REALIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
As the United States secures its position as hegemon and “hyper-power,” it must accept the responsibilities of leadership in this new, globalized era. It must realize that it cannot act as an empire and thus cannot be ruthless in promoting worldwide democracy. It must realize that there is a power which may be able to challenge it in the future, but it can not be hostile towards this power, as this power is currently a major force in the economic progress of globalization. It must also accept the responsibility of leadership in a post-Cold War era and realize that old policies will not suffice to thwart threats; thus it must work to constantly create new, global policies to tackle these threats. In order to sustain its hegemonic role, the United States must abide by the rules which it has made.
From the end of World War II up until this current point in time, the United States’ power status has transitioned from major power, to superpower, to hegemon. Currently, it is being debated that the United States is now surpassing its position as hegemon, even surpassing its label as “hyper-power,” and perhaps establishing itself in a new phase of global dominance as an empire, rather, 'the' empire. But does the current United States' hegemonic power compare with the traditional definition of empire? Is there a new definition of an empire? Moreover, is there a state that can challenge the United States’ hegemonic power, thus preventing it from becoming an empire? Will the current United States National Security Strategy succeed in upholding the state’s power and limiting the power of challengers? Can the United States continue to effectively use deterrence and containment to do this? Although these questions lend themselves to detailed analysis and debate, I offer my opinions that the United States is not currently an empire, and there is a rising power that may challenge (rather than “threaten”) the unipolar system in the future. That power is China.
EMPIRE OR HEGEMON?
The definition of hegemon as stated in Karen Mingst’s Essentials of International Relations is as follows: “hegemon – a dominant state that has a preponderance of power; often establishes and enforces the rules and norms in the international system.” As a hegemon, the United States has certainly established and enforced rules and norms of the international system, especially in recent events such as, carving the path and establishing itself as the leader of the “War on Terrorism.” However, Michael Ignatieff argues in his article, “The Burden,” that these acts of dominance have established empire status for America. An empire, Ignatieff argues, is “more than being the most powerful nation or just the most hated one. It means enforcing such order as there is in the world and doing so in the American interest. It means laying down the rules America wants…while exempting itself from other rules…that go against its interest...multilateral solution to the world’s problems are all very well, but they have no teeth unless America bares its fangs.” Although Ignatieff’s explanation of an empire is precise and seems to be similiar if compared to the power structure of past empires, does it not follow through with the definition of hegemon? An empire, as defined by the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, is “a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority.” In examining the United States’ power, it is clear that there is no real territorial power, which is absolutely essential to an empire. The state’s territorial coverage is in fact small or similar in comparison with the territories of China, Russia, Canada, and even Australia and Brazil. There does not exist a new definition of “empire” simply because the United States has become a tremendous power unparalleled by any previous power. If the United States were a global empire, it would also be implied that it has absolute control over every single aspect of foreign affairs, such as trade and industry. The United States currently imports more than it exports; it relies heavily on its foreign trading partners, and therefore must abide by international trade regulations. If the United States were a true empire, then it would be able to exert its power to, say, forcefully open the economy in China and regulate oil prices in the Middle East. However, trade regulations do not allow this to happen, and although America has significant impact on foreign affairs such as trade regulations, it cooperates with other states in creating these regulations. Rather than being an empire, the United States is currently acting at the highest degree of hegemony, where it is even considered a super-charged hegemon; a “hyper-power.”
LIMITS ON AMERICAN EMPIRE
Perhaps the United States will one day succeed in its ultimate goal – to make the world not only safe for democracy, but to make the world a democracy. Although ideal to the state’s interest, this is indeed a frightening thought, as it calls back to memory such similar strategies of, say, Germany’s Third Reich. In succeeding to become an empire in this manner, the United States would also become a global tyrant, enforcing democracy in even the most hidden crevices of the world. This is unlikely to happen any time soon, however, in part due to the current ideological differences that states hold. No state that operates on a longstanding ideological platform different than America’s is willingly going to end its government’s regime and hand over power to the United States. Furthermore, as liberal theory would suggest, there are current international organizations that exist to improve conditions without direct governmental aid (such as Amnesty International and the World Bank) or work with different states to regulate power (such as the World Trade Organization). Although organizations such as the WTO have been created, in part, due to America’s interests, they can not limit the anarchy in the international system solely based on American rule. As exemplified before, these organizations check power and limit the amount of direct influence the United States has on global affairs. They prevent the United States from complete global dominance and will continue and strengthen their roles as they adjust to trends in globalization.
ENTER CHINA
If there is a rising force that may one day challenge American hegemony, it is China. As it has already asserted its power over its region, China is fundamental in controlling the state of affairs in East and Southeast Asia. Its vast territorial coverage, imperialistic history, immense population, exportation of goods, large military and cheap labor force has granted China the major power status and thus the order-sustaining power status of the region. The United States and China were ideologically torn until the post 9/11 efforts to reduce terrorism, in which China became an active force, shown by its vigorous role in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to eliminate terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. Now, the United States and China fight on the same side, and thus the United States embraces China’s aid and even addresses China as a rising power, as shown in the United States National Security Strategy. China is rising as a power due to its imperialist nature, increasing military strength, and economic importance in globalization.
Perhaps the United States is trying to reap China of all of its benefits in attempting to “promote a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region” (as declared in the National Security Strategy), but in doing so, is America creating its greatest threat to power? Examining China’s current power situation, it can be easily observed that China has remained an imperialist power post Cold War, whereas Russia and the United States have more or less backed down from their former imperialist positions. China has not yet granted independence to its occupied territories of Tibet and Xingjian, although the fight for sovereignty in these regions has extended to global activist networks and even to the United States Congress and the United Nations. John Pomfret’s article “China is Rising” further explores China’s imperialism by stating that the National People’s Congress issued the “Law on the Territorial Waters and Their Contiguous Areas” in 1992, claiming eighty percent of the South China Sea and calling for “immediate eviction of foreign military vessels” in the waters. It is indisputable that China has definite imperialistic goals, and is unwilling to give up its occupied territories, ensuring that its large territorial base remains unwavered. In order to secure its borders, China is currently trying to improve the technology and strength of its military. As the United States strives to keep Taiwan independent from China, the Chinese military strength around the area is growing, signaling its desire to defy America’s wish and drag Taiwan back into Chinese borders.
Moreover, China is well aware that its cheap labor force is crucial to the global economy; cheaper Chinese exports are accessible to a greater income range. China may be able to use this in coercion with the global community to achieve its desires, such as by threatening to close its exports. Although this is more unlikely, due to the fact that it would ruin China’s economy as well, the subtle threat still exists. China is progressing towards a more open and capitalist economy, starting to rely more on foreign markets and thus paving its own way for its entrance into the World Trade Organization. The National Security Strategy states that China’s entrance into the WTO is essential to the promotion of a free and open civil society in China, as well as in creating more jobs for American farmers, workers, and companies. But as the United States government promotes China to “rise,” is it promoting its future hegemonic opponent? This is questionable, because although China has a major power status in Asia, its vast differences to Western culture, including race and ideology, would make it hard for the Western world to feasibly accept China as the world power. America’s dominance has been building since the middle of the twentieth century, and China, for the most part, has not been associated with the rise and fall of world powers in the modern world. With increasing power has come increased responsibility that America has learned and adapted to over the latter part of the twentieth century. For China to suddenly emerge into the Western world and dominate it, would be unfeasible, as it was never part of the Western world to begin with and isn’t familiar with its hegemonic practices and responsibilities. The most China may be able to do is rise to global power status in the future and perhaps challenge the United States’ power to create a new system where hegemony still exists, but is slightly weakened by another global power.
HEGEMONIC SECURITY IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD
Now that the world is entering an era of hegemonic power and perhaps future challenges to this power, new questions of national security are posed: how will the United States respond to hegemonic threats, if they occur? Will the old systems of deterrence and containment work? As suggested by the United States National Security Strategy Doctrine of September 2002, the world has been fundamentally changed since the Cold War, thus, Cold War policies can no longer exist in a globalized, post 9-11 world. The threat no longer lies in nuclear annihilation by another superpower, and even if a state such as China rises to test hegemonic power, the rise will be gradual and the threat will be limited. The current threat comes from below; from terrorist organizations in particular. Since 9-11, every action America has taken in the Middle East has been in the name of eliminating the threat of terrorism, or eliminating regimes that may have terrorist connections or terrorist-like goals. Containment and deterrence absolutely cannot work in eliminating these threats, mainly because terrorist networks are transnational, underground operations. It is impossible to deter terrorist attacks; terrorists will forsake anything and everything to achieve their goal (as shown by the emergence of suicide bombings); and their attacks are often by surprise. Intelligence about terrorist attacks is hard to gather because the networks operate through covert communication systems. Thus, it is impossible to deter a threat that is not even known off in advance. As with containment, the trans-national terrorist networks make it impossible to contain their activity. The response to their activity is not meant for containment in the first place, it is meant for elimination.
« return.