scholarly journals FUTURE OF US HEGEMONY

2019 ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
A Subotin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Social Power ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Future ◽  
Us Hegemony

Abstract. The demise of the bipolar system of international politics has revived interest in such closely related and contested terms as "superpower", "hegemon", "empire" and "imperialism". This article represents an attempt to define the most probable trend in the future evolution of the international system with regard to the role of the United States of America as the most prominent state power of today's world. This article seeks to analyse the US power posture in today's world politics by comparing its core capabilities to those of the classical empire of the previous century - the British Empire - with analytical emphasis on both the "hard power" and the "soft power" dimensions. The author maintains that the notion of US hegemony or even American Empire is still relevant despite a clear historic tendency of hegemonic decline seen throughout the second part of the 20th century. The United States still ranks high on the scale of most traditional power factors and, what is by far more important, they continue to be able to shape and control the scale and the volume of international exposure of all other major players within the framework of contemporary global international system. The relative decline of US influence upon world politics at the beginning of the new millennia has been effectively off-set by the profound change in the nature of American power which is now assuming the form of a structural dominance. The author's personal view is that US hegemony is not doomed to wane, given the enormous impact the United States have already made economically, politically and intellectually upon the post World War II international relations. The continuance of the US playing the pivotal role in the international politics of the 21st century will be dependent on the ability of the US political class to adapt to and to harness the social power of numerous non-state international actors that are due take over the leading role in the future world's politics.

Perspectives pour la paix mondiale à une époque de turbulence : Les États-Unis et les crises internationales

2005 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-90
Author(s):  
Patrick James ◽  
Athanasios Hristoulas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
External Factors ◽  
World War ◽  
International Crises ◽  
International Crisis ◽  
The Us ◽  
Using Data

Recent events in world politics raise Fundamental doubts about the reasons behind conflict, crisis and war. What, for example, causes a state to become involved in an international crisis ? In an attempt to answer that question, the present study focuses on the experiences of a leading member of the international System over a sustained period of time, specifically, the United States in the post-World War 11 era. Ultimately, in order to develop a more comprehensive explanation of activity by the United States in international crises, this investigation combines external factors with others from within the state. Following a brief review of the research program on conflict linkage, internal attributes with potential relevance to involvement by states in crises are identified. External influences on foreign policy, consistent with the tradition of realpolitik, also are specified. These elements then are combined in a model of conflict linkage. Using data pertaining both the US as a polity and an actor in the international System, propositions derived from the model are tested in the crisis domain. The study concludes with some recommendations for further research on the linkage of domestic and foreign conflict, with particular reference to the explanation of crises.

The Dark Double

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrei P. Tsygankov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Media Presentation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Interstate Conflicts ◽  
Media Narratives

This book studies the role of US media in presenting American values as principally different from and superior to those of Russia. The analysis focuses on the media’s narratives, frames, and nature of criticism of the Russian side and is based on texts of editorials of selected mainstream newspapers in the United States and other media sources. The book identifies five media narratives of Russia—“transition to democracy” (1991–1995), “chaos” (1995–2005), “neo-Soviet autocracy” (2005–2013), “foreign enemy” (since 2014), and “collusion” (since 2016)—each emerging in a particular context and supported by distinct frames. The increasingly negative presentation of Russia in the US media is explained by the countries’ cultural differences, interstate competition, and polarizing domestic politics. Interstate conflicts served to consolidate the media’s presentation of Russia as “autocratic,” adversarial, and involved in “collusion” with Donald Trump to undermine American democracy. Russia’s centralization of power and anti-American attitudes also contributed to the US media presentation of Russia as a hostile Other. These internal developments did not initially challenge US values and interests and were secondary in their impact on the formation of Russia image in America. The United States’ domestic partisan divide further exacerbated perception of Russia as a threat to American democracy. Russia’s interference in the US elections deepened the existing divide, with Russia becoming a convenient target for media attacks. Future value conflicts in world politics are likely to develop in the areas where states lack internal confidence and where their preferences over the international system conflict.

ЅTRАTЕGІ АMЕRІKА ЅЕRІKАT MЕMBЕNDUNG DОMІNАЅІ TІОNGKОK DІ АЅІА MЕLАLUІ ІNDО-PАЅІFІK

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Agung Yudhistira Nugroho ◽  
Wіntа Br Pаndіа
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Asian Region ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Future ◽  
Main Strategy

ABSTRACT            The statement of nUnited States President Donald Trump "You Say Asia-Pacific, I Say Indo-Pacific" suggests for changes in the geopolitical concentration of the United States in Asia to increase influence in the region. The progressive steps taken by America are contained in the concept of "free open Indo-Pacific" which involves several countries in Asia as the US grand strategy. The presence of the United States alliance or the designation in the Indo-Pacific, namely The Quad emphasized the seriousness of the United States in working on the Indo-Pacific concept. The Indo-Pacific which is promoted by the United States aims to stem the influence of China domination after the United States' exit in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) cooperation forum. America needs a new 'container' to be able to increase its influence in the Asian region and the Indo-Pacific concept is the answer. The Indo-Pacific United States which promotes cooperation and investment is prepared as the main strategy using the concepts of geopolitics and geoeconomics. The United States in the Indo-Pacific again reaffirmed the existence of hegemonic power coupled with moving the quad as an additional strength of the United States in the region. Opportunities and challenges will be faced by the United States in implementing this strategy, as well as countries that are members of the quad, it cannot be denied that the interests to be achieved in the future will be different. In addition to the anarchic international system, there is the term that there is no "eternal friend", but eternal importance. Keywords: Indo-Pacific, Strategy, United States, Hegemony, Investment, Cooperation AbstrakPernyataan Presiden Amerika Serikat Donald Trump “You Say Asia-Pasifik, I Say Indo-Pacific” mengisyaratkan bagi perubahan konsentrasi geopolitik Amerika Serikat di Asia untuk meningkatkan pengaruh di kawasan. Langkah progesif yang ditempuh Amerika tertuang dalam konsep “free open Indo-Pacific” yang melibatkan beberapa negara di Asia sebagai grand strategy AS. Hadirnya negara aliansi Amerika Serikat atau sebutan dalam Indo-Pasifik, yaitu The Quad menegaskan keseriusan Amerika Serikat dalam menggarap konsep Indo-Pasifik. Indo-Pasifik yang diusung oleh Amerika Serikat bertujuan untuk membendung pengaruh dominasi Tiongkok setelah keluarnya Amerika Serikat dalam forum kerja sama Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Amerika membutuhkan ‘wadah’ baru untuk dapat kembali meningkatkan pengaruhnya di kawasan Asia dan konsep Indo-Pasifik adalah jawabannya. Indo-Pasifik Amerika Serikat yang mengedepankan kerja sama dan investasi disusun sebagai strategi utama dengan menggunakan konsep geopolitik dan geoekonomi. Amerika Serikat dalam Indo-Pasifik kembali  menegaskan eksistensi sebagai kekuatan hegemon dibarengi dengan menggerakkan the quad sebagai kekuatan tambahan Amerika Serikat di kawasan. Peluang dan tantangan akan banyak dihadapi oleh Amerika Serikat dalam melaksanakan strategi tersebut, seperti halnya negara-negara yang tergabung dalam the quad, tidak dapat dibantah bahwasanya kepentingan yang ingin dicapai kedepannya akan berbeda. Di tambah dalam sistem internasional yang anarki ada istilah tidak ada “teman abadi”, melainkan kepentingan selamanya yang abadi. Kata Kunci: Indo-Pasifik, Strategi, Amerika Serikat, Hegemoni, Investasi, Kerja sama 

Conclusion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Grare
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Slow Pace ◽  
Centre Of Gravity ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Future ◽  
Economic Interaction ◽  
The Asymmetry ◽  
The Relationship

India’s relationship with the United States remains crucial to its own objectives, but is also ambiguous. The asymmetry of power between the two countries is such that the relationship, if potentially useful, is not necessary for the United States while potentially risky for India. Moreover, the shift of the political centre of gravity of Asia — resulting from the growing rivalry between China and the US — is eroding the foundations of India’s policy in Asia, while prospects for greater economic interaction is limited by India’s slow pace of reforms. The future of India-US relations lies in their capacity to evolve a new quid pro quo in which the US will formulate its expectations in more realistic terms while India would assume a larger share of the burden of Asia’ security.

scholarly journals Is China Trying to Push the U.S. out of East Asia?

2015 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 59-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Wang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Asia ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Willingness To Participate ◽  
Monroe Doctrine ◽  
Western Discourse ◽  
The Future ◽  
Regional Order ◽  
The U.S

One of the key questions for understanding the future trajectory of regional order is whether or not China is trying to push the United States out of East Asia and build a China-dominated regional order. Some Western analysts accuse China of pursuing the Monroe Doctrine and excluding the United States from the region. This article argues that the Western discourse of China practicing the Monroe Doctrine is a misplaced characterization of China's behavior. Rather than having intention of pushing the United States out of East Asia and build a China-dominated regional order, China is pursuing a hedging strategy that aims at minimizing strategic risks, increasing freedom of action, diversifying strategic options, and shaping the U.S.' preferences and choices. This can be exemplified in five issue areas: China's ties with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and China's foreign policy activism, China-Russia relations, the Conference on Interactions and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and the New Asian Security Concept, as well as China-U.S. relations. Beijing has explicitly acknowledged the U.S. predominance in the international system and reiterated its willingness to participate in and reform the existing system. It concludes by suggesting that, for a more peaceful future to emerge in East Asia, the United States and China, as an incumbent power and a rising power, will have to accommodate each other, and negotiate and renegotiate the boundaries of their relative power, as well as their respective roles in the future regional order where Beijing and Washington would learn to share responsibilities and leadership.

scholarly journals The Future of Turkey - United States Relations

Jurnal ICMES ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-196
Author(s):  
Firmanda Taufiq
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Future ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Role Of The Government

Throughout 2018, relations between Turkey and the United States seemed to deteriorate. The leaders of the two countries issued sharp diplomatic statements and the US even imposed economic sanctions on Turkey. This article aims to analyze how the future of relations between Turkey and the United States. Cooperation between the two has a long historical side after the Cold War. Relations between the two countries are based on various interests, both economic, political, military and security interests. The theory used in this study is the theory of national interest. The US has great interests in the Middle East and Turkey is the front-line ally in achieving those interests. However, there are many US foreign policies that ignore the Turkish concern and create tensions between the two countries. On the contrary, Turkey also has considerable economic interests, but the role of the government elite (in this case, President Erdogan) has a significant influence in the determination of Turkish foreign policy. The findings of this study, although it will go through complex challenges and processes, the US and Turkey will continue to maintain their relations.

scholarly journals Is It Time for the Beaver to Hop off the Eagle? A Case for Canada to Reconsider Its Geopolitical Alignment with the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Zhou
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International System ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
International Diplomacy

Canada is known for its close relations with the United States in the domains of economic affairs, defence and international diplomacy. This arrangement, however, was a product of the great changes brought about by the Second World War. The combination of British decline, Ottawa’s desire to achieve full independence from London, and the looming Soviet threat during the Cold War created a political environment in which Canada had to become closely integrated with the United States both militarily and economically. Canada did so to ensure its survival in the international system. With the exception of a few controversial issues like US involvement in Vietnam (1955) and Iraq (2003) as well as Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), Ottawa has been Washington’s closest ally since 1945. On numerous occasions like the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and as recently as the War in Afghanistan and the War Against IS (Islamic State), Canada had provided staunch military and diplomatic support to Washington in its engagements around the globe. In an era of relative peace, stability, and certainty, particularly during the Post-Cold War period and the height of American power from 1991 to 2008, this geopolitical arrangement of continental integration had greatly benefited Canada. This era of benefits, however, is arguably drawing to a close. The Great Recession of 2007-09, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the insistence on pursuing a foreign policy of global primacy despite its significant economic cost, are sending the US down an uncertain path. Due to its close relations and geographical proximity with the US, Canada now faces a hostile international environment that is filled with uncertainty as a result of superpower decline, great power rivalries, environmental degradation, and failed US interventions.

The Spoils of War

2019 ◽  
pp. 92-102
Author(s):  
Jon B. Mikolashek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Army ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Future

Patton’s wound is slow to heal; during this time, however, Patton is promoted to colonel. Discharged from the hospital, Patton returns to duty as the war ends. He hopes for the Medal of Honor but is awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. With the war over, Patton spends the rest of his time overseas maintaining discipline, giving lectures on armored warfare and the future of tanks, and preparing for his return to the United States and his family. Patton prepares himself also for the fight to keep tanks in an independent Tank Corps as a vital weapons system for the US Army.

scholarly journals Is COVID-19 the end of US hegemony? Public bads, leadership failures and monetary hegemony

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 1281-1303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Norrlöf
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Goods ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Hegemony ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Public Bads ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract COVID-19 is the most invasive global crisis in the postwar era, jeopardizing all dimensions of human activity. By theorizing COVID-19 as a public bad, I shed light on one of the great debates of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries regarding the relationship between the United States and liberal international order (LIO). Conceptualizing the pandemic as a public bad, I analyze its consequences for US hegemony. Unlike other international public bads and many of the most important public goods that make up the LIO, the COVID-19 public bad not only has some degree of rivalry but can be made partially excludable, transforming it into more of a club good. Domestically, I demonstrate how the failure to effectively manage the COVID-19 public bad has compromised America's ability to secure the health of its citizens and the domestic economy, the very foundations for its international leadership. These failures jeopardize US provision of other global public goods. Internationally, I show how the US has already used the crisis strategically to reinforce its opposition to free international movement while abandoning the primary international institution tasked with fighting the public bad, the World Health Organization (WHO). While the only area where the United States has exercised leadership is in the monetary sphere, I argue this feat is more consequential for maintaining hegemony. However, even monetary hegemony could be at risk if the pandemic continues to be mismanaged.

Rethinking United States–Caribbean relations: towards a new mode of trans-territorial governance

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTHONY PAYNE
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
The North ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Different Order

United States–Caribbean relations over the period of the last thirty or forty years have rarely—if ever—been analysed in a thoroughly satisfying way. It is a strange omission in the international relations literature given the proximity of the United States to the Caribbean, and vice versa. But the fact is that most accounts of the relationship have fallen prey to a powerful, but ultimately misleading, mythology by which small, poor, weak, dependent entities in the Caribbean have either created trouble for, or alternatively been confronted by, the ‘colossus to the north’ that is the United States in whose ‘backyard’ they unfortunately have to reside. Virtually all analysts of the US–Caribbean relationship have thus drawn a picture marked at heart by the notion of an inherently unequal struggle between forces of a different order and scale. Within this broad metaphor the only major difference of interpretation has reflected the competing theories of power in the international system developed by the realist and structuralist schools.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document