The Future Of The Liberal World Order

During the twentieth century the United States of America became involved with three major conflicts that resulted in the nation shifting from a regional power into a global power. Through these conflicts the United States grew territorially, economically and industrially. Foreign policies were altered to allow the United States to gain ground on the world stage and to make their mark on the world. Through careful analysis of primary sources and scholarly document s it is clear to see that the United States involvement in the Spanish American war was the first step for the United States to grow on the world stage. The American victory in the war led to the acquisition of island territories and expanded economic and military capabilities in the both the western and eastern hemisphere as well as an increased involvement in Asia. World War I ended with American democratic ideals to be spread all across Europe. Led by President Woodrow Wilson, the United States led a one sided foreign policy that used intervention, peace treaties and military intervention to endorse international order. Despite a limited role in the war President Wilson was able to outline the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations and both of their presences can be found today.

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,

This essay argues that 1991 was the peak of American power. The Berlin wall had fallen in 1989, and then the USSR had disbanded in 1991, making the US the only superpower in the world. In 1991 America had military and financial power of that other nations could only dream of. Cox then argues that American power declined from that point because nations have a finite lifespan. As a realist he argued that all great nations go into decline and no matter how “singular and exceptional a powerful nations qualities might be, it cannot, for ever, determine the way in which the international system operates”. Williams reviewed Cox and almost instantly argued against his theory. Cox states the traditional realist view of a rise and fall of national power, but Williams argues a more liberal view, that American power, while not being as dominant, is still a

In Liberal Leviathan John Ikenberry argues that the American led liberal hegemonic order has reached a major shift in its authority within the liberal order. In the last two chapters of the book, Ikenberry argues that the era of unipolar hegemony for the United States is ending, and that it will eventually have to re-negotiate its balance of power with other emerging states. Critics believe that the American liberal world order is no longer serving its original purpose, and is becoming a more imperial order that is beginning to disintegrate. Ikenberry also highlights that there are many states that could rival the overall hegemony of the United States. Overall the last two chapters of the book argue that the United States needs to consider taking a new pathway so that the liberal order can accurately serve its role for the challenges ahead.

The debate over America power is one that is extremely relevant today, especially following this month’s revelation by the International Monetary Fund that China has just overtaken the US as the world’s biggest economy (Fray 2014). The two articles, ‘Is the United States in decline—again?’ (Cox 2007, pp. 643–653) and ‘The empire writes back’ (Williams 2007, pp. 945-950), take very different views on the state of America’s influence in the world today. Realists believe that the world is an anarchical environment, and states – who are the only actors – are all self-interested and driven by power. Cox takes this realist approach in his article, arguing that power is necessary for security and highlighting absolute power that includes factors such as military, economic and cultural indicators. In contrast, M. J. Williams’ response to Cox takes a very different view to the debate over American decline by dismissing realism as an inadequate and irrelevant policy-making device and instead concentrating on the importance of an interdependent international system, emphasising the value of relative power among states. Although the debate over American decline is polarising, it is clear that America is still the most dominant force in today’s world and hasn’t lost any significant amount of power. Broadly summarising the two articles, Cox believes decline is on-going in the U.S. today and has been for the past four decades. Whereas, Williams is of the

The recent interactions of emerging and established states suggest that the existing standards of the current global economy are shifting. According to Stewart Patrick in his article “Irresponsible Stakeholders? The Difficulty of Integrating Rising Powers,” the United States must accommodate for emerging states within the global economy and refrain from enforcing their values of an open and liberal international economy in order to achieve effective cooperation. Similarly, Andrew Nathan and Andrew Scobell argue in their article “How China Sees America: The Sum of Beijingʻs Fears” that as China gains more influence within the global economy, the United States will have to respond appropriately to maintain its economic values. Both articles ultimately assert that

The rise of China has been one of the most fiercely debated topics in modern history among political scientists about whether the rise is good or bad for western civilization, and more specifically the hegemony of the United States. With many people and political scientists split on the issue. The reason for this split on opinion can be blamed on the how Political Scientists view the world and whether they are inherent: a Liberal (in International Relations Terms), a Realist, or a Constructivist.

Both the authors agree that the west is most certainly the main superpower in the world today. There were arguments worldwide, that the cause for the poverty in communist and/or third-world countries was the result of the rise in Western prosperity and the West was therefore able to dictate the rules of the game. These factors, both in Totalitarian and Authoritarian states, began to bring China and Latin America down one by one. It could be seen that there was only one successful factor left on the world stage, Liberal Democracies.

During the 1950’s to the present, the United State’s influence on the world as a global superpower skyrocketed. Originally Western European countries were considered the most dominant nations in the world; however, after World War 2 Europe was left in a state of turmoil, and gave way for the United States to become a global superpower. Western European countries became dependent on the U.S for military support, industrial support, and economic support in order to rebuild their nations. Eventually during the Cold War era that followed, the United States proved to be a strong and dominant nation as well by protecting and aiding Western Europe away from communistic influence, and back to a state of tranquility. Through the United State’s interaction

The United States held 24.6% of world income in 1980 and 19.1% in 2011. (Sachs 2012) Many also believe that China is set to become the world’s largest economy in the near future. However, the ‘danger’ for US power is not that China will become the strongest economy on the global scale. As Drenzer argues, China ‘won’t prosper economically, as it won’t embrace capitalism’. In the long run, the danger to the US is that US power will decline ‘on all fronts’, not just economically. (Drenzer, Rachman & Kangan)

President Barack Obama’s (2014) commencement address at West Point was an effort to dispel all doubt of the United States’s (US) “exceptionalism” and the belief that America was in decline. In that speech, he emphasised how America was still a global leader, in all counts militarily, economically and most importantly, on global affairs, with regards to liberal internationalist pursuits. And indeed from the end of the second world war, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been an unmatched unipolar hegemon in the world. Issues such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2008 financial crisis have greatly affected US standing in the world (American Political Science Association, 2009). This is also further challenged by rising powers, most notably China and the other BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations. All four countries have in recent years significantly increased their military budget (Kruger, 2011) and are currently, by International Monetary Fund (IMF) predictions, to contribute to over half of the world’s growth and predicted to overtake most developed economies by 2050, with China projected to have the world’s largest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by the same time (Financial Times, n.d.). This essay will look at various aspects of traditional US dominance, namely military, economic, as well as soft power in relation to other states to determine if a relative decline is evident. Additionally, US world leadership in international

After World War II, the foreign affairs have improved. The countries have worked alongside each other to create an appropriate foreign policy, some included, “maintaining a balance of power among nations” and “working with allies to solve international problems.” With this, it allowed connections and more allows to regroup and work together to solve political problems against other countries. As the United States isolated themselves before, it would have been at

Realism assumes that under a balance of power, the overriding aim of all states is to maximize power and become the only hegemony in the system. States only help themselves in the anarchic international system. Therefore, China’s rise is regarded as a disconcerting threat to the U.S.’s primacy of power in the present international stage. The power shift in East Asia is creating security dilemmas; the U.S. thus demands more security to its Asian allies including Philippines, Japan and South Korea. The rapidly-rising Chinese power would inevitably challenge the current international balance of power and appear aggressively in the eyes of weaker power such as the Philippines. Therefore it seeks help to its ally, the U.S., to counterbalance the power of China. China intends to gain more resources and to transform current international order to its favor according to its national interests. The 2010 Chinese White Paper on National Defence states that: “Contradictions continue to surface between developed and developing countries and between traditional

In the current anarchic world, The United States acts as the global hegemon. However, China’s recent rise to power has lead international relations experts, Ikenberry, Mearsheimer, Subramanian, and Friedberg, to predict an upcoming power shift in the international system. China’s increasing control over the Asia-Pacific region has threatened U.S. power. According to Waltz, the realism paradigm interprets the anarchic structure of the international community, as a constant power struggle. Although each country may be different, to survive, they must all strive for power. Under the liberalism paradigm, the system is still anarchical but cooperation may be achieved by shared norms, and aligned political and economical interests.