Unipolarity is largely accepted by scholars as the least stable of systems, with some scholars even questioning whether unipolarity can realistically exist. Wohlforth contests this position on unipolarity in his article, “The Stability of a Unipolar World,” and presents his reasons for why unipolarity has to be stable. The United States is used as the unipolarity example, and is described to have all the qualities a unipolar system must have, including the durability of a decade at the time Wohlforth’s article was published. With the fall of the Soviet Union after the Cold War the United States came out of the conflict as the supreme superpower in world politics. This caused the system to change from bipolar to unipolar. It is theorized …show more content…
The author’s reasons for this are that the United States is the most powerful nation economically and technologically, in addition to having the most powerful army. This makes it difficult for one to argue with the unipolarity of the U.S. I believe that unipolarity exists, but I disagree with the suggestion that it is stable, as the stability of a system largely depends on the leadership, and within a unipolar system leadership will be all the more integral to the existence of the system. This is especially in a country such as the United States, as the leadership changes every four to eight years and the tactics used to deal with hegemony will change with those leaders, thus creating an unstable …show more content…
was peaceful. Having one sovereign leader in world politics limits security conflicts, such as the arms race that took place during the Cold War. Another reason for peace is that no smaller or weaker state is willing to rise up against the leader of a unipolar system because they don’t want an enemy. It wouldn’t be wise for a weaker nation to challenge a stronger one, and in the case of a unipolar system every state is weaker. In which case, the balance of powers theory may not apply in this specific situation. These were the ideas presented by Wohlforth, but in hindsight, I find the idea of peace rather unrealistic. While other states may not rise up against the U.S. individually, they can easily enough form a coalition to defy the power the United States might hold in a unipolar system. This leads me to believe that the very proposition of peace is an instability in
As the United States developed into a world economic power, it also became a military and political power. Certain things led Americans to become more involved in world affairs, such as territorial growth. There were also consequences to the nation’s new role, like conflict between citizens and people of power. United States government and leaders had to learn the “hard way”, the challenges and negativity that they would face, such as loss of money and lack of control between certain nations, and the positive effects such as expansion of territory and alliances.
In ancient times, there was a country of stupendous power and might. A nation which amassed a military like no other, grew an economy so strong that it seemed everlasting, and established a government that stood for its people. It appeared that this was the country to set an example for all countries that followed. It was the behemoth of prosperity. It was the great Roman Empire. It seemed as though this country’s reign would never end, but this was far from the truth. For with great prosperity came a dreadful plummet and eventually collapse. This was the unfortunate fate of all powerful nations, including that of, dare it be said, the United States of America. The all powerful and unbeatable nation which reigned its dominant influence over the entire world. Surely, it could never have fallen. However, that statement would be considered nonsensical if directed toward the once almighty and all powerful Roman Empire. Thus, it could not be stated for the “Great Experiment” (USA). Which was why the comparison between the two, very similar, superpowers was logical. Clearly, the Roman Empire which had striking parallels to the United States was a foreshadowing of America’s fate: Inevitable collapse. Both superpowers had vastly similar economics, foreign influence, and government, of which, Rome had experienced an unfortunate decline. Thus, comparisons could be made between how Rome and America rose to power, began to lose their power, and eventually, how Rome fell and how America might have fallen.
98-176. 5 Robert H. Ferrell, America as a World Power, 1872-1945, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers Inc., 1971), p. 265. 6 Arthur Meier Schlesinger, p. 46. 7 Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, (New York: Vantage Press 1976), pp.
Fallows article was compelling and insightful as he presented the issues regarding America’s apparently impending collapse. His ability to compare the United States to China introduced a unique perspective to the analysis as he showed that the nation might be falling behind its Asian counterpart. However, an analysis of the US with the European Union reveals that America is still not as badly off. If the right changes are made within the governance system and perhaps the constitution, the United States will successfully stave off their assumed decline and reinstate its position as a global hegemony.
The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe became the East nations, and the United States, centered on NATO formed the West nations, dividing the world in two. Belonging to neither the East nor the West, developing countries were called Third World nations and became a stand-in for wars between the East and West (Gaddis, The Strategies of Containment 70-78). The end of WWII and the beginning of the C... ... middle of paper ... ... a, from containment to rollback in Korea; welcoming European integration because it portended the creation of an economic unit that encouraged technological innovation; building a configuration of power in the international system, nurturing free markets while safeguarding American interests, a constant in Washington for more than 35 years; and, free political economy at home were just a few of the strategic methods used to change, influence, and shape American domestic policy (Leffler, The Specter of Communism,100-129).
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 Second World War ended, between the reality of a Europe devastated and weakening the international system and Germany, a crumbling on the verge of being split, the United States and Soviet Union emerged as the superpower in the world, the wealthy and the powerful. Both countries quickly control the entire system of international politics. However, the Soviet Union-United States with two opposing ideological stand on opposite sides of the battle. A series of consecutive conflicts emerged, while not causing a direct confrontation, but it was the beginning of a historical period known as the "Cold War".
"When a power vacuum separates great powers, as one did the United States and the Soviet Union at the end of World War II, they are unlikely to fill it without bumping up against and bruising each other" (Gaddis). This 'bumping' and 'bruising' caused the tensions and hostilities that surfaced in the years following WWII.
With the shock of two destructive world wars and then the creation of the United Nations, whose aim is to preserve peace, it is unconceivable for these two nations to fight directly in order to promote their own ideology. But the US and the USSR end up to be in competition in numerous ways, particularly in technological and industrial fields. In the same time they start to spread their influence over their former allies. This phenomenon have led to the creation of a bipolar world, divided in two powerful blocs surrounded by buffer zones, and to the beginning of what we call the Cold War because of the absence of direct conflicts between the two nations.
“While stands the Coliseum, Rome shall stand; When falls the Coliseum, Rome shall fall; And when Rome falls - the World.” Lord Byron. This essay will discuss the similarities of military, economics and systems of government between the Roman Empire of the 6th century BCE and the United States of America of the 20th century. History has revealed that all superpowers fall eventually, although much time has passed since the glory days of Rome we see in 2015 the largest superpower in charge, the United States. There are many similarities that can be drawn between the American superpower and the Roman Empire such as the same founding of government and both dominated in military, as well as economic similarities. This leads to the conclusion that because the rise to power between the two powers was so similar, the downfall will be equally parallel.
Abstract: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world’s only unquestioned superpower. How the United States evaluates its position as global hegemon has important consequences for American foreign policy, particularly with regards to the potential for future policy constraints. Thus, this paper seeks to consider the question: How durable is American hegemony? The paper first defines the state of American hegemony and then considers the primary challengers: Europe, Russia, China, Japan and imperial overstretch. It will conclude that in the long-term, East Asian geopolitical instability poses the greatest threat to American hegemony, but that in the short-term, the hegemony will prove to be quite durable as long as the United States can counteract the phenomenon of imperial overstretch. In order to diffuse both internal and international threats to hegemony, American leaders should work to pursue national interests within a framework of consensus and legitimacy as much as possible.
One of the most vigorous debates focuses on the current status of the United States hegemony and whether or not it is in decline. This begs the question, if the United States is indeed declining in status, will it still be an influential player or not? I argue that the United States is losing its prominent position as the hegemonic leader of the world, but will still remain an influential player in global politics in the following decades to come. Its decline is an imminent result of their domestic issues, the violation of international laws and economic deficit, which have posed a grave and serious challenge for the United States. On the other hand, I propose that the United States will remain a dominant force due to its innovation, cultural influences around the world, and military prowess. In their articles, “How Americans Can Survive the rise of the Rest”, by Fareed Zakaria and “America and Europe in the Asian Century”, by Kishore Mahbubani, provides two distinctive and thought provoking arguments from a declinist perspective. However, both articles are susceptible to criticism and will be further examined in order to understand the United States prominent role.
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage on foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics.
In this paper, I will argue that the current system is hegemonial. My explanation to hegemony will then be centered on the sources of the United States as a hegemonial power. Furthermore, I will state the different primary implications associated with the rise of China and what the Roman Empire offers for understanding the United Sta...
America became the sole superpower of the world. Communism is no more. Communism collapsed worldwide. The Cold War sketched the foreign policies for both the countries through the second half of the twentieth century as both countries fought for accomplices to uphold and widen their own realms of power around the world, but it did not escalate to an apocalyptic World War II. The decade- long standoff between American capitalists and Soviet communists ceased without causing any violence.