Threats to Hegemony

It is interesting that in the debate, both groups pointed towards the United States as being its own worst threat to its power. However, neither group mentioned the large role that domestic politics has in American hegemony. This country was set up with failsafes to prevent a large government, but throughout the years the government has only gotten larger and larger and can now hardly agree on anything within itself. The American people, or at least the majority of them who are unhappy, will eventually decide it is no longer going to put up with governmental failure. 

The fact that there is a growing income gap which decreases the equality of majority of the citizens in the country is an indicator for domestic upheaval. If the majority are not happy, something may come of it since this is a country run by the (majority) people. Without its citizens’ support, the US government would have no respect in the international community. The balance of power would shift, and a new order would ensue. 

This leads me to my next point. The world order has placed the United States ahead of all other countries for a long time now, and the American people are well aware. What they are not aware of is the rise and fall of power in the order. There is a cycle that can be seen when looking objectively, but objectivity is not the mindset of Americans. There is a sense of pride within American culture that just simply will not allow for the foresight of the fall of its great power stronghold. 

There are many Americans within the US who do have a good grasp on reality and the concept of what is a threat and what is not a threat to the US, but there are not enough of them within all levels of society. Good public education and higher education is not available to many people in the country. The amount of money that the US spends on its education budget is sickeningly low compared to the amount of money it spends on welfare, defense and weapons development, yet the White House says that the education budget will be increasing in years to come. 

Hopefully the US is well on its way to fixing its inadequacies, and will be able to gain more public support, fix the income inequality and increase education levels. As both groups made clear, the US is its own biggest threat. 

The Last Debate

I agree with group one, majorly because they hit on the biggest key aspect of American weakness: education and funding for education. They also mention the lack of public support on important intellectual and advancement projects, but their main argument was that the US economy is its biggest weakness. Group two also even agrees somewhat with group one that internal financial policies hold weight as a threat as well. Generally I think that group one won the argument, but I actually disagree with both groups arguments as a comprehensive conclusion. I believe that the biggest threat to US hegemony is its domestic political and budgetary process as a whole, the lack of American global knowledge of culture and world order and especially its economy. I will elaborate more in my next post on my own perspective. 

The Danger of Internal Dysfunction

This week’s debate on the greatest threat to American power sparked a lot of differing views, but there was a fairly universal belief that America’s greatest threat comes from within. The country’s own politics and internal dysfunction could ultimately be what causes it to slip. But would a few simple policy changes here and there really prevent the US from losing its grasp on much of the world’s power? Is a better functioning government really the only thing necessary to prevent a decline in US clout? I believe it is. The US has so many traits which will allow it to succeed in the future if internal dysfunction doesn’t get in the way.

The US economy, despite being hit hard by the global recession, is still one of the most powerful and vibrant in the world. While concerns about mounting US debt and a growing percentage of the budget allocated to entitlements must be addressed, the US economy overall is still poised for success. The US is still at the forefront of most technological and scientific developments. For instance, the US dominates the field of nanotechnology, which many say will lead fundamental scientific breakthroughs for the next few decades. The US has issued more nanotech patents than the rest of the world combined. Additionally, biotechnology continues to grow in the US and represents 76% of the global market. Many politicians cite the loss of manufacturing jobs to countries like China as a threat to the US economy. But most products manufactured overseas are still designed and engineered in the US. The engineering behind the electronics assembled in China represents the true value of the product, and that value often lies in Silicon Valley. The US economy does have issues which need to be tackled by policy makers, but the overall economic landscape is still vibrant and shows potential to succeed well into the future.

Education is one area often cited as a great example of how the US is falling behind compared to the rest of the world. It is hard to argue that fundamental change isn’t needed to improve the nation’s primary and secondary schools. However, the US university system is still the best in the world and attracts top talent from around the globe. The US receives about 30% of the world’s international students and has most of the universities ranked in the top 10 globally. Other countries are improving their university systems but none will rival the US for decades. Creating a top notch educational institution doesn’t happen overnight. By being able to attract top minds throughout the world, the US holds a strategic advantage which will allow the country to thrive.

There are many who fear the rise of China’s military will put them on the same military footing as the US within a few years. While Chinese defense spending is rising, it’s unlikely they will be able to match US capabilities. The US is technologically superior to any military on the face of the planet because of its robust and sophisticated defense contractor contingent. Various US defense companies will continue to develop new technologies which give the US the edge on the battlefield. However, massive cuts in defense spending threaten to slow new technological developments. This highlights the importance for policy makers to come to agreements on sound economic policies which don’t paralyze the DoD.

There are numerous other characteristics of the US which speak to its ability to remain one of the world’s dominate powers. However, the world is changing and America must learn to adapt with it. Economies and militaries around the world are growing at a rapid rate which doesn’t seem likely to slow down anytime soon. This shouldn’t be seen as a threat to the US, but the country cannot stay stagnant while the rest of the world moves forward. Internal gridlock poses the greatest threat to America’s ability to adapt to a changing world and remain at the top of the world’s food chain.

References:

Fareed Zakaria, "The Future of American Power: How America Can Survive the Rise of the Rest," Foreign Affairs 87 (2008): 18.

U.S. Presence on the International Stage

                There are many threats to the United States as the great world power. Militarily, the U.S. is much more advanced and staffed than any other nation. Nuclear weapons will always be a threat to any nation and human kind as a whole. Because nuclear weapons present such a threat to the entire world, it is not likely the greatest threat to U.S. power. The greatest threat to U.S. power comes from more unexpected places, for example, its lack of presence or involvement on the international stage. This lack of participation can then lead to other nations feeling able and more willing to challenge U.S. power and authority.

                So why has the U.S. reduced its presence on the international stage? There are many possible motives for this. The U.S. may be more inwardly focused when there is no intense international threat such as war. Focusing on internal turmoil and pressures may keep the U.S. from exerting great amounts of strength internationally, as we see in our military presence reduction overseas and in general. Also, constant involvement in foreign affairs may at times bring bad publicity, both domestically and internationally. The U.S. or political leaders of the U.S. could be trying to avoid this negative view towards the U.S. or U.S. leadership. Sometimes it is easiest to avoid being the “bad guy”.

                The solution is not to draw back into an excluded internal looking system, but to maintain involvement and international participation. This is not simply militarily, but also diplomatically, for humanitarian presence, and others. If we keep our participation and authority on the international stage we avoid nations, or groups of nations banning together, from assuming they can challenge the U.S. or from choosing to try to overthrow the U.S. as a great power. 

The Future of Humanity

The Human Project is an interesting concept. As Jackson mentions in his lectures the concept of a “we” encompassing all humans would be very difficult to develop. Jackson states that in order to effectively have this group mentality it is easier when facing an “us” vs “them” and not simply a problem we are all trying to resolve. However, perhaps the problems humanity is facing now such as: global warming, lack of water, lack of food, decline in fossil fuels, and diseases are simply not catastrophic enough.

Indeed it is simpler to unite people when there is an enemy, solidifying the “us” and the “them”. However, if something truly catastrophic happened humanity would potentially be left with no option but to develop one large group – humans. We see this on a smaller scale now a days. When there is a catastrophic event somewhere, particularly if it somehow affects another nation, that nation sends help. When there are tsunamis, hurricanes or even plane crashes many nations rally together with monetary, man power and other forms of support. These are temporary, smaller scale events, but they do show some global unity.

This is not to say this human project will definitely happen or would not be met with serious resistance. This is simply to state that it is possible, depending on the circumstances for this pale blue dot to unite as one. Some of Jackson’s other alternatives such as new hegemonic institutions or a global constitutional moment are also plausible. Although even then, hegemonic institutions seems more likely where there is a union based on some benefits received for participating in these institutions. Whereas, a global constitutional consensus where instead of violence there is a constitutional reframing. Some might argue that there will be violence, nations not wanting to lose their autonomy or control. All three scenarios are difficult to envision as they would involve an extremely drastic shift in an environment that has been relatively stable for most of our lifetimes. As Jackson reflects on the difference between predicting the future and forecasting in the beginning of his lecture, we may not be able to predict what will happen in the future, but having an idea of these potential scenarios can help us better prepare. 

U.S. Multilateralism: An Expanded NATO?

Of this week’s readings, I found John Ikenberry’s “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age” most interesting. In the introduction, Ikenberry gives two versions of America’s “logic of order.” One logic is more “hard shelled” and centers around American military dominance. It seems much more focused on coercion than the more liberal logic Ikenberry presents which focuses on America’s use of multilateralism. I feel the liberal path is more accurate which means it is worth thinking about how the US’s multilateral relationships could look in the future.

NATO was mentioned in Ikenberry’s piece and I think it presents an interesting example of how some US leaders feel the organization should expand in order to allow the US to continue to be the world’s dominate military force. In statements with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2003, Condoleezza Rice advocated for a “global alliance of democracies, a global NATO.” Notable politicians have also supported a NATO with membership stretching outside of North America or Europe. A 10+ year operation in Afghanistan has proven NATO can be an effective military alliance well outside the transatlantic region. The organization has certainly taken on more of a global mandate since the fall of the Soviet Union which is why some say expansion is necessary.

With proven success in Afghanistan, and more recently in Libya, it’s no wonder US policy makers envision an even larger military alliance posing an even larger threat to potential adversaries. A larger collection of global military might could be viewed as a further safeguard to protecting American military dominance (especially from an ever growing Chinese military). But would US desires to expand NATO be beneficial for the organization or the US in general?

Some feel NATO has survived for so long because of its shared identity and common set of values. Adding members from around the globe could erode the sense of identity which transatlantic states have shared. In an organization run on consensus, decision making could be seriously paralyzed if agendas from every corner of the globe have to be factored in. More importantly, a global NATO, presumably composed of the world’s democratic states, would create an “us vs. them” mentality throughout the world. Those not in the “democracy club” would feel isolated and may seek to form their own type of security alliance. Notably, China would feel threatened and seek to further develop its military capabilities while also seeking to enhance multilateral military cooperation (likely with Russia).

So while America may continue to strengthen its current multilateral relationships as well as form new ones, they must be mindful of the effects. In some cases, certain international organizations are already seen by some as tools of US hegemonic power (NATO being one). If these types of organizations are expanded, their legitimacy will be threatened and new enemies could be created. NATO, in particular, should not be expanded globally. Such a move would force non-members to engage in serious balance of power calculations which would be detrimental for the US and global security as a whole.

References:

Hallams, Ellen. "NATO at 60: Going Global?." International Journal (Spring 2009). p426-450.

Pessimism in Theory

I love the opening to the "soliloquy" this week. Thinking about possible, unlikely, likely and impossible scenarios is one of my favorite things to do. Over-exaggeration can sometimes lead to more spontaneous or out of the box solutions for problems or just general changes.

There is always anxiety about transitions of power. No state has stayed at same level forever and each state is aware of this fact. There is a general consensus there there must always be a fall to follow the rise of a great power.

The rise and fall theory assumes a certain kind of actor. Each wants autonomy and everyone is competing, but for what? There is no broader social context other than sheer power, or the capacity to do as one wills.

According to Professor Jackson, there are a few general options for the way in which the world can function. Hegemonic institutions are set up by dominant power and maintained through threat of coercive force... but we also have constitutional moments which generally happen after wars. These create a new set of rules for "games" in following decades.

Another possibility is the notion of humanities, or an "operative we." How can we create something that fits the largest possible entity (humans)?

One theory that has been discussed is that the expansion of awareness of the world outside earth helps create an awareness of how much larger the universe is and the world becomes a community as a whole. Generally in group communications, an outside threat is necessary for group unity, but global warming and environmental things are not good enough for the global community. The threat needs a face. An "other." A "them" to battle against us.

I have been waiting for this moment. I have been saying for a while now that the only way for the world to become a comprehensive community and actually get along is if aliens invaded. It's nice to see these thoughts confirmed by experts. Dr. Bosco quotes someone on this subject in his book as well.

Professor Jackson asks in his video if there is anything outside of an alien invasion that can create a true notion of humanity. Perhaps a zombie apocalypse (some sort of global disease scenario) could also bring about a sense of unity, but this is nearly as unlikely as an alien invasion or could even produce the opposite effect and turn everyone against everyone to bring about even more animosity.

Honestly, a world without war just may not be the natural order. In the past 50 to 100 years or so war has become less prevalent and the world population is becoming nearly unsustainable. I'm not saying war is the only factor, but even just the sheer amount of human beings on earth could bring about a war. War seems to be inevitable. Animosity, chaos and power struggles seem to be unavoidable when looking at history. Now that overpopulation is becoming more of an issue, I would not be surprised if this generation sees genocide on a level unmatched by an historical example. Though I certainly hope that this will never happen.