The discussion about today’s international order and if
America is a unipolar empire in this week’s readings was very interesting. However,
I do not agree with John Inkenberry that today’s international order is
unipolar with America as the greatest power (granted that this article was
written in 2004). I think we have more of a multipolar order with America,
China, and the EU as the main powers.
John Ikenberry discusses if unipolar America qualifies as an
empire. An empire makes unilateral decisions and functions outside the order
(Ikenberry 2004, 615). However, today’s American-led order has liberal features
because it allows participation and cooperation from other states (Ikenberry
2004, 620). Therefore, unipolar America does not qualify as a formal empire,
but rather as a liberal hegemon that also defends its nationalist interests.
Neo-conservatives want a neo-imperial strategy because of
the threats created by the 9/11 terror attacks. America should be the global
ruler and use its unipolar and military power to confront rogue states. On top
of that, neo-conservatives call for America to retreat from treaties and
international agreements (Ikenberry 2004, 625). This strategy imposes several
problems, however. The Wars on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq are still
ongoing. Not only do these wars cost large amounts of money, but they also cost
many lives. Because America acted unilaterally when it decided to invade Iraq,
it weakened international institutions like the UN, which it created in the
first place.
I think that today’s world order is not unipolar but
multipolar. China, for example, has become an economic powerhouse. Mark Benson
points out that China is the winner of America’s War on Terror (2009, 102).
While America is busy spending large amounts of money on the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, China has become an economic power and could even surpass
America in a couple of years.
References
Beeson, Mark. 2009. “Hegemonic Transition in East Asia? The
Dynamics of Chinese and American Power.” Review
of International Studies 35, no. 1 (January): 95-112. Accessed December 6,
2016. https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson+International+Relations/Readings/Beeson+-+Hegemonic+Transition+in+East+Asia.pdf
Ikenberry, G. John. 2004. “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of
Order in the American Unipolar Age.” Review
of International Studies 30, no. 4 (October): 609-630. Accessed December 5,
2016. https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson+International+Relations/Readings/Ikenberry+-+Liberalism+%26+Empire.pdf
I agree with you, Christine, in that we still have a multipolar world and that the US does not dominate a unipolar world. While the US often sits at the head of the table while other nations are not even invited to the table and sit far off, the US maintains its seat through coordination. Unfortunately this coordination often includes military cooperation and monetary pressures and stress, but the ability to have military and monetary resources to do this also take coordination. You mentioned that the US's decision to go to war in Iraq weakened the UN - this is an excellent example of when the US's coordination faltered and exposed its weakness.
ReplyDeleteThis goes exactly in line with your classification of the US as a 'liberal hegemon that also defends its nationalist interests'. China might look to be able to surpass the US in economic power but their coordination is so poor they cannot even allow their citizens to access the full internet. The US has major problems, I'm not arguing for its exceptionalism, but I think agree that this is not a unilateral world just merely one where the US has emerged as a leader in many of its international organizations. As you mentioned in your post, the US does not make unilateral decisions for the entire world. Our decisions may affect the entire world, but they are not on behalf of the world.