<Name>
<Subject>
Introduction
The United States (US) has placed itself in a dominant position in global affairs during the Cold War, as it tussled against the equally footed Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The Cold War seemed like a never-ending tug-of-war between the two perceived “superpowers”, although at least one had to lose, eventually. Come 1991, the dissolution of the USSR left the US as the clear winner of their decades-long debacle. With the US having the upper hand, several changes have to settle in the post-Cold War era. This study is an attempt to lay out various scholarly explanations on the kinds of changes US hegemony has to go through after the Cold War. Presuming that a new setup in the international system has left more room for the US to exert its global supremacy, this study explores the key features characterizing the change of character the powerful nation has gone through after the Cold War demised.
Security Intervention vis-à-vis Economic Interdependence
When the Cold War was ongoing, both the US and the USSR sought to gain global control and prominence using their polarizing ideological bases. The US upheld democratic values in politics and propagated it in many of its former colonies as well as in Western Europe through the Marshall Plan, while the USSR became the main proponent of communism worldwide and spread it across Eastern Europe, China and parts of Southeast Asia, among many others. The prominence of both the US and the USSR effectively characterized the Cold War as one fostering a bipolar system, with the scope of international policymaking concentrating heavily on the interests of both nations. The frequent ideological clashes involved by the US and the USSR has almost resulted to potentially dangerous circumstanced that could have led to direct confrontation, which was the very incident both nations have sought to avoid. Events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War both became aggravating factors to the unsavory relationship between the US and USSR, although both nations sought for the best measures to avoid using hard power against one another through various diplomatic mechanisms.
The Cold War, as it succeeded the end of the Second World War, saw both the dominance of the US and the USSR, on one hand, and the lack of political strength coming from other economically powerful nations. Powerful nations during the Second World War such as Germany and Japan relied much on the US for security needs, making the latter more inclined to practice interventionist approaches. The US saw security intervention as part of its national economic interest. Without security intervention, the US believes that nations involved would experience perilous consequences brought by regional and international conflicts, and that those could affect the economic interests of the former in affected areas. For example, if the US has investments in a particular nation that experiences frequent regional conflicts, then it stands to lose less if it makes it a point to intervene rather than allow its investments to dwindle. In return, the nation benefits from increased security that would enable it to avoid further conflict in the future. In that way, both the US and the recipient nation enjoy a give-and-take relationship with one another. The same goes for Germany and Japan, whose tendencies to experience regional conflicts and possession of formidable business interests spurred by strong economic characteristics prompted the US to intervene in both nations on security affairs. If the US does not intervene, then it stands to lose more from its investments that may encounter adverse effects from regional conflicts in both Germany and Japan. Yet, one could look at the way US is dealing with Germany and Japan as a tactic that benefits the former by preventing the latter two to rise as a so-called “third party”. A third party nation such as Germany or Japan could further complicate the scene of international relations between the US and the USSR. Therefore, the US sought to intervene for security purposes in order to prevent such complication and preserve its prominent position against the USSR Verily, one could deem US security intervention on the affairs of Germany and Japan as one that helps the former maintain economic interdependence that serves its purpose. Up to the post-Cold War era, the security intervention of the US in Germany and Japan still holds strong, despite the fact that the latter two nations have lost their most formidable threat in the form of the USSR. Quelling regional and international conflict for protecting investments in the two nations proved strategic to the US, as it prevented the two nations to engage in military buildup that is potentially threatening. Such has helped shape the US as a post-Cold War hegemon, since it effectively mitigated the further increase in power of nations like Germany and Japan – both perceived as capable of challenging the US in economic and military affairs.
Defiance of Multipolar International Policymaking
Security intervention and economic interdependence are not the only factors that led the US to change its character as a hegemon in international affairs. The downfall and dissolution of the USSR left the US with an entirely new international political order to reckon. While there were expectations of a more multipolar approach to international politics with the end of the bipolar Cold War, the US sought to prove otherwise. As the post-Cold War years progressed, the US started to show manifestations of defiance against internationally agreed covenants. Ideally, the dissolution of the USSR would lead the US to go alongside other nations to engage in multipolar policymaking. International organizations led by the United Nations (UN) would ideally have the upper hand in commanding all nations of the world to follow particular rules. Yet, the domineering attitude the US has kept since its Cold War days has made it hard for international organizations to extract its compliance in particular instances. The non-abidance of the US towards the Kyoto Protocol – the agreement designed to combat climate change through a set of carbon emission requirements, is one instance that revealed the character of the nation as one interested to dominate rather than cooperate. The influence of the US in international organizations such as the UN has proven that the nation is more interested in superimposing its superior capabilities as a nation that participating in building a cooperative international community. Thus, the post-Cold War period heralded an era of greater dominance for the US. The absence of a viable competitor in the mold of the USSR meant that the US has no more formidable measure of its power, leading it to stretch its muscles against the rest of the world through defying multipolar policymaking efforts towards setting a unipolar order.
Impact of the September 11 Disaster
The attacks on the World Trade Center twin towers in New York City, New York on September 11, 200, otherwise known as 9/11, forced the US to undergo another change in character as a hegemon in international affairs. Far from the politically ideological character of the Cold War, 9/11 served as a violent precedent to arguably the most significant challenge currently confronting the US, Islamic fundamentalism. The central character the US has imposed unto itself in international affairs saw its influence permeate in different aspects around the world. Wary of the spread of US influence, Islamic fundamentalists, being antagonistic to Western persuasions particularly in culture, have escalated their threats against the nation throughout the post-Cold War period. The heavy presence of the US in the Middle East caught the ire of groups such as Al-Qaeda, which later gained the designation as an international terrorist group. Tensions greatly intensified when 9/11 struck, killing thousands of people and destroying a highly important landmark of the US, the World Trade Center twin towers. The attacks proved to be a big blow against the US, given that it happened on a vastly important area on the nation. The attacks resulted to the US engaging in a full-scale attack against Islamic fundamentalist groups, with emphasis on Al-Qaeda. The relative laxness of the US in terms of securing its own territory against terrorist attacks traces from the absence of a competitive challenge coming from a nation like the USSR that motivated the US to prepare against possible threats. Unlike that of the USSR, the challenge posed by Islamic fundamentalism is one of religion. The organization of Islamic fundamentalist groups in the form of multiple terrorist cells has served as a direct threat to the security of the US and its allies, although 9/11 has shown that the nation is clearly unprepared due to lack of anticipation of such attacks. Furthermore, the US is not simply dealing with a single sovereignty as it did with the USSR. The mobile approach of Islamic fundamentalist groups has provided the US with more difficulty with launching attacks against areas where those groups thrive, given that it has to negotiate with multiple sovereignties on the matter. Therefore, the hegemonic stance of the US would play out in the form of its interventionist form of imposing security measures against Islamic fundamentalist groups. However, the US may experience relative difficulty in negotiations compared to its two-way approach against the USSR due to the relative skepticism expressed by multiple Islamic nations that may be hosting certain Islamic fundamentalist groups.
Conclusion
The US has vastly changed its character as a hegemon in international affairs ever since the end of the Cold War. The downfall and dissolution of the USSR meant that the US does not have any formidable competitor to gauge its strength with anymore. With the US being the only superpower left after the Cold War, several factors have led to its characterization as a changing hegemon in a new international system.
The US has long justified its security intervention based on the premise of maintaining economic interdependence. Once a particular security threat emanates in a particular area of the world, specifically those with US economic interests, it has to encounter an immediate resolution. The US responded to that need through intervening in nations that need security reinforcements the most - Germany and Japan being the main examples. At the same time, the US is motivated to intervene in both Germany and Japan because it recognizes both as potential third-party contenders alongside the USSR if both have the allowance to expand military capabilities. Instead of allowing that to happen, the US made both nations dependent on its military prowess using economic interdependence as a premise. The US effectively retained its hegemonic stance through that.
As the post-Cold War period progressed, the US became highly defiant of the character of the international community on policymaking. Bodies such as those led by UN have become the subject of noncooperation by the US, particularly on policies that appear to contravene its national interests. At the same time, the US has been able to influence international organizations to push for international policies that would lead to the advancement of its national interests. Through that, a unipolar system appears to emanate, highly different to the multipolar nature of the international system due to the breakdown of the USSR.
Finally, the US has become stronger and more wary as a hegemon when it first encountered Islamic fundamentalist groups through the 9/11 destruction. Given that there was no anticipation that such threat will arise, the US became more wary than ever in terms of security, which has not become at par anymore with the rigid standards during the Cold War due to the presence of the USSR. From that point, it becomes important for the US to learn peaceful negotiation mechanisms with actors involved in the new setup.
Bibliography
Dalby, Simon. “Security, Modernity, Ecology: The Dilemmas of Post-Cold War Security Discourse.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 17, no. 1 (1992): 95-134.
Falkner, Robert. “American Hegemony and the Global Environment.” International Studies Review 7, no. 4 (2005): 585-599.
Gaddis, John. “A Grand Strategy of Transformation.” Foreign Policy Nov.-Dec., no.133 (2002): 50-57.
Goldgeier, James, and Michael McFaul. “A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in the Post-Cold War Era.” International Organization 46, no.2 (1992): 467-491.
Layne, Christopher, and Benjamin Schwarz. “American Hegemony: Without an Enemy.” Foreign Policy Autumn, no. 92 (1993): 5-23.
Rosecrance, Richard. “Regionalism and the Post-Cold War Era.” International Journal 46, no. 3 (1991): 373-393.
