Perspectives on US Hegemony

1. Perspectives on US Hegemony Readings: COX AND STOKES CH 21, NYE, GELB,Zakaria, Bacevich, Ferguson, Joffe

2. Announcements • Electronic reserves: • Ferguson and Bacevich will be up soon • Supplemental reading • We will be discussing Kagan 2007 in lecture • Same Kagan 2007 discussed in unit on Russia • Neo-conservative take on hegemony • Not required reading, but if you want to read/use it for your final examination, please feel free • http://bit.ly/9HvofI

3. Guiding Questions What is the “security trap”? How can the US avoid the “security trap”? Why do we care about US hegemony? Should the US maintain hegemony? Can it? What is meant by “the rise of the rest”? Does the “rise of the rest” threaten US foreign policy?

4. US Hegemony: Who Cares? • US remains the sole superpower in the post Cold War world. • Stance on failed states, democracy, the peace process, climate change, etc., has international ramifications • Debates over US decline and its ramifications for international politics focuses on several questions: • What role does US hegemony play in international politics? • How should the US maintain hegemony? • Should the US seek to maintain hegemony?

5. Power without Authority? • Ikenberry 2008 • Hegemony has created a paradox for US foreign policy • US is the most powerful state in the world • Yet, its international authority suffered during the Bush administration • Anti-Americanism on the rise throughout the world creates a situation where the US has “power without authority” • Has capacity to act but not the legitimacy to act • “Power without authority” not a foregone conclusion • The “End of History” favored US ideals • Liberal democracy, global markets, multilateral governance • So what happened? • Weakened authority is a function of unwillingness by US administrations to realize that a transformation within the international system is occurring • American power increasingly more controversial and contested during the Bush administration • Iraq war largest manifestation of this

6. The Changing International Context and the Security Trap • Ikenberry 2008 • Three major shifts in the international context are critical for world politics • Rise of unipolarity • US as the hegemon has greater options and opportunities to act, but this creates resentment • Incentives to “go it alone” and/or incentives for allies to “free ride” can create conflict • Changing norms of sovereignty have altered the international context • Balancing in not an option in a unipolar context • Power threatens smaller states regardless of who wields said power • International “rights to intervene” have weakened norms of sovereignty • Norms such as R2P create the basis for powerful states to intervene in weaker states • But these norms are still evolving • Democratization can weaken other states reliance on the US • There is no anti-democratic threat to bind allies together and provide legitimacy for US action • Democracies are unlikely to “fall in line’ behind the US without reason • Failure to recognize these shifts creates the “security trap” • The more the US tries to use power/force to solve security issues the more it faces resistance and becomes more isolated • The way in which the US uses force is key to its legitimacy • Must accept restraint on its power via international institutions to regain its authority • Upsetting a “rules based order” creates the impression that the US is a “revisionist” state

7. Return to a “Rules Based” Order? • Ikenberry 2008 • To avoid this security trap, future US administrations must: • 1) Signal a willingness to operate within a “rules based” order • Return to a WW2 mindset where US not only creates international rules/institutions but also follows said rules/institutions • Constrains US power but gives it legitimacy • 2) Find ways to make the use of force contingent upon collective decision making bodies • UN Security Council ideal; NATO also works • Reduces policy autonomy but creates burden sharing • Reduces the “footprint of unipolarity” • 3) Create a new vision of an international order that de-emphasizes military strength • Advance a liberal world order which is seen as “mutually beneficial” throughout the international community • Ikenberry 2010 • Obama administration’s “liberal institutionalist” vision is the right approach to deal with avoiding the “security trap”

8. Facilitating Decline? • Can the US perform all of its “required” roles in this new international context? • Gelb 2010 • US leadership is key for solving international problems • But it is a nation in decline • 1) Deteriorating infrastructure, schools and political system • 2) Diminished economic strength, weaker democratic vitality have created a “malaise” • Economic competitiveness and political cohesion are key to US strength and both are declining • US as a debtor nation • Republicans and Democrats do not cooperate • The “demons of ideology, politics, and arrogance” are responsible for this decline • Instead, Democrats are too afraid of looking weak and Republicans engage in swaggering and unwilling to look at facts

9. Avoiding Decline? • Gelb 2010 • 1) Restore American dynamism and economic competitiveness • 2) US indispensability is key in the post Cold War era • But this requires ad hoc partnerships to solve pressing problems NOT necessarily multilateralism • 3) Focus US resources on the most pressing threats • Power requires prioritizing threat in order to be used effectively • 4) Develop policy and coalitions BEFORE a threat arises • 5) Power in the post Cold War world is about more than just the use of force • Economics and diplomacy are key

10. American Decline? Not So Fast… • Nye 2009 • US will remain the pre-eminent in the foreseeable future • Must differentiate between relative and absolute decline • The latter is problematic for the US • Rotting “from within” is more likely than challenge from outside • But even here, the US is more robust than often described • Power distribution is different today than in previous eras • 1st level: military power-US has no rivals • 2nd level: economic power-multipolar world • 3rd level: transnational relations-power is diffuse • US must worry about non state actors and ideas • Competitors have economic and political impediments which will “complicate” its rise • US immigration policy, economic growth, and university system will enhance its soft power • Combining hard power resources while enhancing soft power resources (i.e. smart power) key for maintaining hegemony

11. Debunking Decline • Joffe 2009 • Fears about US decline are nothing new • Pundits and scholars habitually raise concerns about the decline of US hegemony • 1950’s-1970’s: Soviet Union • 1980’s: Japan • Today: EU/China • Even in the midst of a major current crisis, forecasting decline ignores the unmatched nature of US influence/strength on all real indicators of power (cultural, economic, military, diplomatic) • Patterns of “glee and gloom” obscure this reality • US military and higher educational system places it in a league of its own • China typically cited as the most likely “threat” to hegemony” • But China does not threaten US supremacy

12. US Hegemony as Empire? • Ferguson 2004 • US hegemony is a fancy term for empire. • Although the US hates the term the US is an “informal empire” • World benefits from a liberal empire • Protect rule of law, reduce corruption, maintain economic markets, etc.). • The US is the only state which can play this role • Accepting the mantle of empire has both materialist and altruistic components. • Materialist: deposing despots and containing epidemics makes the US safer. • Altruism: humanitarian intervention is sometimes necessary and the US is often the only state with the resources to act

13. US Hegemony as Empire? • Bacevich 2008 • US interventionism often justified on the basis of a supposedly existential threat from fundamentalist Islam. • Open-ended “war on terror” motivated by an attempt to consolidate power within the executive branch and the military-industrial complex. • US falsely believes that its strength makes it indispensable and that hegemony gives it the right to impose beliefs and values on other nations. • Focusing on the periphery is damaging for US foreign and domestic policy. • Belief in invincibility led the US to ignore internal threats (i.e. 9/11). • Resorting to force in the name of freedom undermines US values. • And boosts and imperial presidency that undermines Constitution • The belief that the US is beyond challenge fosters a belief amongst the American public that they deserve more than they are willing to sacrifice • Led the US into massive debt and increased dependency on foreign goods (and oil) • Led Americans to believe that their values are universal (and the are not).

14. Maintaining Empire • Ferguson 2004 • Yes; the world needs US leadership. • But the US is currently only effective in defeating enemies, it is not able to rebuild states. • The US must accept this imperial mantle and fix its internal politics in order to be effective • Economic deficit: relies far too much on foreign capital; massive debt is problematic. • Manpower deficit: small military force /should work with the EU/UN to coordinate peacekeeping forces. • Attention deficit: American public not willing to stay the course. • The first two can be fixed more easily than the third.

15. Maintaining Empire? • Bacevich 2008 • No. • Iraq war is an example of the worst excesses in this “global unending war against terror” • But could also be the “last straw” which forces a fundamental rethink of US foreign policy. • Maintaining the trappings of empire in the name of “freedom” damages US interests. • Makes US less secure globally. • Undermines US democracy. • Debt is unsustainable and threatens to damage the nation. • Politicians must make it clear to the public that power has its limits. • Bringing our goals in sync with the rest of the world will boost US strength. • Abolishing nuclear weapons • Take a leadership role in fighting climate change • Stop preaching to others about democracy.

16. Maintaining Hegemony? • Kagan 2007 • Yes; the world needs US leadership • Regional competition could destabilize the system without a strong US influence • Ensures liberalism retains international viability vs. authoritarianism • Alliance of democracies critical for signaling international commitment to democracy • US does not need to blindly push democracy, but the concept is important • Joffe 2009 • No alternative; The US is the “indispensible nation” • The “default power does what others cannot or will not do” • US flexibility can stave off decline to ensure it remains ‘indispensible” • US advantages coupled with its “warrior culture” critical for ensuring global public goods. • Warrior culture: military a function of prestige and social advancement • Liberal empires key for global public goods • Autocratic states do not concern themselves with global goods • Excludes China and Russia as alternatives • Europe lacks the “warrior culture” mentality to take up this mantle

17. History Repeating Itself? • Zakaria 2008 • Polls suggest that Americans are feeling less optimistic about their future. • The “inevitable” rise of China • The fall of the Roman empire and the end of the British empire “reinforce” this feeling of decline • But the US is not the British empire; the British empire had weaknesses the US does not have. • The US has greater economic strength; problems are political. • The UK had political strength but was weak economically.

18. Explaining the ‘Rise of the Rest’ • Zakaria 2008 • Overextension in Iraq and Afghanistan will not bankrupt the country. • The US is not “in decline” • US demographic and educational flexibility will preserve its role as global leader far into the future. • US is not facing the same demographic crunches as Europe and Asia. • Emphasis on “how to think” rather than rote memorization will boost efficiency and innovation. • What we are witnessing is not the decline of the US but the “rise of the rest” • The world the US created (predicated on liberal economic norms) is improving the lives of many around the world. • This “rise of the rest” does NOT threaten the US. • Welcoming the “rise of the rest” allows the US to project influence • But US domestic politics is making this difficult

19. Managing the Rise of the Rest • Zakaria 2008 • The world benefits from US leadership • But it can only be undermined from within • Domestic political trends favoring isolationism threaten US hegemony • Examples: • Trade restrictions against China • Limits on immigration and restricting student visas. • US provincialism (lack of language study etc.) • Puts the US at a strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis the rest of the world • Attempting to undermine this rise would result in nationalism. • Undermines US postwar leadership.

20. Next Unit • If You’re Interested… • Zakaria. The Post American World 2.0 • Kagan. The Return of History and the End of Dreams • Nye. The Future of Power • Ferguson. Colossus • Bacevich. Washington Rules • Theme:Prospects for USForeign Policy • Cox and Stokes CH 22