The lonely superpower - Nota: 9.5 PDF

Preview

Summary

Discusses the changes of power and hegemony entering the XXIst century. challenging the traditional position of the United States against the emerging superpowers of transnationalism and globalization....

Description

The Lonely Superpower At the very end of the XX century, Samuel Huntington recognized the new world order, a reconfiguration of the global politics that situated the United States as the only one superpower. Not to distinguish it as a unipolar system, but rather identifying it as a unimultipolar hybrid, since many other major powers still exist. However, two decades have passed since this statement, and surely one must reexamine the structure of contemporary international politics. Today, globalization has allowed, as a tool and facilitator, to establish interdependent connections that didn’t exist before. The global village has been widening and deepening, in which the transnational links have become a fundamental part of global governance. Twenty years ago, Huntington was not wrong on acknowledging the power of regional powers, countries or alliances that had the capacity to extend their leadership on their neighboring area of influence. However, today´s scenario has significantly changed and it seems that former regional powers are taking over the United States´ international agenda. Indeed, the administration of president Donald Trump is a key factor on the United States´ current advocacy for isolationism. Make America Great Again has turned into the withdrawal of the USA as a global policeman, instead prioritizing their domestic needs. Once again, Huntington predictions are to be questioned. He had argued that the United States would further seek for their hegemonic predominance, purchasing a unipolar system; while other major powers would be seeking for a multipolar system of cooperation. Nonetheless, today´s United States has been promoting its international interests in a non-traditional design. The decisions of Trump to remove the country from several treaties and international organizations, like the Paris agreement, pulling out of the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Intermediaterange Nuclear Forces, has shown otherwise. Huntington stated that the USA “was an indispensable participant in any effort to tackle major global problems”, but recently the country seems to be committed on a policy of global disengagement. Perhaps, it is the same time that the United States pulls itself out from the myth of the benign hegemon. Naturally, they are interested in pursuing their own national interests, but they are no longer promoting the hypocritical vision of pretending that “their greatness is defined on its ability to work with others on the interest of the international community as a whole”. Certainly, the United States is no longer attempting to export its American virtue by holding power of all multilateral institutions. At the time Huntington wrote his article on the global fate of democracy, the United States stood as the best ranked country that followed the democratic principles. The united states, at the same time, had recognized that exporting its democratic values would be fundamental for the prosperity and survival of the increasingly interdependent global system, one aspiring towards economic growth, socioeconomic equity, political stability, social justice and national sovereignty. In a few words, democracy was credited for reducing the gap of international and domestic conflict. Samuel Huntington an avid advocate of the western liberal values finds desirable to extend the scope of democracy. Nonetheless, the definition of democracy he finally

adopted was rather procedimental, as it mainly focused on the organizations and processes that grants the regime´s legitimacy. At the end of the day, his research concluded on the oscilation of democratic waves since the end of the XIX century. The prevalence and dynamism of such phenomena was narrowed on four main preconditions that allowed these changes. Then, the complexity of the transitions to democracy were located into economic, social, external and cultural categories. The first one found a strong correlation between democracy and economic wealth and equality. A wealthy nation can prosper in terms of education, which gives space for political culture that can develop into democracy. The share of power is essential in a complex industrialized modern society to balance economic prosperity and political freedoms. However, certain excpetions to this hypothesis still exist, as are the Soviet Union, Latin America and East Asia. Therefore, the prevalence of the other factors are key. In this sense, a diversified, solid and articulated social structure is also relevant to function as the restrictions of the state power. Whit the power of this groups, strong and accountable institutions can be built. Then, pluralism rises the demands of the people to held democracy responsible for serving their interests. Although democracy also deepends ond external factors from the environment to succeed. In this sense, “the rise and decline of democracy on a global scale is a function of the rise and decline of the most powerful democratic states”. Once again, the United States was a key actor on intervening in the regimes of other coutnries. Lastly, culture is also analyzed, since it is believed a protestant background leads towards democracy. The system of values embedded in certain cultures are believed to be more favorable for the development of democracy. Although this preconditions are important they are not at all necessary, since it can ´t be guaranteed that the path to democracy is a linear and evolutionary process. But instead, transition to democracy Is attached to ups and downs that polarize the political culture of its society and the never ending struggle on the concentration of power in the State´s structure. As it has been observed, several factors are involved on the transitions towards democracy. Indeed, the United States and its interests to promote its liberal western values In those years, Huntington argued that soon in the future an anti-American coalition would soon emerge. Today, it seems that the coalition is not at all necessary. Instead, the opposition that the United States is facing is from a few countries on their own. Major powers like China and Russia are growing more powerful and are catching the military, economic and technological efforts of the United States. Therefore, they are affronting a strengthening competition on the international agenda. Today, the United States is no more the unique superpower, but other countries are rising on their level. A clear example of this is the trade war with China. In the past, the United States could have applied economic sanctions, severely damaging the emergent economy of this country. However, now that both possess an equivalent influence on the international economic system and hold strong domestic finances, both are hooked on a shoulder to shoulder confrontation. At this point, China even has an advantage. The One Belt One Road ambitious initiative that is expected to build massive infrastructure to join Asia and Europe

are a significant step towards China´s consolidation of its global presence. Not only would China count with economic leadership, but would also grant its interference on geopolitical matters regarding this new interconnection. These regional powers are now in their way to becoming global powers as well. Nonetheless, the particularity of Trump´s personality addresses yet another exception to Huntington´s analysis. He had argued that “the interplay of power and culture would lead the United States to have difficult relations with regional powers”. In this case, the traditional antagonism to Russia has rather turned into an unusual friendship between the two heads of State. An important advice was made by Huntington; the United States should stop pretending that their interests are the center of prosperity for their rests of the world. Indeed, Donald Trump´s campaign made specific reference to pushing their own agenda first. At the end, Huntington did aspire for the ideal of multilateral cooperation, but at the same time also acknowledged a more realist view of what was to come in the XXI century. He stated that in a multipolar world the major powers were would inevitably compete, clash and coalesce with each other and, indeed, it appears that the current global arena is a race among the major emerging powers seriously contesting the United States´ decaying hegemony. In this time period it is no longer worthy to acknowledge the “universal” values that the United States attempted to enforced decades ago. Even when, in the past, they claimed to be the spokesman for the global community, which barely included their Anglophone allies, it is now more than clear that they are no longer interested on promoting their western liberal values beyond their borders....