The Global Distribution And Balance Of Power

In his book Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy, Barry P. Posen argues against the current U.S. Grand Strategy of Liberal Hegemony and offers Restraint as an alternative. Since World War II, the U.S. has relied on Liberal Hegemony, which emphasizes military action. After the Cold War, Liberal Hegemony gained support as the U.S. dominated the unipolar order with the desire to spread democracy. Posen argues that Liberal Hegemony has performed poorly and will continue to underperform. The strategy is costly, wasteful, and counterproductive because it increases military costs, underestimates the U.S.'s strength, and depends too much on a disappearing U.S. power advantage.

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.

Washington Rules emphasizes that the United States should order world politics. It is safe to say that since the Post-Cold War era; The United States is seen as the world’s superpower, and it is to a point where numerous countries expect us to protect them, and intervene in any situation that is not “right.” The US has taken a preemptive role on ordering the word and senses the need to help those who are not super powers in order to promote peace. America’s military remains unchallenged, spending around 736 billion dollars yearly. In addition, the American economy remains strong amongst the global financial system, and the United States political influence around the world remains very strong as well.

(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

Moreover, ‘America’s example is also a critical component of our foundation.’ ‘Our moral leadership is grounded principally in the power of our example—not through an effort to impose our system on other peoples.’ The reinforcement will not lead to isolationism since ‘America has never succeeded through isolationism.’ Thus, the second way is to continue the broad commitment, characterizing lately the US behavior in the international system, but not necessarily militarily, rather by any other means. US will cooperate with allies, partners but also new powers like China, India or Russia. Additionally it will incite rivals to adhere to widely accepted and followed international norms. For this, all instruments of powers will be required. Then in order to spread commonly shared values beyond states, the US needs to reach their people. The government will therefore encourage connections with the American people for ‘we have seen that the best ambassadors for American values and interests are the American people – our businesses, nongovernmental organizations, scientists athletes, artists, military service members, and students.’ Shared values will naturally enable the last way, which is ‘Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order.’ The idea is to, in the interest of all, to share the burden of international stability with nations, ad hoc groups of

President Barack Obama’s (2014) commencement address at West Point was an effort to dispel all doubt of the United States’s (US) “exceptionalism” and the belief that America was in decline. In that speech, he emphasised how America was still a global leader, in all counts militarily, economically and most importantly, on global affairs, with regards to liberal internationalist pursuits. And indeed from the end of the second world war, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been an unmatched unipolar hegemon in the world. Issues such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2008 financial crisis have greatly affected US standing in the world (American Political Science Association, 2009). This is also further challenged by rising powers, most notably China and the other BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations. All four countries have in recent years significantly increased their military budget (Kruger, 2011) and are currently, by International Monetary Fund (IMF) predictions, to contribute to over half of the world’s growth and predicted to overtake most developed economies by 2050, with China projected to have the world’s largest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by the same time (Financial Times, n.d.). This essay will look at various aspects of traditional US dominance, namely military, economic, as well as soft power in relation to other states to determine if a relative decline is evident. Additionally, US world leadership in international

The United States is one of the strongest standing superpowers that have existed in the past few decades. Many people believe that the United States is declining from being a continuous super power; however according to Zakaria the United States is not declining. This is because they remain to have one of the strongest standing army, they have risen culturally, and economically the United States has been emerging enormously. According to Zakaria the United States has dominated the politics, and the culture in the 20th century, nonetheless he believes countries such as China, India, European Union, Russia, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, and Turkey will rise in the 21st century. Zakaria states “-industrial, financial, educational, social cultural- the distribution power is shifting, moving away from American Dominance” (5). Thus he is proving his point about how the power is shifting to the other 124 countries. Furthermore, Sachs Jeffery mentions the “poverty trap” and the many possible ways to help the countries that really need it. One way to help these under developed countries is by providing for these republics. The developed nations need to assist the poor economic states just enough so their living standards may rise. The United States doesn’t have a lot to worry about the “rise of the rest”, therefore helping countries under the poverty trap should still be aided by the developing nations, because countries such as the sub-Saharan African nations are under

There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's modern grand strategy: can America remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do this? In answering the latter, the former must be addressed. There is little use in arguing for deep engagement if America’s international position has declined to the point that it is unmaintainable in the long term. It is a question of whether American primacy, the military, economic, and technological domination of the United States over the rest of the world, still exists and if so whether it is sustainable . Why use such a broad approach in measuring, what the Chinese refer to as “comprehensive national power?” A combined approach is critical as no standard of power is independent, no single

The political scientist Stephen M. Walt put it, “manage the politics, economics and security arrangements for nearly the entire globe.” Some individuals have come to the conclusion that the U.S can no longer shape the world like it used to. There is evidence to this theory because countries are doing things that are not of America’s interest and beyond their control. Michael Cox has suggested, the real question is not whether or when the United States is going to experience decline, but rather how successfully it will adjust to the process, for it has “clearly grown used to being ‘the indispensable nation’ …and is therefore unlikely to feel anything but deep existential angst about having to play a lesser role in the world.”

Zakaria describes what he terms the rise of the rest as a consequence of the continuous efforts of American politicians and diplomats urging countries to “open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology” (60). The basis idea of this book highlights the United States road to being a global superpower and how its stagnation during recent decades have caused a striking shift from America being the world’s only actor to a weakening, less dominating player in the international system. Although this realization is alarming, this actually means good for America. Ultimately, Zakaria describes a world where countries are “more open, market friendly, and democratic” (242) because of the good old United States.

In balance of power, “All nations actively engaged in the struggle for power must actually aim not at a balance--that is, equality—of power, but at a superiority of power in their own behalf” (Doyle 47). This basically means that every country does not want to be less than or equal in power to another country, they want more power/ more superiority compared to the others. It is impossible to reach a peaceful result even if a few countries have this mindset of competing against each other for power. Drawing from contemporary/modern times, United States of America is currently considered the dominant power. But, we know that there are current superpower countries like China, Russia, India,

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.

The United States has been a super power for decades, and since America has always involved themselves in other countries' problems. Instead of isolationism, the country has practiced getting involved. Since the Monroe Presidency, America has been named the World's police force. Dispelling anarchists, and stopping coos, the united states portrays itself as the world protector. Since Monroe, some Americans have felt that isolation is the way to go, and most feel that it is our right to offer assistance. Two recent incidents, Operation Desert Storm and The War in Bosnia have allowed the United States to show off it's strength, both on the military and political level. It has also given the chance for America to evaluate it's foreign policy,

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,

Neoconservatives have faith in the might of the American Army and its predominance at the level of labor, gear and advancement. They trust that the US has the military intends to reshape the world as per its own particular advantages, and thusly, they tend to benefit military control over tact. Like Jacksonians, Neocons hate multilateral organizations and have a tendency to see them as feeble and wasteful. They like to act singularly, regardless of the possibility that it implies violating global law. This carelessness comes from the Neocon adoration for the RMA, Revolution in the Military Affairs, which means a dependence on stealth innovation, air-conveyed accuracy guided weapons and versatile ground powers. Precisely what the Bush organization would convey in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Wilsonian side of Neoconservatism is clear in the development's advancement of the internationalization of law based govern to whatever number places as could reasonably be expected. The Neocon mind is Manichean and trusts that the world partitions into great states and awful states, and that majority rules systems have amiable expectations, notwithstanding the vote based peace hypothesis which asserts that "popular governments don't run at war with each other." Thus the more the U.S. democratizes the less danger of wars there is. This is the thing that Francis Fukuyama basically called the "finish of history". Obviously the occasions of 9-11 put