American Hyperpower?

At the beginning of the third millennium, America finds itself at a position all but unimaginable just a decade ago. From living under the threat of nuclear war, in a bipolar international system, teetering on the brink, the Twenty First Century begun in the midst’s of a Unipolar world, apparently free from the deadly rivalry of the Cold War. The collapse of the USSR left America as the world’s sole super power, but clearly this utopia has failed to last very long. The balance of absolute power may rest with the United States, but as the events of the past four years have demonstrated, even the mighty can be humbled.

The concept of power is paramount in international relations. Indeed it is the most basic of all concepts in international affairs. National Power determines the order of nations and gives the ability to control; to impose ones will over another or others. Power therefore is not an abstract notion; it is always relative to the power of other nations. Questions of who gets what when and how are all elements of power. Whether a nation has power over another nation changes over time. Power, therefore, is a zero sum game: When one country wins, another must lose. Nations can increase wealth and security simultaneously but not power. Economic stability is necessary for a power base, yet wealth and stability are not part of the Zero Sum Game.

Before the First World War it could be said that there were a number of Great Powers: Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the increasing power of the United States. Following the devastation of World War Two the United States and Russia emerged as the leading world Super Powers, defined as the ability of a nation to project power on a global basis. Their opposing, competing political and social ideologies made them mutually suspicious. Like Russia, America used policies that opened up economic markets and political influence, yet unlike Russia, the United States did so through manipulation and coercion, not through military occupation. These actions by the two leading world powers resulted in a bi-Polar world system that lasted for 50 years, finally ending in 1989 with the collapse of the USSR.

This event left America as the world’s remaining super power and produced a unipolar world order. The first President Bush, who attempted to implement a new world order based on American values and principles, readily accepted America’s position. President Clinton followed this by dedicating America to her responsibility as the world’s sole supper power, and in attempts to expand NATO Eastward, a move that did little to placate the former Super Power leaders in Moscow. 

As the self styled sole remaining superpower, the US should have more opportunity now than ever before to shape the world to its long-standing interests: peace and prosperity, stability and security, defense and democracy. However much of the world has shown an unwillingness to accede to American leadership. Some have suggested that this stems from internal American disputes over its budget deficit, and soaring trade gaps with other nations. Regardless of this fact however, successive American Presidents have refused to address such concerns and have put a humane face on foreign intervention under the guise of democracy. Chomsky argues that this is little more than an attempt to preserve American hegemony.

The US does maintain an unmatched military strength and continues to exercise disproportionate political influence in international affairs. Some have pointed to these factors as evidence that the US is not in decline at all. This ignores the decline in the US resource base relative to other nations. Compared with competitors, the US economic performance no longer allows it to exercise political leverage at will. America, whilst still a giant, has become like Gulliver, increasingly tied to others by strings of trade deals, treaties and other such obligations. The US can neither act alone in an interdependent world nor expect to regain the power it possessed after W.W.II when it was not just stronger than anyone, but stronger than everyone.

Many of America’s Cold War allies are already differing from the US in their assessment of global priorities and how to respond to the challenges of the post Cold War era. This is highlighted in Europe and America’s inability to deal with tribal conflict and rising Islamic fundamentalism. At the same time, economic competition is rising at the same time the US’s ability to manage the world economy is diminishing. Faced with this situation, the US may have to view the world through more realistic eyes. Indeed the shift in the Clinton Administration from its early embrace of multilateralism to its current more restrained self reliant unilateral approach is perhaps indicative of how the future will resemble past periods in American diplomatic history.

Whilst it seems clear that America is presently the world’s sole Super Power, it is likely that it will not remain so indefinitely. Indeed as the world approaches the third millennium it seems more and more likely that like ‘the American Century’, the present Uni-Polar moment will equally pass into history. Evidence points to the emergence of a new multipolar system within which America will be first among equals but will face challenges to its leadership in the world economy and maybe even military challenges. The Pentagon’s objective of preventing the emergence of a rival super power, as outlined in the 1992 Defense Policy Guidance has had to be abandoned as being unrealistic. Clearly with its huge population and landmass, the Republic of China is a Super Power whether it wishes to be or not. With its recent movement toward an alliance with Russia is a troubling sign of the new polar world that threatens to emerge in response to American pre-eminence. It must be asked as to whether conventional assumptions remain warranted at the turn of the millennium. What is needed is imaginative thinking about America’s role in the world, not a projection of present policy into the future. Most of the assumptions made over the past 50 years have served America well, now new ideas are needed for a new time. All leaders experience limitations and restraints, it is the bold who challenge them. Let it not be said in years to come, what Lincoln lamented, “That I have not controlled events, events have controlled me.”