Has the Era of US Hegemony Ended - Essay Example

? Has the Era of “U. S. Hegemony” ended? Since ‘origination’ and also as part of continuing evolution, humans or in particular certain sections of humans have developed a tendency to dominate others, both in the positive as well as in the negative direction. This domination could be visible in every ‘sphere’ of human living, including in their personal, professional and social lives. When this dominant attitude get imbibed in the minds of the humans, who head or manage a country, and thereby becomes the policy of those countries, then it known by another term called hegemony. That is, hegemony will be visible when countries through their strong attributes particularly armed power, economic power, political power and even ‘soft’ powers, elevate themselves into top positions, and then try to assert their dominance over others through force or persuasion. From the mid part of the 20th century, United States America is one such country which ‘tried’ to or even evolved into a hegemonic country, due to the optimum development of its economic, military and even soft power statuses. In the late 19th – early 20th century, U. S. made sizable attempts to expand its political influence over other territories through their imperialistic initiatives and importantly through their involvement in both the World Wars. With the two World Wars elevating U. S. position in the international area, and with its economy, its science and technology capabilities and even mass media optimizing, it kind of gave the platform for U. S. to elevate its position further and become a hegemonic power. US’s plans to play a prominent international role got actualized in the second half of the 20th century as well, because of its confrontation with Soviet Union through Cold War, its involvement in the Middle-East and other territories. U. S’s hard-power as well as soft-power capabilities have improved so much now that no other country in the world have the capability as well as the will to dethrone it from its position of solo superpower, as U. S. hegemony is stronger, aggressive and at the same time democratic and benevolent.1 However, the other view is, due to certain misadventures, U. S. days as the solo superpower could be numbered.2 This paper will focus on this hegemonic status of U. S., by analyzing whether U.S. hegemony is going to continue or end, and by concluding how it is going to continue and not going to end soon. U.S. Hegemonic beginnings Although many European countries including Britain, Spain, France, etc., exhibited their imperialistic policies to become a hegemonic power in the early centuries, U. S. played a subdued role then. With U. S. ‘forming’ into country quite lately and due to its domestic issues, it did not initiate any major imperialistic steps. However, in the late part of 19th century due to its indirect confrontations with Spain in foreign territories, it started moving in that direction. That is, the Spanish–American War took place when U. S. involved itself in the Cuban War of Independence, and also due to its attacks on the Spanish territories in the Pacific area, particularly on Philippines.3 U. S. started initiating imperialistic actions, when it found that its interests are being undermined by other powers and also when it found that there are no strong opposition from the indigenous people because of in-fighting between themselves. This perspective was validated by Derbyshire (2003), who stated, “In places where America's interests are at stake, however (and in conflict with those of other nations)-and where national feeling is divided, or artificial, or non-existent, so that patriotic native elites cannot easily take control of the situation-we need to act in our own interests”4 The key intention of U. S. to indulge in imperialism and thereby become a hegemonic power in the long run is to develop economically. When countries normally enter territories rich in natural resources, after capturing the power of governance, they will mainly go for these resources, and U. S. is no exception to it. These resources helped to U. S. to run its domestic industries, thereby economically prospering. “…expansionism was driven by the idea that the American economy needs to grow continuously in order to sustain domestic harmony”.5 Apart from these early signs or manoeuvres, U. S’s prominence in international sphere came during the World Wars particularly during the Second World War, with its role in the establishment of United Nations. That is, when America ended the Second War with the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan, and established United Nations, its stake in world politics increased. Along with this, its rivalry with erstwhile Soviet Union and the related initiatives, it took, elevated U. S. to the pedestal of world leadership, albeit with mixed results. When Soviet Union in the second half of the 20th century tried to spread its communist ideology in various territories of the world, it directly conflicted with the U. S. interests. This led to U. S.-Soviet confrontation in various parts of the world in the form of the Cold War. Evolution of U. S. into a hegemonic power Immediately, after the Second World War, both U. S. and Soviet Union was on equal standing, and along with other countries constituted a multi-polar world. However, when both U. S. and Soviet Union started confronting each other in various territories as well as in non-political and non-military spheres like space science, media, etc., through ‘indirect’ confrontation, it led to a bipolar world. Both U. S. and Soviet Union started involving themselves in various conflicts all over the world in ‘third’ countries, to protect their interests there and also to gain maximum support, thereby ‘scoring’ over the other. It happened in Middle-East, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan, etc., with each country trying to capture more stakes and powers to become a sole superpower. Following the Second World War II, United States formed a web of military and economic blocks to develop and strengthen its strategic ambitions in the non-Soviet world and thereby solidify its hegemony.6 In mid 20th century in the Middle-East, both U. S. and Soviet Union involved themselves in the Arab-Israel conflicts, with U. S. backing Israel and Soviet Union supporting and propping up the Arab states particularly Egypt. Although, both of them supported the creation of Israel in 1948, Soviet Union changed its stance. Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in spite of their anti-Zionist foreign policy, favoured the formation of Israel, as they hoped that the socialist state of Israel could accelerate the decline of British authority in the Middle East.7 However, in the subsequent conflicts including Suez Crisis, Six Day War and Yom Kippur War, Soviet Union switched sides to the Arabs states. U. S on the other hand, although assuaged the Arab States, maximally supported Israel. Along with this tacit support, U. S. pre-empted any Soviet Union intervention in the War, thus aiding Israel to emerge successful and garner majority of the territories. This success in the Middle-East elevated U.S. position further in relation to the Soviet Union. All post-1945 U.S. administrations “have believed that the only way” the United States could attain its most critical grand strategic goals “was to keep others from having too much influence” on its policies.8 However, in the next part of the confrontation in Vietnam War, its position deteriorated as U. S. faced heavy losses and has to make a retreat from Vietnam. The war in Vietnam continued for close to 15 years, ending in 1975, with the North Vietnamese military backed up Soviet Union emerging victorious. Due its inadequate military plans including underestimation of Vietminh forces, U. S. could not achieve the expected success, with many American soldiers losing their lives. This gave rise to anti-War demonstrations back home and also in other countries, and many questioned whether the U. S. government had any clear ‘targets’ in the Vietnam War.9 In that scenario, sizable sections started questioning whether U. S. is morally correct to act against a sizably under-armed population, and importantly whether it is wrongly using its superpower status. Apart from this war, U. S. and Soviet confrontation to become the sole superpower or hegemonic power happened in various other territories through covert means including in Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, etc., Cuban Missile Crisis a key nuclear flashpoint, with both nations threatening to use nuclear missiles against each other. In an attempt to protect the Soviet Union from a possible missile attack from United States and to pressurize it, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba. “According to Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs, in May 1962 he conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba as a means of countering an emerging lead of the United States in developing and deploying strategic missiles.”10 As Fidel Castro, the Cuban leader, feared an invasion of his country by U.S., he readily agreed to the plan of Khrushchev. However, not be outdone, U. S. enforced a naval quarantine in and around Cuba, and with the former President John F. Kennedy at helm decided to launch an military attack on Cuba. These pressure tactics made Khrushchev to come up with a proposal, which specified that Soviet Union will remove its nuclear missile installations in Cuba; if the U. S. gives assurance that it will not launch an attack on Cuba. In late 1970s and 1980s in the Afghan War, Soviet Union was the aggressor on Afghanistan. U. S. to counter it, started arming and training the rebel fighters and they were able to achieve success, with the Soviet withdrawing in 1989. That was a major success for U.S. and placed it on the path of becoming the hegemonic power. That is, when Soviet Union disintegrated in early 1990s, there was no other country which can or wanted to compete with U. S. on equal standing, thus enabling it to become the sole superpower or hegemonic power. However, because of this tag of being the sole superpower, U. S. was and still being criticized for initiating a new form of unilateral imperialism affecting large sections of people. “…the world is being threatened by a very aggressive and militaristic form of imperialism bent on world domination”11 U. S. was able to achieve hegemony not only through military power, but also through other means including media, which is termed as Soft Power. As American new channels, Hollywood films and Television shows continue to dominate the ‘airwaves’, they are able to influence the people’s minds all over the world in its favour, thus creating a favourable and importantly strong image about it. These mediums maximally reflect the American government’s viewpoints in a positive manner, and so it kind of imbibes in the people’s minds. Nye puts forward this point through the words of a former French foreign minister who observed that the Americans are powerful as well as hegemonic because they can "inspire the dreams and desires of others thanks to the mastery of global images through film and television".12 Although, these positive results from those initiatives strengthened U. S. hegemony, certain negative results made certain sections question whether it was the beginning of the end to their hegemony. Questions that are raised against this hegemony of U.S From the above discussion regarding how U. S. began and evolved into a hegemonic power, it is clear that it was able to become that mainly because of two broad factors. One is, it’s certain positive attributes, which includes its military power, economic status, mass media reach, political influence, etc. The second broad factor is, since the Soviet Union’s disintegration, there is no other powerful country, which neither can nor want to compete with U. S. in all the ‘spheres’. This being the case, the hegemony of U. S. is still continuing. Although, questions are raised about its economic power and clout due to the latest economic recession, when it comes to other attributes, U. S. is still able to hold its dominant position. However, certain questions are being raised particularly regarding its unilateral actions in Iraq, and lack of worldwide consensus for it. Normally, the countries or even any entities, which achieve optimal power, and become a hegmon will try not only to preserve the existing power by acting against the ones who try to undermine their power, but will also go in search of accentuating their existing power. U. S. is no exception to it, so even after becoming the sole superpower in the aftermath of Soviet disintegration, it continued to act as an expansionist state, which want to increase its power advantages and importantly also wants to expand its geopolitical as well as ideological reach. This perspective is reflected in the words of Athenian leader Alcibiades, when he urged the Athenians to mount the important but at the same time disastrous Sicilian expedition, he stated, “We cannot fix the exact point at which our empire shall stop; we have reached a position in which we must not be content with retaining but must scheme to extend it, for, if we cease to rule others, we are in danger of being ruled ourselves.”13 When U.S. strategies under George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush from early 1990s are focused, it reflects the above statement. That is, they pursued a grand strategy, which was aimed at preventing the emergence of new or even threatening powers that could challenge U.S. hegemony, and also to fulfil their personal wants.14 For example, U.S. launched invasion into Afghanistan to eliminate the threat of terrorism emanating from there in the form of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. With these terror groups striking inside American territory with their Twin Tower bombings, U. S. wanted to control this threat and impose its image as a hegemonic power. This has succeeded till now, as “on the positive side of the ledger, America has so far escaped another terrorist attack on its own soil.”15 Although, there were consensuses for this initiative of U. S., with United Nations also favouring it, when it came to the 2003 Iraq War, divergence occurred. That is, when the Bush Administration decided to invade Iraq to find and dismantle the non-existent Nuclear weapons, there was opposition from many countries including its allies, with UN also refusing to give its mandate. It ended up only toppling the Saddam Hussein regime. “Thus the Iraq war was fought without the support of traditional allies such as Canada, France and Germany; without the backing of the UN Security Council; and without conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction posing an immediate threat to the US”16 All these factors put a question mark on the capability as well as the morality of U. S. as a hegemonic power. As Walt acknowledges, “In a world of independent states, the strongest one is always a potential threat to the rest, if only because they cannot be entirely sure what it is going to do with the power at its command.”17 That is, when a country reaches the hegemony status, it will be always expected to conduct itself in a controlled manner, driven by morality and consensus. However, when U. S. did not build the consensus, and as many nations including its allies opposed its overtures in Iraq, there was a view that U. S. has lost its influence over sizable countries and thereby its hegemony status is going to end. However, when viewed from another perspective, this invasion of Iraq could have actually strengthened its hegemony. Firstly, because it toppled one of the main anti-U.S. regimes, and by that it was able to eliminate one of its security threats.18 Then, importantly, it worked as a catalyst for the removal of other anti-U.S. regimes in the Middle-East like Libya, which in a way strengthens U.S. influence in the key political hotspot. “The United States has not acted as a ‘status quo’ power: rather, it has used its position of primacy to increase its influence, to enhance its position vis-a-vis potential rivals, and to deal with specific security threats.”19 Although, there are questions raised whether U. S. hegemony is coming to an end in relation to the Iraq War, it is clear that contrastingly the strengthening of its hegemony has taken place and still taking place Conclusion From the above analysis of the beginnings and the evolution of the U. S. hegemony as well as the critical period in U.S. hegemony, one can assume that U. S. has built that hegemony through a long period of strategic actions. Those actions are still continuing to strengthen its hegemonic status, and so U. S. hegemony cannot end in an abrupt manner, and may continue for years to come. Importantly, with no major country capable or willing to take on U.S. in all ‘spheres’ of human activity, their hegemony may not be fully challenged. Although countries like China, France and its old foe of Russia are posing challenges to U. S. in certain spheres, they are not able to develop into a ‘wholesome’ opposition. In addition, due to its already developed influences on countries throughout the world, U. S. only needs to continue strengthening those influences to maintain its hegemonic position. . Bibliography Acheson to Bruce, September 19, 1952, FRUS (Foreign Relations of the United States), 1952–54, Vol. 5, p. 325. Barber, Lionel. 2011, The end of US hegemony: Legacy of 9/11, [Online] Available from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f6acf1a6-d54d-11e0-bd7e- 00144feab49a.html#axzz1r6Z3kB6Q (accessed on April 4, 2012) Derbyshire, John. “An Empire Like No Other”, National Review, vol. 55, no.16 (2003). Guttman, Jon. A century after resisting American imperialism, the Philippines stand as one of its more favorable legacies, Military History, vol. 15, no. 6 (1999). Johnston, Andrew. “American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy,” Canadian Journal of History, vol. 34, no.1 (2004). Johnson, Paul. A History of the Jews. Harper Perennial, 1987. Leffler, Melvyn P. “Bush’s Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy, No. 144 (September/October 2004), pp. 22–28. Lewis, Bernard. “Did You Say 'American Imperialism'?” National Review, vol. 53, no. 24 (2000). Naylor, Karen. “The Present State of the Movement and the Challenges We Face,” Canadian Dimension, vol. 36, no. 2 (2002). Nye Jr., Joseph S. The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs, 2004. Pike, John 1997, Cuban Missile Crisis, [Online] Available from: http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/cuba.htm (accessed on April 4, 2012) Porter, Bernard. We Don't Do Empire, History Today, vol. 55, no. 3 (2005). Sestanovich, Stephen. “American Maximalism,” National Interest, no. 79 (2005). Strassler, Robert B. The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. New York: Basic Books, 1996. Waltz, Kenneth N. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,” International Security, vol. 18, no. 2 (1994), pp. 44–79. Read More