During the Cold War, the struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union was cause for many states to choose sides. According to realist theory, states balance against the potential hegemon, which is regarded as the most powerful country in the system. This has not always been the case. After World War II, the United States had a substantial lead in terms of economic and military concerns over the Soviet Union. Still, most countries divided along political lines instead of strict power balancing. This resulted in a dramatic imbalance considering that most western European states, which were also ranked among the most powerful nations in the world, sided with the United States. These same states, which had regularly fought wars against each other throughout the previous centuries, formed an alliance that did not take relative power into consideration. This alliance was based on a perceived Soviet threat and the basic principles guiding the two potential hegemons. One possible reason, which has been mentioned earlier, is this idea that the United States was considered a better option. This makes sense only in considering the similarities in democratic ideals of NATO member states. Because of these historical similarities in principles, the United States has not been considered a threat even though it is the only regional hegemon in recent years.
History has shown that past potential hegemons have all been defeated because of a rising counter balance of nations formed against them. They have all been perceived as a threat to international security. In modern history, both World War I and World War II were fought for a number of reasons but mainly in an attempt to prevent aggressive potential hegemons from becoming true regional hegemons. It is not a coincidence that both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany used force to try and obtain their goals and were subsequently defeated by a counter force of nations.
Throughout its early history, the United States used force, intimidation and a number of other methods in order to secure its power within North and South America.
Facts show that the U.S. military was used a number of times in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the Americas to protect U.S. interests. The big difference is in the apparent level of threat. Threat of force by the United States, since its rise to superpower status, has never been directed at another superpower, for the exception of the Soviet Union, without having been forced into the situation by a direct threat.
So is the US a hegemon or not? Mearsheimer claims that "a hegemon is a state that is so powerful that it dominates all the other states in the system. No other state has the military wherewithal to put up a serious fight against it." No one can argue that the United States is not the regional hegemon in North and South America. This status has been a factor in affairs in the "new world" since near the beginning of American history. The definition by Mearsheimer, is not complete though, because in order for it to work you must look at military influence as the leading motivational factor attributed to domination by a foreign power over another one. Mearsheimer claims that economic factors are only one way of looking at the capability of the military to grow in size and technology. Economic factors have always been a key part of all international affairs since at least the American Industrial Revolution. An example of this is the Washington treaty that triggered the formation of NATO. In terms of this paper, a more liberal view of hegemony is accepted, whereby it can be defined as having three attributes:
1) The capability to enforce the rules of the system.
2) The will to do so.
3) The commitment to an ideology which is perceived as beneficial to the major states.
This capability rests along four premises:
1) A large and growing economy.
2) Dominance in a leading technological or economic sector.
3) Political power backed up by projective military power.
4) Population size.
Does the United States fit these criteria? Let us take a look at how the United States fits into the three premises.
Economic Leadership
In terms of a large and growing economy, the United States still has the largest economy in the world even with the progress of other states in narrowing this gap. Total GDP in 2001 was almost as much as the combined total of the next six top GDP countries in the world. The next closest state was Japan with less than half the GDP of the United States. From 1990 until the end of 2001, real gross domestic product rose from $6,707.9 billion to $10,171.4 billion. In terms of real growth, the United States has experienced positive growth of GDP, as a percentage, every year with the exception of the short recession in 1991 and the current economic downturn. This growth, on average, has been higher than the per cent growth for industrialised nations worldwide. The US accounts for about 40% of world spending on research and development which is also linked with their technological lead over other countries. Although the recent global crisis may have weakened the US, as it brought the Dollar (world’s leading currency) into question. The global crisis has also allowed China and India to overtake the U.S in terms of economic growth.
The strength of the American economic system lies wholly in its ability to work within all frameworks and not just within a select few. While current trends may suggest a shying away from polarization of American leadership and more towards equality within global markets, global trade is largely dependent on a strong U.S. policy setting role.
Technological Leadership
Is the United States a leading state in terms of technology? Considering that the United States has led the world in all modern major technological developments, you have to consider the value of such in terms of global power. Key indicators for technological leadership are hard to come by but a look at educational trends can give some glimpse into at least the capability of a nation to compete on the world market.
The United States demonstrates substantial leadership in research and development in terms of total dollars spent. In 1997, the United States spent some $189.4 billion on resources and development. Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, and Canada combined only spent a total of some $186 billion that same year. This U.S. rate has increased steadily from a figure of approximately $165 billion at the end of the Cold War to a figure close to $201.6 billion by 1998.
There are four industries that are viewed when considering global high technology:
1) Aerospace.
2) Computers/office machinery.
3) Electronics/communications.
4) Pharmaceuticals.
U.S. production in these four industries accounted for nearly 32% of world high technology production. The next closest competitor was Japan at some 22%. This trend is also repeated in the service sector where the United States accounts for 27% of world revenues. The United States is also the world's largest consumer of high technology further attributing to the progressive nature of U.S. technological advantage.
Military Leadership
In terms of a projective military capability and the political power to utilize that capability, you only have to look at the world coalition that was formed by the United States against Saddam Hussein in 1991 and the one formed against Afghanistan in 2001 (and, to a lesser degree, Iraq in 2003). These ventures had global proportions and a strong American leadership. The U.S. role in the formation of NATO, aimed primarily against a Soviet threat, is also an example of American leadership in military affairs.
U.S. dominance in military affairs is unquestionable. America has shown a tremendous capability to adapt technological and industrial capacity towards war fighting goals. Lord Robertson, Secretary General of NATO, in describing European military capability stated, "Today, the European Allies spend about 60% of what the United States spends on defence, but nobody would suggest that the European Allies have 60% of the capability." This capability came as a surprise to much of the world during the post Cold War era, in such places as Kosovo, as the United States demonstrated with incredible accuracy the power of its military weapons.
In terms of real dollar amounts and capability, the United States maintains the highest state of spending towards defence than any nation in the world. The 2003 defence budget is $396 billion. This represents more than the combined total for the next 25 nations combined. This is somewhat misleading considering the defence budget in terms of GDP is on par, relatively speaking, with much of the industrialized world. In addition to that, by 2007, the US accounted for 46% of the world’s military spending, and had a nine fold lead over China (the second largest military spenders). The US also has 700 military bases in over 100 countries.
Although the USA’s soft power has declined in a number of aspects. Its reputation has been damaged by its association with corporate power and widening global inequality. Moreover, the USA’s moral has been damaged by the ‘War on Terror’ and the issues in the Guantanamo detention camp.
Population
The US population is expected to be 439 million by 2050, with more Hispanics and Asians settling, with a relatively low age profile attempting to be sustained. This could lead to improvements in the already skilled areas such as science and technology.
In conclusion, I feel that the US is the most suited global hegemon today, as it is leading in near enough all aspects in which are needed to be a global hegemon (e.g. Military, Population and Economic). Although with the recent global crisis affecting the US substantially, countries such as China, India, Russia & Brazil all developing rapidly, the USA’s position is under threat.
Websites used are as follows: