Thread: How American Hegemony Relates to Peace - Final Draft

Despite the fact that the world is made up of many diverse nations, each legally separate from the other, without a common body to administer international law, the international arena over the last sixty years has been remarkably stable. The wars during this time have been relatively limited in scope, have not resulted in mass casualties throughout the world, and have not been wars between great powers. Correspondingly, these past sixty years have seen seen some of the most peaceful and prosperous times in the history of man – for instance, millions of people have been lifted out of poverty around the world because of globalization. This has largely been due to the United States hegemony, and its maintenance of the international order; thus, despite the diverse multi-polar state of the world, American Hegemony, as long as it remains viable, bodes well for world peace and confirms the result of previous inquiries into the causes of international security.

In order to understand how American hegemony has established an overall peaceful international order, it first becomes necessary to understand how a polar system becomes formed, and what a pole is. Because nations are legally separate actors, if one nation feels threatened by another, it will bandwagon with, or balance itself against the nation, in order to achieve security. According to Schweller, a nation will choose to bandwagon, or support a more powerful nation, if they do not wish to pay the high costs involved in balancing, or if they expect gain from supporting that nation. Contrastingly, a nation will choose to balance, or to oppose another nation, if it is willing to pay high costs to ensure its survival and its values.1 Implied in this duality, is that if one state prefers the current relative balance of power, and there is another state that perceives potential gain at the expense of the first state, it will seek to upset the balance of power and achieve that gain.2 This forms the basis for a polar system, with nations that are capable of balancing against threats, or Great Powers. This forms the international order.

Although the international system is comprised of many legally separate nations, despite the lack of a codified international government, their exists an informal rule of law, even among the Great Powers. The nation that is able to administer this law is the nation “which supplies the power necessary for the purposes of governing.”3 Historically, the ability to administer this law has required the nation to be the chief naval power. A navy is important because it controls who is allowed to trade on the seas, where most high volume trade takes place, and provides relatively cheap military transportation. Trade provides people wealth, which in turn provides governments with taxes and influence. In addition, if a nation is prevented from moving its military through the sea, its military will be moved relatively slowly, and is confined to land or air, which are for more expensive for mass movement. Thus, if a country is able to control the seas, they are in a unique position to coerce foreign nations, or to force the foreign nation to change their policy without using war.4 Ultimately, the nation that is the most powerful administers international law, because they are able to control the large scale movement of the other nations.

The ability of this nation to administer international law, and by extension to create an international peace, is directly related to the composition of the international order, as well as the nation's prestige. By the state of the international order, it is meant whether there is a sole great power, or hegemonic system; two great powers, or a bi-polar system; or three or more great powers, or a multi-polar system.5 In order to maintain its role as the most powerful nation, the nation that administers the laws must structure the laws in a particular way as to offset the potential gains that the great powers would receive from band-wagoning against its rule. Beyond this, the ability of this nation to rule is dependent on the supremacy of its prestige, or “the perception of other states with respect to state's capacities and willingness to exercise its power.”6 If the head nation is able to create a policy that nullifies the great powers' desire to bandwagon for gain, and is able solidify their prestige, then the international order has a stable hierarchy. If the international order has a stable hierarchy, then the overall international arena will be largely peaceful and prosperous.

The current world is currently tri-polar, with poles that center around the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, Russia, and China.

The United States is the most powerful country in the world, with the strongest military and the strongest navy. The defense budget of the United States as of 2007 exceeds $600 billion, with over $127 billion allocated for the navy. In the most recent analysis of the military budgets from around the world, the total defense budget of the United States exceeds the defense budget for all other nations combined, and the budget for the navy is over twice the budget for China, which has an observable military budget of around $65 billion. Furthermore, it vastly exceeds the Russian military budget of around $50 billion. Thus, it is clear that among the militarily powerful nations in the world, the United States posses the most powerful army as well as the most powerful navy. As such, it is the strongest nation in the world, and is the leader of the international order.7

Because of its position as being leader of the international order, the United States has the strongest polar presence, and forms a pole with most nations in the world, including the European Union. Although many European nations have powerful militaries, in particular: France, England, and Germany, because the nations of Europe participate in NATO with the United States, they are guaranteed protection by the United States and are part of the United States' pole. In addition to Europe, the United States provides security for South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and many other countries. Overall, the United States' Pole encompasses the most countries in the world.

There is also a pole that is centered around Russia. The Russian pole encompasses many of the former Warsaw Pact states located in Eastern Europe. Current Russian President Medvedev outlined how he perceives the Russian pole - it is respectful of international law, that it will develop friendly relations with the powers of the world, that it will cultivate ties with nations Russia has traditionally been friendly with, and protect the lives of Russian citizens 'wherever they are'.8 As such, the Russian pole largely exists within Eastern Europe, because that is where most of the Russian citizens, as well as Russian interests, are located.

In addition to Russia, there is the pole that is centered around China. The Chinese pole consists of North Korea, and many African nations. Historically, the Chinese entered into the Korean war on the side of North Korea. In addition, many African states looks towards China for security, because it is through China that many of these states receive their economic support. For instance, the Sudanese government has received Chinese support, in exchange for energy contracts.9 Ultimately, although both Russia and China have a powerful military, and form a pole because of their ability to balance the United States, their poles are relatively limited in scope.

Yet, despite this tri-polarity, it is evident that the supreme power that the United States enjoys is beneficial to the stability of the international arena. As mentioned, possessing the supreme hegemonic power in the world allows the United States the ability to cut off the trade of other nations, should the need so arise. The United States has a far superior navy to either China or Russia, and thus has the ability to hurt both of those governments should it decide to do so. This provides deterrence against major infractions against by either Russia or China. Beyond this, the United States adopts a mutually beneficial economic policy with both countries. The outsourcing of American manufacturing to China has created unprecedented wealth and prosperity for the Chinese people, and as such, Chinese prosperity is intertwined with American prosperity. The United States and Russia have a high degree of economic cooperation with each other – western wealth is one of the largest sources of foreign capital investment in the Russian economy, and Russia is one of the biggest suppliers of resources to Europe. Although there are issues that have the potential to cause instability between the United States and these powers, such as the issue the United States' support of the independence of Taiwan, or the United States support of the expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact, neither China nor Russia have the incentive to upset America as the hegemon, because much of their wealth depends upon the stability of America as that hegemon. Thus, American hegemonic stability has contributed to peace and prosperity.

This realization, that the power of the United States combined with the economic cooperation between the United States, Russia, and China has produced an era of peace, confirms the observations that are made in international security literature. In Arms and Influence, Thomas Schelling makes the case that the ability of diplomacy to be effective is intrinsically related to a common interest that exists between the two nations.1 Because the United States' foreign policy implicitly promotes the economic interest of China and Russia, all countries have an incentive to accept diplomacy as a viable course of resolution to conflicts, and not resort to large scale violence. In Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma, Robert Jervis writes that greater security for a nation often comes at the cost of decreasing the security for another nation, which prompts a debilitating arms race.2 It is because of this that the hegemon needs to realize that it must make the other great powers feel secure. Lastly, Gilpin writes in War and Change In Politics, that despite the fact that there exists no legal body capable of enforcing laws throughout the world, the politics that takes place in the international arena is centered around the various nations' relationship to the hegemon.3 Overall, previous studies of the causes of international peace correlate with the theories espoused in this paper.

Ultimately, the stability of the world is directly related to the ability of the American Government to pay for its power. The United States possess the supreme naval power, and by extension, is the hegemon in the international order. However, economic instability as a result of the credit crises and the high cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism, threaten to end this ability to pay for power; At the same time the United States' economy is in recession4, the costs of these wars has been said to exceed $15 billion a month5. It is clear that with these dual trends, the current manifestation of the international order is unstable, and that the United States, Russia, and China, must take a leading role in assuring its stability. The United States must enact policies which allow it to pay for its power – either reduce the budget of the military, or end the economic recession. These policies can only be undertaken if the stability of the international system is guaranteed by Russia and China, and a clear definition of the polarity of the world is accepted by all major powers. It is only through a joint effort between all the poles of earth, that we can achieve an international arena largely devoid of war, with peace and prosperity for all.

my final draft - whew - took long enough.
Hopefully someone will read this, and tell me what they think! I look forward to defending my point!

Originally Posted by The_Bear

my final draft - whew - took long enough.
Hopefully someone will read this, and tell me what they think! I look forward to defending my point!

Quite a well structured argument, however replace the word "poles" with "bloc". Also perhaps you might want to make an argument about how since America is a somewhat democratic republic the international law it dispenses is inherently more equitable or peaceful.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Quite a well structured argument, however replace the word "poles" with "bloc". Also perhaps you might want to make an argument about how since America is a somewhat democratic republic the international law it dispenses is inherently more equitable or peaceful.

Ha! You forgot the sarcasm smiley. :sarcasm:

This still sounds like world-government stuff to me. Justification for hegemony, you know.... same old same old, right?

Fortunately, I don't think Russia and China are going to see it quite the same way. I might be wrong at least about Russia, but I'm "almost certain" I'm not wrong about China.

I can tell you one thing for sure - the Chinese are laughing their ASSES off at us right now. They got nine engineers runnin' the show over there, and we have.... a chimp. Yep, the Chinese are laughin' all the way to the bank. And, they've got influence ALL OVER Latin America and Africa now - so like, why should they play ball with the US? They're more interested in IRAN, which provides 22% of their oil imports.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Ha! You forgot the sarcasm smiley. :sarcasm:

This still sounds like world-government stuff to me. Justification for hegemony, you know.... same old same old, right?

Fortunately, I don't think Russia and China are going to see it quite the same way. I might be wrong at least about Russia, but I'm "almost certain" I'm not wrong about China.

I can tell you one thing for sure - the Chinese are laughing their ASSES off at us right now. They got nine engineers runnin' the show over there, and we have.... a chimp. Yep, the Chinese are laughin' all the way to the bank. And, they've got influence ALL OVER Latin America and Africa now - so like, why should they play ball with the US? They're more interested in IRAN, which provides 22% of their oil imports.

Dude, its an essay - I'm giving him tips on how to improve it, so dont get your knickers in a knot.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Dude, its an essay - I'm giving him tips on how to improve it, so dont get your knickers in a knot.

Nah man, I'm tryin' to be helpful too.

So like, consider the case of Europe.

Which "bloc" would you say they're in? The Anglo block? The Russian block? If Vlad decides to cut off their natural gas, say, .... tomorrow, what do you think they'll do?

And um... let's say, that in the course of American "hegemony" and trying to keep the trade routes open, we decide to sanction Iran by preventing them from selling oil - what do you think the Chinese will do?

Bear's argument in a nutshell, is "stability isi good for everyone". Well.....

I'm rather thinkin', that any of the little dogs nippin' at the big dogs' heels right now, don't necessarily have that view.

And, I also think, that you'll have a difficult time convincing the Chinese People that they should be sacrificing very much on behalf of Uncle Sam.

The Russians, might be an easier sell. Maybe. Depends who's in charge and how their "bloc" is going on any given day....

Unfortunately I didn't read the entire essay Bear. I stopped at "The wars during this time have been relatively limited in scope, have not resulted in mass casualties throughout the world,..." because it is stupid thing to say. Redo that part and do a little bit more thinking about it. There is only one continent that hasn't had a war on it since WWII and I'm beginning to agree with the notion that that is the biggest problem of the world today. The last war you guys really felt was your civil war and that was 150 years ago. So shut up about the world being a tranquil place and you helping it stay that way because you are the ones who have been helping it stay volatile for the last 60 or so years. You don't know the devastations of war and by minimizing them with comparison to WWI and II you prove the points of others hating your ignorant, arrogant asses.
Look again Bear, this time take off the yanke glasses.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Nah man, I'm tryin' to be helpful too.

So like, consider the case of Europe.

Which "bloc" would you say they're in? The Anglo block? The Russian block? If Vlad decides to cut off their natural gas, say, .... tomorrow, what do you think they'll do?

And um... let's say, that in the course of American "hegemony" and trying to keep the trade routes open, we decide to sanction Iran by preventing them from selling oil - what do you think the Chinese will do?

Bear's argument in a nutshell, is "stability isi good for everyone". Well.....

I'm rather thinkin', that any of the little dogs nippin' at the big dogs' heels right now, don't necessarily have that view.

And, I also think, that you'll have a difficult time convincing the Chinese People that they should be sacrificing very much on behalf of Uncle Sam.

The Russians, might be an easier sell. Maybe. Depends who's in charge and how their "bloc" is going on any given day....

I think the Europeans are in their own bloc now - they are becoming quite self sufficient in terms of energy.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Quite a well structured argument, however replace the word "poles" with "bloc". Also perhaps you might want to make an argument about how since America is a somewhat democratic republic the international law it dispenses is inherently more equitable or peaceful.

yeah, unfortunately this paper is supposed to be five pages max, and I ran about 5 lines into the 6th page. I can't really add any more arguments.