World Leadership: Divided Between Cultures, Not Between Countries

World leadership: divided between cultures, not between countries

Since the end of World War II, the United States of America has emerged as the newest form of empire, and has been in conflict with various types of nations, despite the fact it has never been in the position of actually defending its geographical territories. Many do not contest the fact that America is a new form of empire; yet, its actions and policy towards exercising world leadership are questioned and criticized. Charles Krauthammer (2003) argues that America has the right to this leadership because it is the only superpower with the ability to maintain peace and extend democracy in its purest form. Even though agreeing with Krauthammer that America has a certain economic and military supremacy, Niall Fergusson (2003) argues that lack of necessary human and capital investment on the long-term is preventing America to exercise world leadership. However, Fergusons’ arguments that America disregards its need to cooperate with international powers seem to be stronger than Krauthammer’s arguments that America has the ability to control the world because even if Ferguson does not use cultural background in the most effective way, he argues along other authors’ points of view and provides effective evidence to support his ideas.

Ferguson (2003) believes that America has reached a higher level of imperialism than Great Britain, but despite this achievement, it fails to use all its capacity to maintain this supremacy on the long-term. Ferguson approaches cultural, social, political, and military aspects to support his thesis. Cultural changes within the global world have affected negatively America’s image in front of the world. In the aftermath of the Cold War, Ame...

... middle of paper ...

...rld leadership: “[…] the world is flat” (p. 5), suggesting the power is dispersed among well-qualified individuals that can compete from just about any corner of the world on the same global market.

Works Cited

Ferguson, N. (2003). An Empire in Denial: The Limit of U.S. Imperialism, from Harvard International Review. In S. Ezel, M. Norwood, & B. Stewart, Human Ecosystems and Technological Change (2006) (pp. 156-163). McGraw-Hill.

Friedman, T. (2007). The World Is Flat. New York: Picador/Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs , 72 (3), 22-49. Retreived Jun 10, 2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20045621.

Krauthammer, C. (2003). The Unipolar Moment Revisited, from The National Interest. In S. Ezel, M. Norwood, & B. Stewart, Human Ecosystems and Technological Change (2006) (pp. 143-155). McGraw-Hill.