History of Religion in the United States Final Research Paper
Introduction
Society has for centuries now operated through power stratifications and dominance of specific states. The concept of global hegemony has been at play ever since the establishment of the first empire in Akkadia. The pragmatic definition of global hegemony is the situation in which a state or nation plays a major role in organizing, regulating and stabilizing the international political and economic environment. Most of the empires that came after Akkadia have relied heavily on military power and economic resources, both of which offer the state with the requisite sway over international matters. Layne (1993) adumbrates that the two-pronged approach often accords states with leadership. It is, however, imperative to note that leadership is not the same as domination with the empires being required to share the former.
One of the longest-reigning empires in modern history has to be the United States which is identified to be a pointillist empire. The nation has gained widespread influence and domination over international politics and economic environment through military dominance and market command. The advent of the nation’s supremacy can be traced back to after the Second World War wherein the nation showed the world its military might. Waltz (1990) explains that the isolationist principle implemented prior to the war had allowed the United States to become less dependent on outright spatial control and focus on growing its economic, political and military health (p.739)[1]. This played a momentous role in providing it with the requisite foundation as it established leadership and dominance over other states post world war two.
Au contraire, the international community is constantly changing with the introduction of technology and subsequent proliferation of information, making it hard for the United States to remain under the caveat of a pointillist empire. Now with less preponderance and more complexity, the United States of America has started facing imminent threats from new superpowers. The subsequent essay explores how the continued hold of international leadership and hegemony has cost the United States of America. The essay is guided by the thesis that it is high time for the nation to revamp its hegemony policy from one which is focused on military might towards economic prosperity.
Cost of Hegemony
- Changing strategies and decreased economic prosperity
The demise of most empires in conventional society was largely caused by either health factors or decreased economic superiority. A prescriptive overview of the modern era highlights that even though the United States enjoys superior healthcare systems, it still faces the same issues of decreased economic superiority faced by great empires like the Roman empire. The overview shows that the modus operandi of the Romans and America are the same in terms of global reach and domination.
The United States has maintained its military strength ever since the end of the cold war with its commitment to being the only superpower being marked by the government’s continued investment in its forces, superior warfare technologies as well as the development of a network of military bases. Summations drawn from conventional and contemporary reports and statements denote that the government is planning to proclaim its intention to increase its military supremacy with the emphasis being placed on the sea; projection of more power to uncharted territories addendum to the domination of the space dimension[2].
Nye (1990) denotes that the United States has steadily lost its power since 1945 with conservative estimates showing that its global product has declined substantially. The decreased power reflects the artificial impact of the Second World War, where in the United States dominance was solidified through military strength. The preponderance was, however, bound to go down with other nations like Russia and China focusing highly on regaining their economic health. With increased economic health, the nations are able to challenge the domination of the United States as it has focused majorly on military power.
Nye (1990) exposits that the effect of the war lasted about a quarter-century with major factors like American withdrawal from Vietnam addendum to the end of the convertibility of the dollar into gold decreasing the eminence of the United States (0.153). A comparative analysis into the United States and Russia highlights that the latter realized that military force is costly ergo it is only logical to invest in economic prosperity. The economic instruments are coupled by the manipulation of interdependence, improvement of organizational/ institutional skills as well as continued investment into communications systems[3].
Russia has been at the forefront of creating sustainable relationships with divergent nations even though the interdependence does not entirely mean harmony. The nations get to enjoy unevenly balanced mutual dependence with Russia using subtle threats against the weaker threats to gain more power. This has proven detrimental to the United States as it is slowly losing its dominance in trade and finance. As it stands, the United States is parlaying on the back foot primarily because the instruments of power have changed in tandem with domination strategies.
Nye (1990) shows that the instrument of military force and security is linked intermittently to the balancing of power. Hegemonic nations like America have always preserved their independence from military intimidation by limiting the relative power of other nations. The weaker states have, however, resorted to gaining a mutual advantage over the dominant nation through addressing both economic and ecological issues[4]. Take, for instance, Germany and France have a mutual understanding wherein the former is critical to the latter’s economic growth. This thereby means that the French do not interfere with Germany’s increased economic growth. The hypothesis is clearly shown with the French’s decision to dump their independent economic policy for the sake of their neighbours[5].
Scholars highlight that the United States is less well placed in the system to attain its ends in a unilateral manner. The apparent lack of mutual dependence on other major economies and nations has thus far sidelined the state. The dilemma has also been perpetuated by the rapid growth of private actors in different nations. Political groups and large corporations have caused the crumbling of old international patterns of war and military superiority with a primal focus being drawn on human aspirations, communications and economics[6]. Close to 30 companies today have annual sales which are greater than the gross national products of countries like Yugoslavia, Kenya and Colombia[7]. The main corollary is that the corporations are largely funded by other nations.
Nye (1990) links the divergence in thoughts and focus to the cost that comes with the transfer of military power (p.159). The cost has created an environment wherein different players determine the game of world politics. Slowly, the players transfer winnings from economic interdependence to political influence[8]. Take for example; Japan does not experience any economic obstacles which undermine their ability to improve their military might. On the contrary, the political cost to be incurred is, however considerable with their militarization reducing its ability to attain the set goals and objectives. As shown in recent military incursions, the direct use of force for economic gain has proven to be expensive and dangerous. The lack of war thereby negates the need for military superiority that is why the United States is always looking for war in the Middle East.
The current inability of the United States to deal with key issues like environmental or immigration influxes in Third World countries has reduced its inchoate ability to influence the international community’s policies. This has caused the nation to focus on the paradoxical power that is derived from political chaos in the countries while nations like China influence international policies.
- Shift from tangible to intangible forms of power
Global leadership and hegemony is always susceptible to changes as opined prior. Nye (1990) predicted that the 21st century would be marked by continued preeminence of the United States, although the power sources would experience major changes that challenge the dominance of the nation. The author argues that the proof of power lies in the ability of the dominant nation to change the behaviour of states[9]. Thus far, the United States has used its military power to subdue developing nations. The developed nations have, however, refused to bow down to the United States, which then presents a dilemma for the global leader.
Even though force is important in negotiations, the traditional instruments of power have been rendered obsolete with the new dilemmas that come with world politics. Take, for instance, America is not able to implement military power to force the Peruvians to mitigate the production of cocaine. This is because of the fact that the Peruvian government is unable to control the growth of drug dealers. The only way to do this is to adopt new power resources like the capacity for effective communication.
Effective communication, universalistic cultures and natural cohesion have all caused a substantial shift from tangible to intangible forms of power. Nye (1990) denotes that power has been passed from the capital-rich nations like the United States to information-rich states like China. Information has become more and more plentiful. The rise of an information-based economy like China has threatened the United States hegemony as raw materials have become less significant with flexibility and organizational skills becoming more vital[10].
The information-based economies have witnessed shortened product cycles and improved adoption of technology which accentuates the flexibility of their production systems. Japan has led the charge in adopt flexible manufacturing processes with the United States lagging seriously behind. Nye (1990) opines that the main reason behind the differences in flexibility comes from the size of the two nations[11]. The overt allocation of economic resources is far much easier in Japan compared to the United States because the flatter has greater organization and concentration. The same case has been witnessed in Canada, which enjoys more success compared to its neighbour.
- The threat of nuclear powers
Ever since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Second World War, countries have resorted to developing nuclear warheads in order to defend themselves from experiencing a similar catastrophe. As a matter of fact, the Cold War occurred as a result of the United States and Russia stalling on launching their nuclear heads because they would wipe each other out of the face of the other. Sagan (2012) argues that the dangers posed by nuclear warheads have grown over time with Pakistan prompting international action (p.31).
The case study indicates that the Pakistani military tasked soldiers with infiltrating Kashmir in 1998[12]. The infiltration caused the occurrence of Kargil war which was superseded by nuclear threats from both countries. The mutually assured destruction, however, de-escalated the issue with the international community stepping in.
Iraq also tried developing nuclear weapons although it failed miserably. Documents captured from the Saddam Hussein government show that the nation dismissed the nuclear weapons development program after the international community stepped in[13]. The documents elucidate that the main reason for the warheads was to safeguard Iraq from aggression from the United States.
The most recent case is in North Korea with the United States government is constantly threatened by the small nation. The North Koreans conducted their first nuclear test in 2006, which somewhat showed that they are capable of fighting with the United States. The nation further engaged in acts of aggression in 2010 by sinking a South Korean navy vessel and shelling a number of islands[14].
To make matters worse, North Korea started shipping missiles to Iran and Pakistan, which are enemies to the United States. As per recent news, Iran started developing its own nuclear heads to attach to the missiles. This has created a new dilemma for the United States as it tries to disarm the nations in a bid to remain at the helm of the hegemony ladder. Sagan (2012) shows that the number of nuclear states has increased to nine since the advent of the cold war with regional tensions increasing which the United States thrives on.
However, the mutually assured destruction has forced the United States to lead the charge in nuclear deterrence. Waltz (1990) defines deterrence as the process of dissuading someone from committing an action by informing them of the consequences (p.738). The United States strategy has been to deter Iran and North Korea from attacking through the continued improvement of its force to survive the first strike[15]. The deterrence entails no ability to defend with the United States threatening to damage or destroy the things that the rival deems to be important.
Figure 1: Nuclear programs since the Second World War
Source: (Sagan, 2012)
The cost of deterrence is shown by Sagan (2012) to be the removal of elements of defence and warfighting, both of which define the United States. The nuclear warheads have eliminated the importance of fighting as depicted in the cold war or even the standoff between India and Pakistan. The United States has been forced to face the reality of whether to live in a world free of nuclear weapons or one filled with nuclear weapons.
Maintenance of Hegemony (Does this mean war?)
The collapse of the Soviet Union is cited to have changed the international system from one which is bipolar towards unipolarity[16]. The apparent reluctance of the United States to impose a universal monarchy has created an unbalanced power. Layne (1993) shows that unipolar systems are largely a recipe to the demise of a global leader as they create a viable environment for the emergence and growth of new powers (p.7). In as well the entry of new powers minimizes the relative power and preeminence of the hegemonic state like the United States.
Contemporary musings show that the ascendancy of China has threatened the hegemonic power of the United States. Measheimer (2014) explores whether the imminent threat to the United States can cause a war between the two nations. The main hypothesis postulated is that after 1989, the United States was allowed to wage wars against small nations without having to worry about great powers[17]. The withering of the Soviet threat has allowed the hegemon to fight six wars since the ending of the cold war that includes:
- The Iraqi war of 1991
- The Bosnian war of 1995
- The Kosovo war of 1999
- The Afghanistan war from 2001 to date
- The Iraqi war of 2003
- The Libyan war of 2011
Pinker (2013) explains that war appears to be in decline with developed states and great powers not facing each other in the battlefield (p.400). The United States and Russia went against expert predictions by avoiding the Third World War. This is quite different compared to previous hegemonic structures which have been marked by superpowers engaging in wars after every two years[18].
China’s rise has conversely changed the situation because it has altered the stature of the international system. The Chinese have grown their economy to the point that they control the market. The great power politics have started returning with the Belt and Road initiative launched in 2013.
Measheimer (2014) explains that the United States is slowly losing its dominance since it is focused on military might rather than economic superiority. China has started its dominance by dominating Asia and Africa the same way America has sway over the Western Hemisphere. This might, however, spark offensive realism wherein both states will engage in aggressive behaviour in international politics[19].
Recent reports, if they are anything to go by, denote that most of the surrounding nations in Asia like Vietnam, Russia, South Korea, Singapore, Japan and India might join with the United States to limit the growth of China. The end outcome will be an intense security competition with the probability of war being imminent.
As it stands, China does not have the requisite military power to challenge the United States with the global balance of power being stacked to the advantage of the United States[20]. The Chinese power is constrained substantially although it might grow into becoming a force to reckon with if it makes use of its mutual interdependence with Russia, Iran and Iraq. The only way for the United States to ensure it retains its position at the top position is to improve on its economic frontier. The nation has to lead the international community in increasing trade and interdependence. In as well, it has to improve international communication with its thinking shifting from the desirability of war towards economic thinking[21].
Mueller (2009) explains that the notion that non-economic values are better compared to economic growth is quite conventional (p.316). For the most part, economic motivations have guided nations in establishing themselves effectively. This thereby means that the United States strategy of global domination is flawed.
Mueller (2009) also shows that the United States has to advance the idea that wealth is best attained through interdependence and exchange, not through conquest (p.316). Take, for example, Japan and Germany have used international trade to acquire oil and raw materials. The trade has allowed them to prosper in peaceful consequence with the incentive to wage war being non-existent.
The economic thinking will allow for free trade to flourish as the nations will operate without having to worry about invasion of taking on the responsibility of imperial control. The war between the United States and the great powers is ergo unlikely if the former takes prosperity as its chief goal. Even though trade alone will create a peaceful environment to operate in, Mueller (2009) cites that peace also facilitates trade[22].
Peace is an independent variable with the behaviour of the United States, determining whether the international community will flourish or not. If the nation decides to launch a war against China, then there is a high probability that the international market will experience a shock. If the Americans decide to improve their economic and military superiority, on the other hand, peace will prevail with no country even contemplating the idea of threatening the United States.
Conclusion
The preceding essay explores the hegemony fo the United States since the end of the Second World War and the threats undermining its short and long term success. The essay shows that the changing strategies used by smaller nations and continued focus on economic prosperity have led to a rise in superpowers. In as well, nuclear development programs have allowed for the growth of military threats in North Korea and Iran.
Recommendations from the paper call on the United States to take adopt a two-pronged approach to international politics. The nation has to build upon its economic and military might if it wants to curtail the threat of China. Additionally, the nation has to establish mutual interdependence with developing and developed nations to improve trade and create a sustainable international community.
References
Layne, C. (1993). The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise. International Security, 5-51.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014, October 25). Can China Rise Peacefully? Retrieved June 8, 2020, from nationalinterest.org/: https://nationalinterest.org/profile/john-j-mearsheimer
Mueller, J. (2009). War Has Almost Ceased to Exist: An Assessment. Political Science Quarterly.
Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy.
Pinker, S. (2013). The Decline of War and Conceptions of Human Nature. Harvard University.
Sagan, S. (2012). A call for global nuclear disarmament. Nature .
Waltz, K. N. ( 1990). Nuclear Myths and Political Realities. The American Political Science Review, 731-745.
[1] Waltz, K. N. ( 1990). Nuclear Myths and Political Realities. The American Political Science Review, 731-745.
[2] Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy.
[3] Ibid. (p.158)
[4] Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy. (p.158)
[5] Ibid. (p.158)
[6] Ibid. (p.157)
[7] Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy. (p.157)
[8] Ibid (p.159)
[9] Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy. (p.155)
[10] Ibid. (164)
[11] Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy. (p.159)
[12] Sagan, S. (2012). A call for global nuclear disarmament. Nature.
[13] Ibid. (p.31)
[14] Sagan, S. (2012). A call for global nuclear disarmament. Nature. (p.31)
[15]. Waltz, K. N. ( 1990). Nuclear Myths and Political Realities. The American Political Science Review, 731-745. (p.742)
[16] Layne, C. (1993). The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise. International Security, 5-51.
[17]. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014, October 25). Can China Rise Peacefully? Retrieved June 8, 2020, from nationalinterest.org/: https://nationalinterest.org/profile/john-j-mearsheimer
[18] Pinker, S. (2013). The Decline of War and Conceptions of Human Nature. Harvard University.
[19] Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014, October 25). Can China Rise Peacefully? Retrieved June 8, 2020, from nationalinterest.org/: https://nationalinterest.org/profile/john-j-mearsheimer
[20] Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014, October 25). Can China Rise Peacefully? Retrieved June 8, 2020, from nationalinterest.org/: https://nationalinterest.org/profile/john-j-mearsheimer
[21] Mueller, J. (2009). War Has Almost Ceased to Exist: An Assessment. Political Science Quarterly.
[22] Mueller, J. (2009). War Has Almost Ceased to Exist: An Assessment. Political Science Quarterly. (p.316)