The United States of America has been a prime world-leading country since 1945, and the US has maintained its priviledged position through military capability, political leadersip, and economic influence. It has then established as a global primacy. US primacy brought crucial benefits, which other nation states are unlikely to attack or threaten the US and American interests directly. Plus, the primacy has significantly contributed to a peaceful international environment and gave the US the ability to cooperate with other states in order to promote human rights and slow the spead of weapons worldwide (Mingst and Arreguin-Toft, 2011). During the Cold War, there were two superpowers –the United States and the Soviet Union– which formed a bipolar …show more content…
world order, even though the US was only a military and economic superpower since then. At the end of the Cold War, the United States has concreated its status and the world has become a US unipolar order (Best et al, 2008). Although the emergence of the new great powers like China and the changes in the international fields are significant, the world order is not going to be changed and the US keeps itself as a global unipolarity (Cox and Stokes, 2012). Therefore, this essay will demonstrate how the United States of America maintains its primacy, despite the fact that there are several concerning factors, in terms of external and domestic, and finally I draw a personal conclusion to provide a judgement. First, the emergence of new great powers like China has less effect on the collapse of unipolarity of United States. The US has maintained its power and influence in the world for a long history, and it established the fact that the US is the most effective and powerful country in the world in every field of the international politics such as economy and military. Its expenditure on military is far greater than other states and is approximately 50% of the world military expenditure, while the new emerging great powers like China have been investing their military (Lieber, 2011). Moreover, one of the rising powers, China, has drastically growing its economy and has expanded its production nationwide. Its products are, for example, available in any parts of the world, and people can buy them so easily. As a result, China acts as a leader of the Third World, even though other new great powers such as BRICs countries have been also developing gradually (Best et al, 2008). However, some international relations analysts argue that the emergence of the new great powers is not so fast enogh to overcome the US primacy and cannot achieve the US economically at this stage. The fact that China has been developing its economy so fast is not because China has gained a power to defeat the US economy but because China has a huge population. Because of the huge population in China, its economy gets bigger. Also, China is not ready yet to defeat US technological and military capacity (Cox and Stokes, 2012). According to the famous economists such as Eichengreen, Park, and Shin (2011), a country’s rapid economic growth does not last forever, and it gradually slows down. This applys to the situation of China that while China is trying to concrete its influence in economy, China could not go further as it has now an aging population. It has a large dependency on old age, and thus it is difficult to maintain their rapid growing economy. Therefore, the US maintains its primacy while other nation states are developing economically. Secoond, even though the international institutions has been evolved in the sphere of the world politics, the US still has power to influence other states and maintains its primacy. One of the international relations theories, realism, has argued that a key actor in the international politics is the state (Mingst and Arreguin-Toft, 2011). A country is a sovereign state and no authority can intervene the sovereignty of the country. However, the evolution of the international organisations has changed the concept of the non inteference of the sovereign states. The international systems and institutions, such as the International Court, the United Nations (UN), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as well as Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), can intervene the sovereign states as these institutions stand over the well-defined territory of the sovereign states (Best et al, 2008). Though International institutions has a higher autority over the states, the US has its seat in the UN Security Council and thus it has an ability to persuade or influence other nations as a global primacy (Layne et al, 2012) The US has power to effect the world through international organisations. Hence, the US preserves its primacy even at the time of the evolution of the international systems. Third, globalisation has an impact upon the US unipolarity but the United States is still a global primacy. Since globalisation has been occurred, interdependence and interconnectedness of the countries has drastically increased and a nation’s security could be threatened easily by foreign armies, its products, foreign influence over international laws and so on. (Nye Jr, 2011). The United States is required to cooperate with others in order to create a peaceful international environment, although the US has power to give an order to the world. In addition, the world is now more globalised, the United States is able to help other countries through military (Nye, 2011). For example, there are US military bases in the world and one of them is in Japan. As it has a US military base, Japan is less likely to be attacked by its neiboughering countries. Even if Japan is in danger of being threatened by them, US uses force to fight against the country. Some Japanese scholars are however against having US base in Japan because US armies cause several problems, although having US military base provides a national security. Plus, the US is the most dominant country in every field of international politics, and it supports to integrate and cooperate with one another countries (Best et al, 2008). Moreover, the globalised world has been getting much smaller due to the development of technology and communication tools (Layne et al, 2012). The leaders of countries can discuss issues between them without actually meeting each other. People of a country can also influence other countries through social networking system and magazines (Best et al, 2008). For instance, American news such as CNN and ABC has a huge impact on the global scale and which makes US easier inflences the world. Therefore, US keeps its primacy even in the globalised world. However, some theorists argue that the US is not primacy but in decline because the unipolarity of the United States is overestimated in the multipolar world order. China has been developing its economy and its impact is huge as China is considerd as a leader of the Third World (Edelman, 2010). Other BRICs countries and non-state actors have also threatened the US primacy in terms of ecenomy, attack and invasion. Nontheless, the US primacy is stable and no other nation states can overcome this situation. It is because US has a great history as aleading country and developed its connection with other nations. Unlike China, the US has a lot of followers and thus it can enjoy its management function on a global scale (Mingst and Arruguin-Toft, 2011). The United States has concreated its leading role in the world through its history and it is considerably impossible that the US could be replaced by any other countries. In conclusion, the United States maintains its primacy today. US has been leading other states since 1945 as a unipolarity of the world. Some might argue that China is now getting the role of the US and leads the other nation states as its economic development has put a huge impact on the global scale. Nevertheless, the world reputation of the US can never be broken by any other states because the US is playing a role of leading others. If other nation states lose the US as a leader, the world might be collapse and cannot fix it easily. Bibliography Best, A., Hanjomäki, J. M., Maiolo, J. A., and Schulze, K. E. (2008) ‘The End of the Cold War and the ‘New World Order’, 1980-2000’. International History of the Twentieth Century and Beyond, 2nd eddition. London: Routledge. Edelman, E.
S. (2010) ‘The Briken Consensus: America’s Contested Primacy’. World Affairs. [Online] Available from: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/broken-consensus-americas-contested-primacy [Accessed: 20th of October 2015]
Eichengreen, B., Park, D., and Shin, K. (2011) ‘When Fast Growing Economies Slow Down: International Evidenceand Implications for China’. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 16919. [Online] Available from: http://www.reod.zju.edu.cn/proimg/201142818212680.pdf [Accessed: 21st of October 2015]
Layne, C., Wohlforth, W., and Brooks, S. G. (2012) ‘US decline or primacy? A debate’, in M. Cox and D. Stokes (eds), US Foreign Policy, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lieber. R. J. (2011) ‘Can the US Retain Primacy?’. Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs. Vol, 3. [Online] Available from: http://www.israelcfr.com/documents/5-3/5-3-4-RobertJLieber.pdf [Accessed: 12th of October 2015]
Mingst, K. A. and Arreguin-Toft, I. M. (2011) Essentials of International Relations, 5th edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Nye, J. S. (2011) The Future of Power. New York: Public Affair.
Nye Jr, J. S. (2010) ‘The Future of American Power’. Foreign Affairs. [Online] Available from: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2010-11-01/future-american-power [Accessed: 16th of October
2015]
The alliance formed between the US and USSR during the second world war was not strong enough to overcome the decades of uneasiness which existed between the two ideologically polar opposite countries. With their German enemy defeated, the two emerging nuclear superpowers no longer had any common ground on which to base a political, economical, or any other type of relationship. Tensions ran high as the USSR sought to expand Soviet influence throughout Europe while the US and other Western European nations made their opposition to such actions well known. The Eastern countries already under Soviet rule yearned for their independence, while the Western countries were willing to go to great lengths to limit Soviet expansion. "Containment of 'world revolution' became the watchword of American foreign policy throughout the 1950s a...
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. Print.
Odd Arne Westad, Director of the Cold War Studies Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science, explains how the Cold War “shaped the world we live in today — its politics, economics, and military affairs“ (Westad, The Global Cold War, 1). Furthermore, Westad continues, “ the globalization of the Cold War during the last century created foundations” for most of the historic conflicts we see today. The Cold War, asserts Westad, centers on how the Third World policies of the two twentieth-century superpowers — the United States and the Soviet Union — escalates to antipathy and conflict that in the end helped oust one world power while challenging the other. This supplies a universal understanding on the Cold War (Westad, The Global Cold War, 1). After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union opposed each other over the expansion of their power.
CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies, 10 Aug. 2012. Web. The Web. The Web. 07 Jan. 2014.
The United States of America has never been content with stagnation. The landmass of the Thirteen Colonies was enough to rival that of the Mother country from which they separated. The forefathers believed that it was the manifest destiny of this nation to eventually claim the expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. By 1890, nearly a hundred years following the original claim of Manifest Destiny, the land that was once open, was now under American control. But no sooner was the Great American Frontier closed, than was the door to East Asian expansion opened with the great gold key of American diplomacy. In a world where imperialism was contagious, and cartographers had to work around the clock to keep up with an ever-changing geopolitical landscape, the United States seized the opportunity to establish herself as a significant world power. With great expansionist minds at her helm, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Howard Taft the United States began to grow beyond her border to claim stake in this wide-open world. This new expansionism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was a different institution than its early to mid nineteenth century counterpart. Still, the drive to exercise the sovereignty of the United State and to propel itself over the world’s stage was the same then as it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. In order to understand this assertion, attention must be given to three levels of analysis. First, the similarities that exist between the drive and purpose of old and new expansion must be taken into account. Second, the differences in the global political scene must be considered. Finally, there exits differences in the means by which expansion occurred.
The time period between 1945 and 1991 is considered to be the era of the Cold War. The Cold War, known as the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, each known during this time as the “super powers”. This conflict consisted of the differing attitudes on the ideological, political, and military interests of these two states and their allies, exte nded around the globe. A common political debate covers the issue of who, if anyone won the Cold War. Many believe the United States won the Cold War since (it) had resulted in the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union. While others are to believe the United States had not won it as much as the Soviet Union had lost it since they feel Reagan did not end the Cold War, but that he prolonged it (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) This has lead me to believe that there is no winner, only losers of the cold war. The cold war for the Soviet Union was to ensure security, block out capitalism, gain power, and improve their economy. While, on the other hand the United States just wanted to stop the spread of communism, which they felt, would spread rapidly throughout the world if they did not put an end to it soon. Both the United States and the Soviet Union wanted to avoid WWIII in the process of trying to achieve their goals.
It is the belief that America expresses its cultural superiority through its wealth and dominance, and its superiority is measured in military strength. Using the appeal of logos, he states, “to the idea that its power is a sign of God 's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations— to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image” (Fulbright 1). This belief that “the United States has a divinely ordained role to play in the sacred drama of the world history” (Lears 33) is one that Fulbright argues must not succeed. According to “The Arrogance of Power Revisited” by Jackson Lears, Fulbright was concerned that “America was losing its perspective on what was within its capacity to control and what was beyond it”
Iryie, Akira. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: The Globalizing of America, 1913-1945. Volume 3. New York: Cambridge University Press 1993
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Tarrow, Sidney. “Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, 2001.4.
Balaam, David. Introduction to International Political Economy, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education, 2005.
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. London.