|
August 19, 2009
My position is that the unipolarity of the US in international affairs is ending with the emergence of multipolarity (eg. the rise of China). And the US's attempts to establish an empire through US hegemony has lead to imperial overstretch. Overstretch is a cause of the demise of hegemonic powers.
This position is premised on balance of power theory. The core of this theory is simple:
States that are perceived as becoming too powerful or threatening to others will eventually find themselves opposed in a variety of ways by either a single state or a coalition of states. states that amass too much power inevitably generate resistance from the international system and a balance of power is restored.
According to this theory the United States would increasingly find its preponderant power checked by the emergence of new great powers. Robert A. Pape concludes his Empire Falls article in National Interest thus:
Since the end of the cold war, American leaders have consistently claimed the ability to maintain a significant forward-leaning military presence in the three major regions of the globe and, if necessary, to wage two major regional wars at the same time. The harsh reality is that the United States no longer has the economic capacity for such an ambitious grand strategy. With 30 percent of the world’s product, the United States could imagine maintaining this hope. Nearing 20 percent, it cannot.
The US is a declining hegemon and faces rising challengers. Will it respond by actively containing China?
Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth challenge this argument in their book World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy that the United States does not face strong systemic constraints and that it has the ability to engage in a strategy of what they call “systemic activism.” In their view, “the United States can push hard and even unilaterally for revisions to the international system without sparking counterbalancing, risking the erosion of its ability to cooperate within international systems, jeopardizing the gains of globalization, or undermining the overall legitimacy of its role (217).” The current unipolar system is durable, the United States does not face strong systemic constraints and so external constraints will not meaningfully impede U.S. efforts to revise the international system. The overwhelming thrust of the book suggests that American hegemony can and will last for a very long time.
In a roundtable review of their book
|
