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…
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
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...
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.
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”
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.
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.
During the late 19th and 20th century, the United States pursues an aggressive policy of expansionism, extending its political, military, and economic influence across the globe. The events during this ‘age of imperialism’ laid the foundation for America’s international power while simultaneously defining the use of the these powers. The policy that the United States implemented at this time is known as Big Stick Diplomacy which was to speak softly but carry a big stick. This meant that the United States would ask for something or take a stance on an issue and if another nation refused or went against the United States, then the military would be summoned to ‘resolve’ the issues. This domineering foreign policy defined the politics of American Imperialism that was especially prevalent from 1890-1913.
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.
Tarrow, Sidney. “Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, 2001.4.
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.
Balaam, David. Introduction to International Political Economy, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education, 2005.
Paradise and Power paints a picture of America and Europe, living in two separate worlds with regards to foreign policy. America is depicted as an ardent supporter of hard politics'. They consider world power and politics to be defined in militaristic terms. They have little patience for diplomacy, and resort to force to resolve International Disputes quickly. They also have a very black and white view of the world' in that they see elements as good or bad'; friend or enemy'. . It is therefore said that America is living in a Hobbesian state of Anarchy, where freedom can only be protected using brute force and strength (Kagan 2003 p. 4). This has been clearly represented in America's war with Iraq and the Axis of Evil' that has been dominating American Foreign Policy discourse since 9/11.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. London.