Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Implications for the U.S.

The Response to American Hegemony

One can identify various possible levels of response to American superpowerdom. At a relatively low level, there are widespread feelings of fear, resentment, and envy. At a somewhat higher level, resentment may turn into dissent, with other countries refusing to cooperate with the United States. In a few cases, dissent has turned into outright opposition, with countries attempting to defeat U.S. policy. The highest level of response would be collective counteraction, the formation of an anti-hegemonic coalition involving several major powers. An anti-hegemonic coalition is impossible in a unipolar world, because the other states are too weak to mount it. It is unnecessary in a multipolar world because no state is strong enough to provoke it. It is, however, a natural and predicted development in a uni-multipolar world.

The most important move toward an anti-hegemonic coalition antedates the end of the cold war: the formation of the European Union and the creation of a common European currency. Yet the question remains: Why has a more broad-based, active, and formal anti-American hegemony coalition not emerged?

First, it may be too soon.

Second, while countries may resent U.S. power and wealth, they also want to benefit from them.

Third, the international relations theory that predicts balancing under the current circumstances is a theory developed in the context of the European Westphalian system established in 1648. All the countries in this system shared what they recognized was a common European culture that distinguished them sharply from the Ottoman Turks and other peoples. Global politics now, however, is multicivilizational as well as multipolar.

Fourth, the principal source of contention between the superpower and the major regional powers is superpower intervention to limit, counter, or shape the actions of the major regional powers in their regions. For the secondary regional powers in those regions, however, superpower intervention is a potential resource to be mobilized against the threats they see coming from their region’s major power.

Implications for the U.S.

What are the implications of this uni-multipolar world for the United States? First, it would behoove Americans to stop acting and talking as if this were a unipolar world. The American public clearly sees no need to expend effort and resources to achieve that goal. Second, while the United States cannot create a unipolar world, it is in American interest to maintain for as long as possible its position as the only superpower in a uni-multipolar world. Third, as we move in the direction of a multipolar system, the appropriate replacement for the global sheriff is community policing: devolving to the major regional powers primary responsibility for the maintenance of international order in their regions.

In the multipolar world of the twenty-first century, the major powers inevitably will compete, conflict, and coalesce with each other in various permutations and combinations. Such a world, however, will lack the tension and conflicts between the superpower and the major regional powers that is the defining characteristic of a uni-multipolar world. And for that reason the United States could find life as a major power in a multipolar world less demanding, less contentious, and more rewarding than it has been as the world’s only superpower.



Foreign aid or (development assistance) is often regarded as being too much, or wasted on corrupt recipient governments despite any good intentions from donor countries. In reality, both the quantity and quality of aid have been poor and donor nations have not been held to account.

There are numerous forms of aid, from humanitarian emergency assistance, to food aid, military assistance, etc. Development aid has long been recognized as crucial to help poor developing nations grow out of poverty.

In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to give 0.7% of their GNI (Gross National Income) as official international development aid, annually. Since that time, despite billions given each year, rich nations have rarely met their actual promised targets. For example, the US is often the largest donor in dollar terms, but ranks amongst the lowest in terms of meeting the stated 0.7% target.

Furthermore, aid has often come with a price of its own for the developing nations:

Aid is often wasted on conditions that the recipient must use overpriced goods and services from donor countries

Most aid does not actually go to the poorest who would need it the most

Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich country protectionism that denies market access for poor country products, while rich nations use aid as a lever to open poor country markets to their products

Large projects or massive grand strategies often fail to help the vulnerable as money can often be embezzled away.

9. American Culture The AMERICAN DREAM. It's the belief that each American has the freedom to pursue a better life — a nice house, a car or two, and a more comfortable existence than our parents.

This freedom has fueled incredible "RAGS TO RICHES" stories, such as Presidents starting out in log cabins and highly successful entrepreneurs who came to America as penniless immigrants — not to mention the guy that dropped out of Harvard to become the richest man in the world. These stories contribute to the American political culture.

Every country has a POLITICAL CULTURE— widely shared beliefs, values, and norms that define the relationship between citizens and government, and citizens to one another. Beliefs about economic life are part of the political culture because politics affects economics. A good understanding of a country's political culture can help make sense of the way a country's government is designed, as well as the political decisions its leaders make. For example, why does Great Britain still have a queen? She doesn't have any real political power, so why don't they just end the monarchy? These questions can be puzzling, unless you understand something about the British political culture — one that highly prizes tradition.


Date: 2015-12-24; view: 859


<== previous page | next page ==>
Analytic means that the attribute is contained in the notion | Alexis de Tocqueville
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.009 sec.)