Layne, C. 2012. ‘This time it’s real: The end of unipolarity and the Pax Americana’ International Studies Quarterly, 56(1), pp. 203-213. • In this piece, Layne emphasizes the inevitable relation between US supremacy in world politics, particularly through the spread liberalism and its economic dominance. Specifically, it underscores that America’s waning influence is aligned with its economic situation. • Layne’s article fits into my framework because it identifies a respective connection of the almost perish American polarity and the downturn of its finance • Layne is able to support his argument with various statistics from the IMF and World Bank such as a comparison on the GDP of US and other economically advanced countries in Europe and
The first issue which Cox raises is that of a lack of understanding of and study into the concept of empire by current research in the field of international relations (Cox 2004, p230). This element would appear to be sound, but only in so far as it relates to Cox’s other assertion that the orthodoxy of American society and academia are opposed to labelling America an
Over and over again, Williams illustrates this theme of “American Exceptionalism.” Throughout the book, there are several occurrences in which the “We are the best, and all that we are doing is of benefit to the world” mentality is shown. On one hand, there is nothing wrong with being proud of roots as an American and believing that America is the greatest country, but on the other hand, using this thought process in in order to legitimize the domination and control of other nations unlike America while preaching one set of values and acting on others, is wrong. We see these actions play out time and time again as America invades and controls other countries “to help” them, however, prohibits the country from experiencing the full advantages of self-determination – a value that America claims to hold i.e. a tragedy of American Diplomacy.
The United States “regular[ly] resort[s] to war” on the foundation of a “militant foreign policy,” which is associated with a “hegemonic national identity.”3 According to Hixson, the militancy of foreign policy stems from western Europe whose “colonialism and imperialism…flowed from the aggressive expansion of a…worldview that apotheosized its way of life as ordered, reasoned and providentially
At the turn of the 19th century, the US was in a position to become the superpower it is today, after winning the Spanish American War, a new US viewpoint came to mind, the one of an imperialist. The driving forces of US imperialism in the late 1800s to early 1900s were to have new markets for goods to be sold, military expansion through new bases around the globe, and a need to uplift foreign cultures to American “standards”.
There is not one American identity. There is not a single consistent plan for what American policy is, should, or will be. Sure, this political scientist might present a plan for a specific crisis, but there is always a politician in the wings with another plan to counter the first. Every politician’s opinion is different, just as every citizen’s is. Our experiences shape our identities, as does the information we are fed in school, by our families and friends, as well as the media. The view I have of the United States and its place in the world is quite different than most because I am a first generation American. Moreover, my family comes from Venezuela, where their international policy is starkly different than America’s. The United States of America’s international role has unquestionably shaped my opinions, outlook, and behavior.
From the dawn of man, the different civilizations of mankind have been out to dominate and conquest the globe. To spread his/her’s power, authority, and culture across as vast an area humanly possible. Only in the last century have these ideals been diminished, but for the U.S. during the turn of the 20th century it faced a choice on this path. Was the U.S. to remain to the domain of the contiguous United States? Or was it destined to take foot on the global stage and claim land far from it’s shores? William Graham Sumner, an American sociologist and Albert Beveridge, a U.S. senator from Indiana both disagreed as to whether imperialism was right for the country. Beveridge argues that imperialism is beneficial to the U.S. by giving access to raw materials, while Sumner fears that imposing rule on someone who does not want to be ruled makes us the exact people that we declared our independence from. This is just one example from their different views on American Imperialism.
The United States, one of the most powerful nations in the world, was founded less than two hundred and fifty years ago. Since 1776, the year when the thirteen original colonies ratified the Constitution, three cornerstone ideas have been the drivers of the country’s progress-- Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Found in the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson, these three concepts have been crucial in the lives of all Americans throughout the existence of this nation. Liberty, which includes personal and economic freedom, was the main reason why the colonies decided to break away from the United Kingdom in the eighteenth century. The U.S. went through many economic booms, various recessions, and several major economic depressions throughout its history. Yet, here it is, mostly unscathed and in full glory, still dominating the world stage in economic and foreign affairs. However, in the past two-three decades, the economic conditions have changed adversely, especially for the younger generations. It is an undeniable fact that the consumer and labor markets have undergone tremendous adjustments, partly due to people’s changing lifestyles, as well as globalization. According to Janet Yellen , the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairwoman’s, statement to Congress, the “[country’s] financial conditions have worsened” and the United States economy has become “less supportive of growth” in recent years (Web). The combination of these various factors and
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.
During the 19th century the United-States, already a regional power, slowly emerged as an imperial one (Slater, 2010; Steinmetz, 2005). Up until the 20th century, the country was mainly focused on fulfilling its ‘manifest destiny’ and centred its foreign policy on Latin America (Kissinger, 1994). It was of great importance for the Americans not only to differentiate themselves from the colonialist Europe but also to assert their
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,
There is perhaps no other political issue in our contemporary society that is more pertinent, pervasive, and encompassing than a nation’s economy. From the first coins used in Greece and the Asia Minor in the 7th century BCE, to the earliest uses of paper money, history has proven time and time again that the control of a region’s economy is absolutely crucial to maintaining social stability and prosperity. Yet, for over a century scholars have continued to speculate why the United States, one of the world’s strongest and most influential countries, has one of the most unstable economies. Although the causes of this economic instability can be attributed to multiple factors, nearly all economists agree that they have a common
In truth, its history dates back as far as the sixteenth century, following the first great expansion of European capitalism, which resulted in slave trade, colonialism and neo-colonialism (Ezema, 2009). Throughout history, world powers have continually sought to perpetuate their way of life: from the philosophy and mythology of the Greeks, the political ideologies and linguistics of the Romans, and the art and architecture of the Italian Renaissance (Daghrir, 2013). Thus, it comes as no surprise that the aftermath of the post-war era, which saw the collapse of Soviet communism and the emergence of the United States as the sole hegemon, saw the aggressive spread of American ideals, values, and beliefs. Indeed, just as American goods flooded world markets in the post-World War II era; American culture now penetrates every continent through the aggressive development of mass communications, trade expansion and information technology.
“America was conducting business as usual, but others were joining the game.” (Zakaria, 221). All this time we thought we were on top, we were actually slowly becoming less and less of leader and more a bystander as the rest of the world is slowly rising around us. Zakaria shows in that quote that as America has been continuing business like always, and because of this we have failed to realize our standing with the world around us. In the book The Post-American World, Zakaria shows us the challenges that America faces today. I believe the United States is most affected by our ignorance, competition, and worldly participation.
Many strategies have been devised by empires over centuries, these strategies and decisions have helped shape the world as it is in its present state. The author explains how strategic decisions made in the past were the wrong decisions in his opinion, as John Perkins had seen first hand the devastation that could be caused by the American government in its pursuit for a “global empire”.
The Next Decade, a novel by George Friedman, talks about the predictions of countries in the upcoming decade and how the United States should react to the various challenges. The novel’s first major claim is that the United States is actually an empire, similar to how Rome and Great Brian were. However, unlike the previous empires, the United States refuses to acknowledge its status as an empire. “What makes the United States an empire is the number of countries it affects, the intensity of the impact, and the number of people in those countries affected.” The implication of this quote is that the US has gotten to be so large, if the US decided to draw out of global affairs, the impact would be detrimental. Instead of escaping its duty to the world, Friedman claims that the United States must acknowledge its status as an empire and function as such in order to maneuver the next decade. This claim is a wise claim made by Friedman, but it his only claim of worth in the novel. In The Next Decade, Friedman fails to make his thesis credible because he doesn’t his sources, provide logical arguments on his predications of the future, or examine alternative possibilities.