Is American Hegemony Sustainable?

Can we stay number one?

Published on April 7, 2006 By singrdave In International

Will the United States be forever the sole power in the world stage? Kenenth Waltz said, "The American aspiration to freeze historical development by working to keep the world unipolar is doomed." (p. 345) Let's react to this in the context of the "rise of China."

Kenneth Waltz said that America was trying to maintain "the least
durable of international configurations": a unipolar world (Kaufman
339). Unipolar worlds are by their very nature fragile, since two
forces work against it:

1) the inevitable rise of a balancing force. As of 1999, Waltz says
that appears to be either a unified Europe or Japan. But in 2006, I say
China.

2) the rising cost of maintaining a hegemony. Look at the billions of
dollars we've spent in our "War on Terror" and tell me this is sustainable.

...

An appendage to my first thought:

The American hegemony does not appear to be sustainable. Waltz cites two reasons for this:
First, that "dominant powers take on too many tasks beyond their own
borders, thus weakening themselves in the long run" (Kaufman 339). We
can see that in the news: according to the Associated Press, "The U.S.
administration is spending about $7 billion a month to wage the war on
terror and costs could total $570 billion by the end of 2010."

Second, Waltz summarized the weaker states' reaction to a powerful
hegemonic actor. "For the short duration of unipolarity... even if a
dominant power behaves with moderation, weaker states will worry about
its future behavior" (Kaufman 339). The United States may be a kind,
benevolent hegemon now, but what happens twenty years from now when most
every other nation has succumbed to the sway of American might? Then a
more powerful administration comes along, flexing its new muscles in
establishing too much American and not enough international power.
Waltz continued by citing the reactions that nations undergo in order to
check unfettered power. "Faced by unbalanced power, some states try to
increase their own strength or they ally with others to bring the
international distribution of power into balance" (Ibid.).

The United States wields much power on the world stage at this time.
Where will America stand twenty or fifty years from now? Waltz
predicts that another regional power will rise to global dominance, just
to fill the vacuum of power left by the collapsed Soviet Union. Could
it be China or Japan or a unified Europe?

...

Waltz wrote that "the American aspiration to freeze historical
development by working to keep the world unipolar is doomed." (Kaufman
345) China, however, is going to be the great breaker of American
hegemonic stability. Henry Kissinger wrote recently, "The rise of China
-- and of Asia -- will, over the next decades, bring about a substantial
reordering of the international system. The center of gravity of world
affairs is shifting from the Atlantic, where it was lodged for the past
three centuries, to the Pacific."

Kissinger continued by explaining that China's rise is like unto that of
imperial Germany's 20th century rise to power. It was an inevitable
course to war, one that was hoped by European leaders to be short,
relatively bloodless, and of strategic importance only. Instead, what
the world received was two bloody world wars.

How China relates to Germany is that like the Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler
regimes, the Chinese are pursuing an aggressive foreign policy and
developing advanced armaments. China's foreign policy differs from
Germany's in one respect: military imperialism is not the way China
likes to do business. They follow Sun Tzu, not Clausewitz. China
believes wearing down one's enemy is the sure way to win in battle;
German order of battle required a toe-to-toe shootout. China's
insidious claws are felt around the world, but most importantly in the
United States.

China is already waging economic warfare with the United States. The
Chinese government is the largest single holder of US Treasury bonds.
The Asia Times reports: "China is recycling its US$100 billion-plus
trade surplus with the US back into dollars, and especially into US
Treasury bonds. Almost half of the US Treasury bonds are now owned in
Asia." Recently, China tried to purchase Unocal, an American oil
company (BBC). The best case scenario is that China is trying to
benefit from American economic power. The worst case scenario is that
they are trying to weaken the American economy by linking America with
China. A war between these states would cause the collapse of the
American economic powerhouse.

I would like examine our current China policy in a historical context.
We adopted a Communist containment policy after World War II, when the
Soviet Union was breathing down Western Europe's neck and China
threatened the Korean peninsula. The Soviets found a weak Europe ripe
for the taking; it took half and threatened a land invasion to the other
half. Secretary of State Dean Acheson neglectfully left Korea off a
list of American defensive periphery and soon thereafter the
Chinese-and-Soviet-bolstered North Korean Army swept south. The Korean
War was an attempt to contain the so-called Red Menace, which had its
origins in both Russia and China.

Right now, China is a very strong, but regional, player. But the
Chinese will rise to global power in the east. Whether they will come
at America with swords drawn or hand extended is still up in the air.
It is America's hope that containing China -- keeping it down
economically and strategically -- will be the key to maintaining
American hegemony throughout the 21st century.

Sources:

"China oil firm in Unocal bid war." BBC News, 23 June 2005. Internet: BBC News, accessed 7 April 2006.

"Iraq War costs could hit $570 billion US by 2010, troop levels not sustainable," CBC News, Internet: CBC News, accessed 7 April 2006.

Kissinger, Henry. "China: Containment Won't Work." Washington Post, 13 June 2005. Internet: Washington Post, accessed 7 April 2006.

"Structural Realism After the Cold War." by Kenneth Waltz. From Kaufman, et.al., Understanding International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses. Boston, McGraw-Hill. 2004.

Williams, Ian. "China-US: Double bubbles in danger of colliding." Asia Times, 23 January 2004. Internet: Asia Times, accessed 7 April 2006.

Comments (Page 2)

singrdave

on Apr 28, 2006

China is our enemy and we need to mobilize all our energy against it.

In this anarchic world, we can keep our world dominance through military strength

And you would do what, strike first and ask questions later? We have too much of our financial interests in China. We have to keep the flood of cheap manufactured products coming. You are short sighted and ridiculous, troll.

singrdave

on May 09, 2006

The US can't do anything about China, least of all contain it economicall and strategically. There are several reasons for this, but the most ironic lies in US corporate policy. Due to the sheer bloodymindedness of its government China is the unusual position where it can take advantage of US corporate investment rather than such investment leading to the creation of a client state.

Right you are, Cacto. Without cheap Chinese products streaming into the port at Long Beach, we would have economic chaos on our hands. Why do you think we have been Taiwan's protector all these years?

"Made in Taiwan" has determined our foreign policy towards China for decades.

Now that China itself is taking the fore, have you noticed a cooling towards the so-called "Republic of China"? We're not nearly as vocal about how we'll come to Taiwan's rescue in the event of an invasion across the Strait of Taiwan. For fear of angering our new friends, the Chinese.

trying to understand

on Jun 09, 2006

China is the enemy and people don't get it. They are stealing our money and then reinvesting it in American bonds, businesses, and real estate. Look at how they control the port at Long Beach, which incidentally is the place where most of their exports come into America. Not a coincidence.

drmiler

on Jun 09, 2006

Look at how they control the port at Long Beach, which incidentally is the place where most of their exports come into America. Not a coincidence.

You can directly thank "Slick Willie" for that one.

singrdave

on Jun 09, 2006

Look at how they control the port at Long Beach, which incidentally is the place where most of their exports come into America. Not a coincidence.

You can directly thank "Slick Willie" for that one.

I've just been reading this COL Gene guy, and for some reason he blames it on Bush!

Nope, there is no easy answer to this question. The Chinese seem to be our biggest and most formidable competitor right now, followed by Russia and India. The Chinese understand how to wage war, whether it's conflictual, cold, or economic. That Sun Tzu was a smart feller.

drmiler

on Jun 09, 2006

Sorry singer but do some googling on this one. "Slick Willie" was the one that okayed this.

It was just days after COSCO adviser Hongye Zheng attended one of Clinton's Saturday morning radio broadcasts, and following a transfer of $391,000 into the Democratic National Committee's coffers mysteriously raised by Johnny Chung, that Washington proposed the deal to Long Beach officials. (circa 1998)
Link

LONG BEACH DESK - The Long Beach Naval Station was tentatively placed on the Military Base Closure-List by president George Bush in 1991. President Bill Clinton, closed the naval base last in 1993. That resulted in the loss to Long Beach, California of 17,500 military and civilian jobs. The economic impact of the of loss was $52.5 million and drove the California economy into the tank. It has never recovered.

Between 1995-1996, during the heat of the Clinton-Gore Campaign fund raising activity, the Clinton administration actively intervened to make sure a Communist Chinese cargo container shipping interest got a too-good deal on a Long Beach, California, shipping terminal.

The Secretary of the Navy has formally turned the base over to the City of Long Beach. But, the Port of Long Beach has signed a letter of intent to lease the property to the China Ocean Shipping Co., a steamship line run by the Communist Chinese government.

The Navy base property is about to be leased to a Communist China-owned shipping company under an agreement that was only made possible by the intervention of the White House.

Forced by a court order, Port of Long Beach officials have now set March 12, 1997 for a new public hearing on plans to bulldoze the Naval Station and lease the property to the Comunist Chinese shipping company.

Link

Use this for a search parameter in google: chinese long beach bill clinton

They could NOT have gotten the port without White House intervension.

singrdave

on Jun 10, 2006

Look at how they control the port at Long Beach, which incidentally is the place where most of their exports come into America. Not a coincidence.

You can directly thank "Slick Willie" for that one.

I've just been reading this COL Gene guy, and for some reason he blames it on Bush!

Sorry singer but do some googling on this one. "Slick Willie" was the one that okayed this.

Drmiler, you disappoint me. I am no newbie when it comes to the good REM. I am one of COL Gene's many vocal opponents.

You apparently didn't recognize sarcasm when you heard it. I thought the smiley face was a dead giveaway...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!