|
|
| THE UNITED STATES: GLOBAL EMPIRE OR GLOBAL HEGEMON? An assessment of the United States power status and the possible threats to power it faces |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
Therefore, in order to secure hegemonic power, the United States must now respond to these transnational networks, rather than the countries themselves. As the National Security Strategy suggests, to successfully thwart the terrorist threat, an international organization must be used. States must combine forces to act against terrorism in gathering intelligence and use pre-emptive strikes against the networks when necessary. The United States’ National Security Strategy proposes these actions to effectively close the door on the era of containment and deterrence and open the door for a new era of strategic pre-emption.
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.”
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
D
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
Tremendous piece of work. Enefe, | Dec 28th, 2003
This is a master piece. the organisation is perfect. Presentation a work of genoius. Please keep up the good work in keeping us informed in matters of world politics.
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
