemony and International Order. Research Institute for
European and American Studies. Retrieved from http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/global-issues/transatlantic-studies/79.html.
