USA: Don't Move So Fast

In this week's lecture, Dr. Jackson mentions theories that explain the rise and fall of Great Powers. I think all the theories play a role in past, current and future international relations. It is only the idea of the human project, which I rely on less, but in the face of global crisis such as global warming, and the war on terror it might not be as improbable as I believe it to be. In any case, when we consider the world as it is today there is strong evidence to support that power transitions, hegemonic stability, and constitutional moments have all contributed to the current way in which the global arena operates.

Power transitions theory explains much of our world history and why hegemonic powers have fallen giving rise to great powers. It explains China’s success over Japan and the U.S.’s over the former Soviet Union, etc. When I think about power transitions the first thing to come to mind is natural. The balancing of powers is simply an instinctive process in the world of international relations because there are individuals and groups who are naturally competitive and seek to dominate and control. Of course, not every person or group thinks or functions in this way. But, they do exist and the actors who inhabit these tendencies are the ones who keep the world in a perpetual state of war.

Power transition theory is a reason for the hegemonic stability the U.S. has had up until recently. I say recently because it appears that the Trump administration seems eager to withdraw from the current arrangement, which has been in effect for years. Such a move would surely agitate any harmony that exists in world politics. Moreover, I believe that if the U.S. does interrupt global cooperation any further than it already has it risks losing its hegemonic status which may give leverage to great powers (ex. China). In order to maintain its hegemonic status, which does not appear to be such as bad thing considering the relative peace experienced in the last several decades, the U.S. should probably learn from history's mistakes. Instead of trying to regain the status it had in its formative years it should refrain from making drastic changes in the world’s political order. America may not be “winning” in a triumphant way but it is already a winner, being that it is the hegemony in today's world order. If I had any recommendations for the country’s long term stability and success it would probably be to keep things as is and probably strengthen and/or create new constitutional agreements with other actors to deter war and maintain peace.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more