Here at The Hegemonist, most of my posts are written for you, the reader. Occasionally, however, I use the blog to try and get some complicated thoughts into words (like here and here). I’ve found that your comments are especially helpful on these, so if you think of something I’ve got wrong while you read, please say so in the comments. Thanks for your patience, I promise tomorrow’s post will be written for you.)
I sat down this weekend and read Peter Lieberman’s “What to Read on American Primacy.” I don’t have a JSTOR account, so I couldn’t read all of it, but what I did read had me thinking. After the fall of the Soviet Union, many realists thought that the rest of the countries in the world would come together to balance the U.S., limiting its hegemony and trying to bring down the unipolar system. Realism, as an international relations prism, dates back to the Greek city-states and came into its own during European balance of power calculations. On the other hands, many liberals thought that the U.S. was a hegemonic exception. Because it is a democracy and doesn’t engage in land grabs, many liberal theorists thought that other countries would appreciate the stability of a unipolar order and would, therefore, not challenge the system.
Have other countries tried to balance the U.S.?
Undoubtedly the answer to this question is “yes.” While no one has formed a military alliance to balance the U.S. in the traditional sense, countries have tried to both “soft balance” and “prebalance” the U.S. These are two strategies that, ironically, require the existence of a hegemon to create a stable order that can allow them. Soft balancing is what many European countries did in the run-up to the Iraq war. Soft balancing uses soft power, such as diplomacy and multilateral fora, to make hegemonic actions more costly. Prebalancing consists of building up economies and technology to eventually challenge the hegemon. Many would characterize China and Russia as practicing prebalancing, but it’s arguable as maybe they really do just want to improve the lives of their many citizens (prebalancing might just be a term made up by people who incorrectly predicted that these countries would challenge the U.S., describing what all countries do but making it sound like a fulfilling of their predictions). As I mentioned before, the irony is that the stability brought to the world system by American unipolarity (and the international norms it has brought with it, like self-determination and opposing land grabs) and American globalization (to build economies and transfer technology) neither of these balancing attempts would be possible.
What is surprising to me is that no one has tried to hard balance the U.S. I suppose you could accuse countries that have supported terrorists as engaging in covert hard balancing. It may just be that being part of the American economic system is so advantageous that even communist countries want to be part of the WTO. I suppose Iran and Venezuela are trying to come together diplomatically.
Is it advantageous to the U.S. to maintain hegemony?
Clearly the official line of the U.S. government since 1992 is that it is. Our national security strategy through Clinton and both Presidents Bush has been to increase American primacy. Our economic hegemony allows us to run huge trade deficits without worrying about fiscal repercussions. Militarily we’re completely unchallenged (although apparently we’re constantly in danger by tiny countries in far corners of the world, but that’s a topic for another day). I’ve previously discussed our status in multilateral organizations.
On the other hand, U.S. hegemony comes with responsibilities as well as rights. We take flak for Darfur even though we have no direct link whatsoever to what’s going on. Many in the world resent American power just because there’s so much of it. Peasants in the desert millions of miles away from our soil think that we’re the great Satan. Indeed, just about everywhere I’ve ever been people have strong opinions about their country, the countries that border their countries, and the U.S. Right after Iraq, people in the Latin American country were saying that their country was going to be invaded next because the U.S. desperately wanted their fresh water resources (the only resource they had in abundance). 9/11 reminded everyone that a small group of foreigners can change the world. There are clearly costs to U.S. hegemony.
Is U.S. hegemony advantageous to the world?
It’s said that late at night, after the prudish American diplomats have gone to bed, that diplomats always play the game, “who would be a better hegemon.” People are terrified of Russia and China. Africans have felt French hegemony, and Indians have felt British hegemony. The European Union doesn’t seem so bad, but European countries individually terrify many. I doubt this actually happens, but it does illustrate my point nicely. People are always more comfortable with the devil they know, and I like to think the U.S. is a bit nicer than the devil.
American hegemony provides stability, affordable energy, and some measure of security. On the other hand, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan may disagree with those points. Back on the first hand, countries like Kosovo, the baltics, and most independent African states could never exist in a completely chaotic world system. They’d be annexed by their more powerful neighbors or colonized by far away powers. I am of course biased in loving America, I’m something of a patriot. Throughout college I found myself naturally defending the country I love.
Indeed, U.S. hegemony may only be successful when the U.S. is seen as defending the status quo rather than practicing “transformational diplomacy.” We’re more trusted when people really believe U.S. interests are generally in line with world interests.
What do you think?
How would you answer my three questions? Have I overlooked any huge costs or benefits? What about balancers? Thanks for reading, let me know what you think!
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Regarding JSTOR, if you can access OpenNet, you can go to the Ralph Bunche Library and use their JSTOR account. That’s a new capability as of maybe six months ago. JSTOR that you can access from your desktop is just about the greatest thing ever.
A few simple thoughts on a very complicated issue….
First, I think there have been and are attempts to balance America militarily. For example, Iran with nuclear weapons and Hugo Chavez with his attempts to form a South American alliance (not overtly militaristic, but I feel he wants a military alliance to ease his paranoia of an imminent American invasion). But even if successful, they wouldn’t fully balance American power.
I feel nobody has balanced America because the nations that most desire it are the weakest. Free-market nations, whether democratic or otherwise, have little to fear from America. That includes China. The only military alliance powerful enough to balance America would need to be comprise of developed nations, and developed nations need not fear America militarily. If any nation does, it is closed dictatorships, communist strongholds, rogue states, etc. These nations are not currently powerful enough to challenge America. Further, America is a very valuable trading partner. By challenging it militarily, you run the risk of souring trade relations.
Is hegemony advantageous to the U.S.? I don’t think so. The responsibilities outweigh the advantages. The world’s military problems fall on the shoulders of America. Our traditional foreign policy has been to follow our guiding principles rather than act out of self-interest. This sometimes leads us into conflicts that really should not concern us. It also creates strife domestically when our leaders claim to be acting on principles but seem to many to be acting out of self-interest. I think this is a general flaw in our foreign policy—principles over self-interest—but that’s a conversation for another time. Much more could be said about the benefits of hegemony to the U.S., but I’ll move on to your third question.
Is hegemony advantageous to the world? I believe it was; I don’t believe it is now. Throughout the Cold War, America’s power was a saving grace for our allies. After the fall of the USSR, America provided leadership as the world transitioned to a globalized economy. Now that that system is (perhaps precariously) in place, resentment will only build as America continues to dominate global institutions such as the WTO, IMF, etc. Because the politics, motives and interests of countries (even those in close alliances such as NATO) will never fully align, there will be a battle to influence the decisions that affect global affairs. The struggle in the future will not be for military power, but for influence, and American hegemony in that department will not be viewed positively by those who oppose us philosophically.
@TSB - Thanks for the tip, I’ll have to try that.
@Future FSO - Your answer to the first question blew my mind, it was well-written and thoughtful. Your answer to the second question is also perceptive, and seems to be a popular view. Neo-conservatism’s failures may lead to America abandoning its liberal principles in favor of realism. I’ve always been something of a Wilsonian, so I’d hate for that to happen. We’ll see I suppose. Thanks for the great comment.
Our traditional foreign policy has been to follow our guiding principles rather than act out of self-interest.
The problem is that once we start abandoning our principals, we have nothing else. China, Russia, France, UK, Germany, India, etc, have deep civilizations, linguistic, and racial ties that bind them together. The US has its values. Once we start acting solely to protect our interests and lose touch with what makes America great, our nation can break apart or lose its cohesion.
That said, it could be advantageous to the world if we are willing to admit that our values are our values and adhering to them does not mean forcing it upon all societies of the earth. Multiculturalism ideas have the potential to undo the benefits of American hegemony.
The KEY issue, though, is that the era of the nation state will soon end and interconnectness in the world will force some sort of coordination outside of what the US or whatever dominant power can do.
Mark J, I hear where you’re coming from. This is an issue (Wilsonian idealism vs. Realpolitik) that I’ve been really struggling with lately. In fact, I probably wouldn’t have even written what I did a few weeks ago. I’m currently reading Diplomacy by Kissinger and am disturbed by the fact that I increasingly feel that Nixon had it right when it came to foreign policy. But even in his most calculating moments, I believe he also factored in American principles and our concept of American exceptionalism.
I think striking a balance between national self-interest and guiding principles is the great conceptual challenge for our foreign policy today (and perhaps it always has been, to varying degrees). Wilson was a great man, in large part because of his idealism. But the pursuit of an ideal goal just doesn’t work in the real world. It’s wise to pursue those ideals, but only with the knowledge that they can’t ever be reached and must be tempered with a dash of skepticism and reality.
I’m interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the demise of the nation-state. I, for one, do not see that happening any time soon, but would like to hear why you think it is coming.
I think that the concept of sof-balancing is not very sound (texts from Walt, Josef Joffe or Robert Pape) and the critique of this approach is quite strong (texts from Wohlforth, Brooks, Lieber, Alexander and case studies from Zhimin, Oswald, Piskunova or Onutu). Even Iraq war do not meet the criteria for soft-balancing. Actors like Russia, China or France had other motives for their actions then to balance the USA (regional issues, economics…).