Global Distribution And Balance Of Power

Throughout the mid to late twentieth century the United States was extremely concerned with their foreign policy due to mishaps that surfaced as a result of lazy administration when dealing with communism. As an example, one mishap was how the Truman Administration dealt with China after the KMT surfaced following WWII. Instead of immediately defending the People’s Republic of China, the United States stayed mostly secluded and independent and let China slip into the favor of the KMT. This was an example of the United States’ being too moderate in their foreign policy. However, on the other hand, there were examples where the United States was too aggressive in their foreign policy. An example of this was how the US chose to dealt with North

The current overwhelming dominance of the unprecedented modern American empire in the realm of world politics generally agreed upon by experts and scholars around the world. There is little to refute the argument that there is any state that comes close to the strength of the Americans in a vast number of areas, most notably economically and militarily. Present debate among experts in the field of international relations revolves around whether the Americans can maintain their primacy for upcoming generations. Robert Dujarric and William Odom, both experienced and respected scholars of international relations, declare in their 2004 work, “America’s Inadvertent Empire,” that America is in a solid position to keep a tight hold on its place at the top. Vividly explaining America’s path to dominance while emphasizing the current state of domination, the authors effectively present the abilities of the empire while also illustrating the potential threats that could bring it down.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

From 1900 to 1945, the United States of America (US) witnessed a great transition in their economic, cultural and political spheres. From the isolation movement in the early 1900’s, the US thereafter acknowledged that their position in the world was to be a developer of a new world order. Therefore with the American entrance in World War II, the US had a political motive after achieving victory to create a postwar world that was independently connected politically and economically. However, with the Soviet Union fighting alongside the US a new policy had to be made to ensure cooperation for postwar peace. But with two radically different ideologies postwar peace would not be influenced by cooperation, but rather by economic and military force.

Military Budget is ‘Foolish and Sustainable’”, Benjamin Friedman and Justin Logan, a researcher and a director, respectively at Cato Institute, discuss ways in which a minimization in military spending can have positive outcomes for both the U.S. and other countries. To summarize the essay, they state that the best approach is if for the U.S. to reduces its military presence in other countries. Effectively, this would prevent countries from relying on U.S. intervention and allow more countries to be dependent on themselves; additionally, it will also prevent “weaker” allied nations from gaining a false sense of emboldenment to take risks they otherwise would not against neighboring countries, which would inevitably force the U.S. to intervene. Friedman and Logan estimated that a disinclination to impose rule over these “weaker” nations will not only increase content among both nations, but it will save over $250 billion over a span of a decade and thousands of lives, and still leave a force capable of winning any ground war if needed (Friedman, B., et al., 2012, 177-191). Friedman and Logan have valid claims that agree with and support my position as to both how, and why, there should be cuts in military

Arthur Dimmesdale is a Weak Individual Weakness in a public official, is often covered up by lies. In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s, The Scarlet Letter, Arthur Dimmesdale appears to be a leader, but on the inside, he is a coward. Throughout the story, Dimmesdale presents himself as a strong minister to the community of Boston. Dimmesdale keeps his identity a secret from many, to keep his elevated status. Through his sin, Dimmesdale has failed everyone who looks up to him.

While realists, liberals and neo-conservatives disagree about what America should do with its unrivalled power, they share the belief that America’s dominance of the post-Cold War system puts it in a category of its own (Walsh, 2015). Unipolarity captures the character of the international order that has been sustained by the economic and military power of the United States and shaped by its liberal mission to extend the reach of capitalism and democracy. The unipolar configuration of power provides a crucial context within which US foreign policy behavior must be understood. If the primacy of American power and the hierarchical nature of the current international order are undisputed, the characterization of such an order has been the subject of intense debate.

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

When Americans vote their choice for President, one would assume that these votes would be tabulated and the majority vote would win. But this is not the case at all. The Presidency is ultimately decided by the Electoral College, what William McClenaghan calls “one of the least understood parts of the American political process”(340). McClenaghan also defines the Electoral College as “the body that makes the formal selection of the nation’s President, from what the Framers intended into a `rubber stamp’ for the popular vote in presidential elections”(67). The original Electoral College did not succeed for very long, however; it only worked for as long as George Washington was President

(Mearsheimer and Walt 2016).” Offshore Balancing is where Washington would forgo their ambitious efforts to remake other societies and concentrate on what really matters, preserving U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and countering potential hegemons in Europe, Northeast Asia, and the Persian Gulf. Instead of policing the world, the U.S. would encourage other countries to take the lead in checking rising powers, intervening itself only when necessary (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016).” By doing all of this, it does, in no way, mean that the United States is abandoning its role as the world’s superpower, but rather by conserving U.S. strength, Offshore Balancing would preserve U.S. primacy far into the future and safeguard liberty at home (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). The principle concern with Offshore Balancing is to keep America as powerful as possible (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). However, another part of Offshore balancing is that “there are other regions outside of the Western Hemisphere that are worth expending American blood and treasure to defend (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016).” Those three areas are Europe, Northeast Asia, and the Persian Gulf; the first two are key centers of industrial power and home to the world’s other great powers, and the third produces roughly 30 percent of the world’s oil (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). Offshore balancing embodies many things, but promoting democracy it not one of them (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). Offshore Balancing takes on the Jeffersonian idea that the U.S. should not commit their forces for democracy promoting purposes alone, and that in the event of a war that breaks out should turn to regional forces as the first line defense (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). Washington should supply assistance to allies and pledge support to them if they were in serious danger of being conquered, it should refrain from

Throughout the essays, “The Rise of the Rest” and “The Last Superpower,” Fareed Zakaria is interested in helping us see the world in a new way. “This is a book not about the decline of America but rather about the rise of everyone else” (Zakaria 9). There are many transformations happening around the world. Politics, economics, and culture have changed international life. The first shift was the rise of the Western world. It was about being modern in science and technology, commerce and capitalism, the agricultural and industrial revolutions. The political power in the West continued due to the rise of the Western World. The second shift was the rise of the United States. The United Stated was dominant. Also, it was solider than any other countries

Introduction Major depressive disorder affects approximately 14.8 million American adults, or about 6.7 percent of the United States population age 18 and over, in a given year (Archives of General Psychiatry,2000). Depression is an illness which involves the body and mind. Depression is one of the most common mental disorders. The DSM-5 states the basic categories of depression as Dysthymia, Major Depressive Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, and Secondary Depression.

The Balance of Power is a fiercely debated topic within the realm of international relations. Its true definition has been impossible to pin down and how it manifests itself has been argued over by many academics, in addition to this the idea is divided between the schools of thought that it is a force for preserving peace or a force for tension and war. This essay will look to examine the balance of power using retrospective analysis of historical events, focusing on the lead up to and the outbreak of WWI and its conclusion and the Cold war. Through this it can be hoped to find a clearer definition of the balance of power, whether it is really a balance analogous to a set of scales and whether the balance of power is a way of preserving peace and stability or whether it is on the whole, better termed as the balance of war, creating only tension and instability.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.