United States' Global Role Post-Cold War

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,

The US had hoped that once democracy had been established in Iraq it would open the way to a far more stable and peaceful region. Those who fortified the imposition of democracy on the nation argued that a prosperous and democratic Iraq would cause a reduction in interstate antagonism and would be a beacon for liberal democracy in the middle-east that would inspire and pressure nearby states into liberalising, bringing further democratisation of the region. However, this credence has been criticised for being dangerous to the domino theory on the spread of international communism in the Cold War and the objective has faced, and is argued to face, many challenges. Alina Romanowski, a senior US regime civilian official in the Middle East argues

Today the United States functions in a dangerously unstable world. Proliferation, politically unstable Nations, economic instability and numerous other international issues threaten our nation and its prosperity. Therefore, the United States should protect its own global interests by striving for order and security. The US can do this by maintaining relationships between allied nations, avoid involvement in other nation’s human rights so not to hinder economic growth, and prevent proliferation of dangerous weapons in unstable groups’ hands that can threaten national and international security and stability.

During the Cold War the United States had a clear framework that helped guide their foreign policy. Then the idea was to maintain a balance of power between America and the Soviets, and during those days’ by “power” they meant military. Following the fall of the Soviets America emerged as the global hegemon with the largest conventional military in the world. But today with the evolution of technology much has changed. Obama has argued that “This century’s threats are at least as dangerous in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past” (Datta, 2015) This is a time for the United States to choose a course to replace the incoherent path we have been on over the last 25 years (Bremmer, 2015). We have the resources, this is a time to renew U.S. leadership in the world and make America great again. In order to accomplish this, the United States needs to create a universal doctrine and focus their foreign policy on working to improve conditions in the Middle East in order to decrease/terminate terrorism worldwide and stop the murder of innocents. Make strides with Russia one of the only other countries with nuclear weapons in order to stabilize and stop nuclear development in Iran and North Korea. Also the U.S. should make an effort to collaborate with China who is emerging as a world power and could soon surpass the U.S. together both countries could do great in the world, all this without neglecting domestic issues and working towards recreation of the

The United States of America, since the end of the greatest war our world has gone through WWII, has believed itself to be a world "hegemony." However, at the turn of the millennium, that title seems to have outgrown its welcome. The United States, over the past fifty years, has placed her focus to those nations in need of a democratic government. However, while the United States may have had the best interests at heart, or even on the surface, this foreign policy needs to be revamped to meet the needs of the international community, if the United States is to continue playing the “World Police” card. In the "War on Terror" the United States begins a new round of missionary democracy across the Middle East, at least, in the invasive manner

Zakaria describes what he terms the rise of the rest as a consequence of the continuous efforts of American politicians and diplomats urging countries to “open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology” (60). The basis idea of this book highlights the United States road to being a global superpower and how its stagnation during recent decades have caused a striking shift from America being the world’s only actor to a weakening, less dominating player in the international system. Although this realization is alarming, this actually means good for America. Ultimately, Zakaria describes a world where countries are “more open, market friendly, and democratic” (242) because of the good old United States.

(2) The effects of intervention were horrifying. (3) The roots of this intervention lie in a fixed geopolitical conception that has remained invariant over a long period and that is deeply rooted in U.S. institutions” (Chomsky 1985). This introduction characterizes the entirety of his article—blunt and censorious in regard to American foreign policy. Chomsky argues the desire to manage the “Grand Area,” which includes all regions around the globe “strategically necessary for world control” (Chomsky 1985) and economic motivations determined the entirely of 20th century American interventions. The idea of the Grand Area, which includes South America, Central America, the colonies of the former British Empire, and Southeast Asia, originated in the early 1940s from studies managed by the War-Peace Studies Group within the Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department. Chomsky further declares that inn pursuit of these goals the United States dismantled its core principles: “human rights, democratization, and the raising of living standards” in Latin American countries in pursuit of raw materials under the guise of fighting communism. In order to explain extreme U.S. actions in regions with little to no economic benefit, such as Vietnam and Laos, Chomsky uses a version of the Domino Theory—if one country defies the desired global order and experiences economic success it risks other weaker states deflecting from the United States’ wishes as well. He characterizes the Vietnam War as a success, because the total devastation inflicted on the land and the people by American bombing campaigns destroyed the possibility of any short term economic or social success, thus preventing “the rot” (Chomsky 1985) of communism from spreading. Cuba, Panama, Mexico, Honduras, Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Grenada and El Salvador all experienced

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.

When it comes to the topic of the distribution of power in international arena, there is one state that cannot be left behind in any debate. The US has been considered as a global hegemon since the end of the Cold War, but more recently there has been no clear vision about its role in transformation of current international system. Although, other great powers tend to pick up pace in gaining strength in some dimension, the US status of the strongest superpower that dominates the global governance can be backed up with its economic and military capacity as well as its geopolitical influence.

Although much debate surrounds the United States’ classification as an empire, there is no doubt or argument saying that the U.S.’s involvement in global affairs has changed the world, whether that is a positive or negative outcome will be left for another day. In this paper, the US shall be regarded as an empire because of its past and present actions in the global viewpoint. American dominance in the global view of the world can be traced back to the end of the Second World War, when they surpassed the United Kingdom as the world’s superpower, although many British people did not accept it at the time. It was at this time that the U.S. began to fight proxy wars to contain the threat of Communism, which just ended up undermining American

Throughout the United States emerging as a world superpower, the narrative in history shows the U.S. as a hero and rescuer of other nations (Hesford and Kozol, 2005). Mass media encourages this narrative by continually setting international news stories with “the United States as liberator” (Hesford and Kozol, 2005, p. 4), which is evident in how many

Former Secretary Henry A. Kissinger once said, “No foreign policy - no matter how ingenious - has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none.” Kissinger’s statement seem pessimistic in context of the surge of globalization nowadays, but it does shed light on America’s stance when it comes to foreign policy- only born in the minds of a few. In fact, “Americans do not give much thought to foreign policy”. Many Americans only pay attention to foreign policy either when it is contingent on the safety of their families or when their economic, social, physical freedom is in imminent danger. The issue of terrorism, for instance, was only predominantly brought into light when the nation was prompted to address its position in the global spectrum with the attack of 9/11.

It is true that the end of the Cold War has shaper a unipolar world in which many countries aspired to the American dream, but the 9/11 events have revealed American interests in the Middle East, and consequently have reshaped the world’s centers of power. Krauthammer (2003) believes America has the power to control the world if it chooses so because it was given the tools for such actions: “The choice is ours. […] History has given you an empire, if you will keep it” (p. 155). However, Ferguson brings solid arguments that America does not have the power to provide sustainable support for its military and economic power because it lacks the capacity to provide human capital to control these two powers. Even though American has the power to exercise world leadership, it cannot do so because it does not have the right tools.

In many eyes, the USA could be perceived as the world leader, the innovator and main influence across the world (Eftimiades, 2014, p32). However, I believe that compared to the late 20th century, the USA is not as influential as it once used to be. This has been seen by numerous embarrassments and mistakes by the USA in the past 15 years (McCoy, 2010). Examples such as leaked confidential American documents, political gridlock and unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has undermined the power of the US and home and abroad. Another reason why I believe America has lost power in the 21st century is the trend of creating ‘communities’ of countries such as the European Union and the ASEAN, which allow for free trade and other agreements,

Over the last several decades the United States of America has had the seat of leadership on the world stage. During this time different US Administrations have viewed the world through changing times and circumstances, and through the lens of several different theories of international relations. The current Administration’s foreign policy positions, articulated by the President himself during his recent West Point commencement address as well as the Administration’s self-described “pivot,” or “rebalance” to a larger focus on Asia, show a dominant reliance on the Liberalism theory of International Relations. This paper will analyze the current Administration’s Liberalism theory by looking at arguments put forth by the President during his speeches, explain the Administration’s assertions on the importance of international institutions, and describe how the “pivot” to Asia is good for the country. Finally, this paper will make some recommendations for changes to the current Administration’s foreign policy, based upon actions and theories that previous Administrations have used effectively.