Hegemonic States Are Ultimately Set To Fail. These States

Although global actors can sometimes have considerable power over states, the extent of this power ultimately depends on the relative power and influence of the state in question. Large developed states, such as the US, are extremely powerful compared to most other global actors and are not often influenced by their actions. However, small and undeveloped states are not always completely powerless. To determine whether states are indeed the most powerful global actors, we must look at the relative powers of trans-national corporations (TNCs), non-government organisations (NGOs) and some of the institutions of global governance.

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

This rationality means they will pursue interests “in terms of power according to offensive neorealism, or in terms of security according to defensive neorealism” (Collard-Wexler, 2006). These two strands have been heavily debated within neorealist theory, particularly by Mearsheimer in favor of offensive neorealism and Waltz in favor of defensive neorealism. John Mearsheimer believes that the goal of states is to maximize power while Waltz believes the goal of states is to “maintain their positions in the system” (Snyder, 2001). There is no punishment for irrational or aggressive behavior because of the anarchic nature of the system so states must rely on themselves for survival, through the use of power. Due to anarchy, states will balance “against their peers by imitation, by boosting their national assets (internal balancing), forming alliances with other states (external balancing) or by adopting the successful power-generating practices of the prospective hegemon (emulation)” (Wohlforth et.al, 2007) and these 3 processes will prevent hegemony.

Jingoism intwined with governmental policy and “a majority…of Americans…grant[ing] spontaneous consent to foreign policy militancy” influences policies related to foreign and national security in the United States.1 European history of colonialism and imperialism impacted the development of foreign policy and national security. In Culture, National Identity, and the “Myth of America,” Walter L. Hixson leniently critiques American foreign policy, while advocating towards a more “cooperative internationalism.”2 Melvyn P. Leffler in National Security, Core Values, and Power fails to formulate an engaging argument for national security policies reflection of America core values. In reference to foreign and national security policy, both Hixson and Leffler refer to the impact of hegemony, with Leffler’s mention succinct and without specific detail. In the United States, foreign policy leans towards jingoism, while national security policy develops from general core values.

In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

Hegemonic internationalism by definition is a paradox within itself. Internationalism suggests cooperation among nations for common good, while hegemony is an instance when one nation has power over another nation. This leads to the belief that hegemonic internationalism is, in reality, one nation pursuing its own national interests at the expense of other nation. Nazi Germany, Iran and the United States are all examples of a nation pursuing hegemonic internationalism.

In a country of complicated decisions made by politicians about far away places and the people that live there, it's only a guess as to the motives behind each of these decisions. In Noam Chomsky's book "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance", Noam gives a scrupulously researched critique of America's quest for dominance at any cost that not only has cast us in the role of a rogue superpower but also jeopardizes the very survival of humanity. From reading this book, I will give an account as to what Chomsky says about American hegemonic ideals and give him credit for the attempt that he has made to expose historical truth.

In the book hegemony or survival Noam Chomsky talks about the idea of human existence and having the intelligence to not ruin our self in his first chapter. He identifies two powers in the current world, “the united states and world public opinion” (Pg. 4). He shows us that every one of the American presidents has their own type of disappointing foreign policy no matter how liberal that president might be. Chomsky says in the end when hope is destroyed, democracy is allowed (Pg. 10). In the second chapter he quotes the national security strategy talking about America’s main goal. Therefore enforcing hegemony is Americas next step Chomsky then says America should be flexible when detaining. The government only meets with elite ideas they no

Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget). Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party

In “Structural Realism...” Waltz defends his theory of Structural Realism against criticism that its tenets are no longer valid in a post-Cold War world. The international system, he writes, is still anarchic, even though that system is unipolar instead of bipolar as it was during the Cold War, and that states still seek hegemony and power. A nation 's ideals and internal factors may count for something (he posits that the US intervention after the collapse of Yugoslavia was the result of such pressures),3 but they certainly shouldn 't. States should make decisions based on the idea of maintaining their own security and maintaining a balance of power in the international system.

Why Nations Fail takes an in depth look into why some countries flourish and become rich powerful nations while other countries are left in or reduced to poverty. Throughout this book review I will discuss major arguments and theories used by the authors and how they directly impact international development, keeping in mind that nations are only as strong as their political and economical systems.