ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 1/311 Heg High [1/6].............................................................................................................................................

6
Heg High – AT: Russia [1/3]..............................................................................................................................14 Heg High – AT: Iraq [1/1]..................................................................................................................................18 Heg High – Nuclear Primacy [1/1].....................................................................................................................19 Heg High – Capabilities Gap [1/1]......................................................................................................................20 Heg High – Air Force [1/1].................................................................................................................................21

Readiness High..........................................................................................................................................22
Readiness Up – $ing Up.....................................................................................................................................24 Readiness Up – General (A2: Iraq) [1/1]............................................................................................................25

Military Recruitment High.........................................................................................................................26 Hard Power High.......................................................................................................................................27 Soft Power High.........................................................................................................................................31
US Soft Power High – Asia................................................................................................................................32 Soft Power High – A2: Unilateralism/Bush........................................................................................................33 Soft Power High – A2: China (1/2).....................................................................................................................34 Soft Power High – A2: China (2/2).....................................................................................................................35

Heg Sustainable.........................................................................................................................................36
Heg Sustainable – Economy ..............................................................................................................................52 Heg Sustainable – Innovation ............................................................................................................................53 Heg Sustainable – Latent Power.........................................................................................................................54 Heg Sustainable – China.....................................................................................................................................55 Heg Sustainable – Obama...................................................................................................................................57 Heg Sustainable – AT: Financial Crisis..............................................................................................................58 Heg Sustainable – AT: Iraq.................................................................................................................................62 Heg Sustainable – Structural Superiority............................................................................................................63 Heg Sustainable – A/T: Obama...........................................................................................................................64 Heg Sustainable – AT: Multipolarity Inevitable.................................................................................................65 Heg Sustainable – AT: Transition Now Better....................................................................................................67 Heg Sustainable – AT: Realism..........................................................................................................................69

Heg Sustainable – AT: Decline Inevitable.................................................................................................70 Heg Sustainable - AT: Isolationism Good.................................................................................................72 AT: Counterbalancing................................................................................................................................73
AT: Counterbalancing.........................................................................................................................................74 AT: Counterbalancing.........................................................................................................................................75 AT: Counterbalancing.........................................................................................................................................76 AT: Counterbalancing.........................................................................................................................................77 AT: Counterbalancing.........................................................................................................................................78 AT: Counterbalancing.........................................................................................................................................79 AT: Counterbalancing.........................................................................................................................................80 AT: Counterbalancing – China...........................................................................................................................81 AT: Counterbalancing – China/Russia................................................................................................................83 AT: Counterbalancing – Russia..........................................................................................................................87 AT: Counterbalancing – Venezuela, Iran, Russia...............................................................................................89 AT: Counterbalancing – Benign Heg..................................................................................................................90 AT: Counterbalancing – Capabilities Gap..........................................................................................................92 AT: Counterbalancing – Interdependence ..........................................................................................................93 AT: Counterbalancing – EU ..............................................................................................................................94 AT: Counterbalancing – India ............................................................................................................................95 AT: Counterbalancing – Asia Generic................................................................................................................96 AT: Counterbalancing – Too Costly...................................................................................................................97

AT: Offshore balancing.............................................................................................................................99 AT: Offshore balancing...........................................................................................................................101

ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 2/311 AT: Offshore Balancing...........................................................................................................................102 AT: Offshore Balancing Fails..................................................................................................................103 Heg Internals – Human Rights Leadership..............................................................................................105 Heg Internals – Immigration reform........................................................................................................106 Heg Internals – Poverty...........................................................................................................................107 Heg Internals – Competitiveness.............................................................................................................109 Heg Internals – Highways........................................................................................................................110 Heg Internals – Soft Power......................................................................................................................112 Heg Bad Inevitable..................................................................................................................................114 Heg Bad Inevitable..................................................................................................................................115 A/T: Off Shore Balancing.......................................................................................................................117 1AC – Heg Good.....................................................................................................................................118 2AC Heg Outweighs Overview...............................................................................................................121 Heg Good – Caspian Stability..................................................................................................................122 Heg Good – Chinese Containment..........................................................................................................124 Heg Good – Democracy...........................................................................................................................125 Heg Good – Deter Rogue States..............................................................................................................126 Heg Good – East Asian Stability.............................................................................................................127 Heg Good – Global Economy..................................................................................................................128 Heg Good – Iraq Stability........................................................................................................................129 Heg Good – Laundry List........................................................................................................................130 Heg Good – Middle East Stability...........................................................................................................131 Heg Good – South China Sea..................................................................................................................133 Heg Good – Space Dominance................................................................................................................134 Heg Good – Warming .............................................................................................................................135 Heg Good – War......................................................................................................................................136 Unipolarity Good – War..........................................................................................................................137 AT: Heg Bad – Imperialism.....................................................................................................................138 Thayer 1/3................................................................................................................................................139 Heg Good – Khalilzad ............................................................................................................................142 Heg Good–Long Khalilzad .....................................................................................................................143 Heg Good-Long Khalilzad.......................................................................................................................144 Ferguson...................................................................................................................................................145 Heg Good – Democracy...........................................................................................................................146 Heg Good – Economy..............................................................................................................................147 Heg Good – Prolif....................................................................................................................................148 A/T: U.S. – China War...........................................................................................................................149 A/T: U.S. – Iran War................................................................................................................................152 A/T: Heg  Prolif...................................................................................................................................153 A/T: Heg  Terrorism............................................................................................................................155 Primacy deters terrorism..........................................................................................................................156 A/T: Multipolarity....................................................................................................................................157 Hegemony  Democracy........................................................................................................................158 Heg K/T: Global Econ.............................................................................................................................159 Heg K/T: Humanitarianism......................................................................................................................160 No Balancing OR Interventionism...........................................................................................................161 Collapse Bad – No one CAN Counterbalance.........................................................................................162 Kagan – There are no Alternatives to U.S. Hegemony............................................................................164

ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 3/311 Heg Good–Peace/Stability .....................................................................................................................170 Heg Good-Walt........................................................................................................................................171 Heg Good-Kagan.....................................................................................................................................172 Heg Good-Kagan.....................................................................................................................................172 Heg Good-Laundry List...........................................................................................................................173 Heg Good-War ........................................................................................................................................174 Heg Good-War.........................................................................................................................................175 Heg Good-War.........................................................................................................................................176 Heg Good-War.........................................................................................................................................176 Heg Good-Prolif Shell.............................................................................................................................177 Heg Good-Japan Rearm Shell 1/2............................................................................................................178 Heg Good-Japan Rearm Shell 2/2............................................................................................................179 Heg Good-Japan Rearm Ext....................................................................................................................180 Heg Good-Japan Rearm Ext....................................................................................................................181 Heg Good-Trade Shell 1/3.......................................................................................................................182 Heg Good-Trade Shell 2/3.......................................................................................................................183 Heg Good-Trade Shell 3/3.......................................................................................................................183 Heg Good-Trade Ext................................................................................................................................185 Heg Good-Trade Ext................................................................................................................................186 Heg Good-Terrorism Shell......................................................................................................................187 Heg Good-Terrorism Ext.........................................................................................................................188 AT: Layne/Econ Turn..............................................................................................................................189 AT: Offshore Balancing...........................................................................................................................190 AT: Heg causes resentment.....................................................................................................................191 AT: EU Counterbalancing.......................................................................................................................192 AT: China Counterbalancing...................................................................................................................193 AT: Russia-China War.............................................................................................................................194 AT: EU Counterbalancing.......................................................................................................................195 AT: Counterbalancing..............................................................................................................................196 AT: Counterbalancing..............................................................................................................................197 AT: Counterbalancing..............................................................................................................................198 AT: All Heg Bad Args.............................................................................................................................199 Multipolarity Bad: War............................................................................................................................200 Multipolarity Bad: War............................................................................................................................201 Hege Checks Global War.........................................................................................................................203 Soft Power High.......................................................................................................................................204 Internal Links – Human Rights Credibility Kt Heg.................................................................................205 Heg Impact Authors – Kagan.................................................................................................................206 Heg Impact Authors – Kagan..................................................................................................................207 Heg Impact Authors – Thayer..................................................................................................................209 Heg Impact Authors – Brookes................................................................................................................211 Heg Impact Authors – Lieber .................................................................................................................212 Heg Good – Transition Wars...................................................................................................................213 Heg Good – Transition Wars...................................................................................................................215 Heg Good – Decline  Reintervention...................................................................................................217 Heg Good – Prolif Shell...........................................................................................................................218 Ext. Heg Solves Prolif..............................................................................................................................219 Heg Good – Terrorism Shell....................................................................................................................221

ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 4/311 Ext. Heg Solves Terrorism.......................................................................................................................223 AT: Heg Causes Terrorism......................................................................................................................224 Heg Good – Democracy ..........................................................................................................................225 Ext. Heg Solves Democracy....................................................................................................................226 Heg Good – Economy .............................................................................................................................227 Ext. Heg Solves Economy.......................................................................................................................228 Heg Good – China War............................................................................................................................230 Decline Causes Asian Instability.............................................................................................................231 A2: Heg Bad – Intervention.....................................................................................................................232 Regional blocks........................................................................................................................................233 Regional blocks........................................................................................................................................235 China module...........................................................................................................................................236 China module...........................................................................................................................................237 Sino-Russian Module...............................................................................................................................238 Corporations module................................................................................................................................239 ***HEG GOOD***.................................................................................................................................240 Heg good- relations..................................................................................................................................241 Heg good- relations..................................................................................................................................242 Heg good- solves extinction.....................................................................................................................243 Heg good- solves war...............................................................................................................................245 soft power recoverable.............................................................................................................................250 soft power recoverable.............................................................................................................................251 soft power recoverable.............................................................................................................................252 at: iraq permanently ended soft power.....................................................................................................253 SP key to hegemony / at: hegemony resilient..........................................................................................254 SP key to hegemony.................................................................................................................................256 SP key to hegemony.................................................................................................................................257 SP key to coalition building.....................................................................................................................258 at: hegemony d/n solve post iraq.............................................................................................................259 at: hard power is sufficient.......................................................................................................................261 combo key................................................................................................................................................262 at: hegemony bad – terrorism..................................................................................................................263 impact – global nuclear war.....................................................................................................................264 impact – global nuclear war.....................................................................................................................266 impact – global nuclear war.....................................................................................................................268 impact – middle east................................................................................................................................269 impact – asian stability.............................................................................................................................270 impact – terrorism....................................................................................................................................271 Heg Good – War (General)......................................................................................................................271 Heg Good – Laundry List........................................................................................................................273 Heg Good – Peace/Stability ....................................................................................................................274 Heg Good – Warming .............................................................................................................................275 Heg Key to South China Sea – First Line................................................................................................276 Heg Key to South China Sea...................................................................................................................277 Heg Key to East Asian Stability – First Line...........................................................................................278 Heg Key to Caspian Stability – First Line (1/2)......................................................................................279 Heg Key to Caspian Stability – First Line (2/2)......................................................................................280 Caspian Module – AT: No Military Deployments in Caspian................................................................281

ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 5/311 Caspian Module – AT: No Risk Of Russian Hegemony.........................................................................282 Heg Key to Prevent Japanese Rearm.......................................................................................................283 Japan Module – AT: Heg Doesn’t Solve Rearm ....................................................................................284 Heg Key to Stop German and Japan Rearm............................................................................................285 Heg Key to Global Economy – First Line ..............................................................................................286 Heg Key to Global Economy...................................................................................................................287 Heg Key to Democracy – First Line........................................................................................................288 Heg Key Prevent War with China...........................................................................................................289 Heg Key to Deter Rogue States – First Line (1/2)...................................................................................290 Heg Key to Deter Rogue States – First Line (2/2)...................................................................................291 Heg Key to Middle East Stability – First Line (1/2) ...............................................................................292 Heg Key to Middle East Stability – First Line (2/2)................................................................................293 Heg Key to Middle East Stability............................................................................................................294 Heg Key to Iraq Stability (1/2)................................................................................................................295 Heg Key to Iraq Stability (2/2)................................................................................................................296 Heg Key to Asian Arms Control..............................................................................................................297 Heg Key to Chinese Containment – First Line .......................................................................................298 Heg Key to Chinese Containment............................................................................................................299 Heg Key to Space Dominance – First Line ............................................................................................300 U.S. Space Dominance Key to Prevent Conflicts....................................................................................301 Leadership Key to Solve Global Problems (1/2).....................................................................................302 Leadership Key to Solve Global Problems (2/2).....................................................................................303 Unipolarity Key to Solve War (1/3).........................................................................................................304 Unipolarity Key to Solve War (2/3).........................................................................................................305 Unipolarity Key to Solve War (3/3).........................................................................................................306 Heg K Asian Stability, Democracy..........................................................................................................307 AT: Heg  China War – Cooperation (1/2)...........................................................................................308 AT: Heg  China War – Cooperation (2/2)...........................................................................................309 AT: Heg  China War – Heg K Check China........................................................................................310

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High [1/6] America is the global hegemon – multiple warrants: dollar, military, NATO, UN, pop culture International Herald Tribune 08 (5/1, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/01/news/30oxan.php)

Xue 6/311

Instead of describing US 'imperialism' it is more apposite to refer to Washington's position as a hegemonic power in a number of dimensions, such as its dominant position in international political and economic organisations, its cultural reach, and its relative military prowess. Wellsprings of power. US hegemonic power is exercised globally through several key institutions and mechanisms:· Economic power. Following the Second World War, US economic dominance was so great that it was able to help reconstruct post-war Western Europe via the Marshall Plan. Although its relative advantage has since declined, Washington

continues to play a key role in global economic affairs; its intervention helped halt the spiralling depreciation of the Mexican peso in 1994. The dollar also remains the world's dominant reserve, or 'numeraire', currency.· Military might. US defence spending continues massively to overshadow the military outlays of other societies. Substantial elements of the US armed forces are still permanently based in many areas abroad. While this overseas basing is, in part, a residue of the old Cold War security apparatus, many areas of the world welcome these troops as the guarantors of stability and the regional balance of power.· Post-1945 legacy. The United States had a major role in structuring post-1945 political and social systems. For example, both the German Basic Law of 1949 and Japan's 1947 constitution reflected significant US input. Both countries were subject to US influence directly through occupation forces, but also intellectually and culturally as their new governments operated under US-influenced constitutional systems. While such influence is today much diminished, it has not entirely vanished.· International organisations. Washington dominates key international organisations, notably NATO and the UN. NATO, which once had a limited collective security role centred around defending Western Europe from a Soviet attack, is slowly moving towards an expanded 'out of area' mission under US prodding. Despite President George Bush's occasionally confrontational stance towards the UN, the United States remains highly influential there due to the size of its financial contribution and Security Council veto. · Aligning allies. The United States works assiduously to promote its interests by influencing
how other states align or realign. For example, it has promoted Turkey's candidacy for EU membership, as a means of promoting political and economic reform. · Ideas and culture. US

ideas and popular culture, from jazz to art and cinema, have infectiously spread -- rendering 'Americanisation' among the most significant and disputed phenomena of the contemporary era. Americanisation has its antinomy, 'anti-Americanism', and this cleavage operates globally. 'Globalisation' both overlaps with,
and is distinct from, Americanisation, but the two phenomena are often conjoined in political analysis and popular discourse.

The US is dominant now against those who oppose it, remaining strong against forces such as Iran and North Korea NYT July 10, 2009. New York Times [Finding the Limits of U.S. Power] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/world/europe/11iht-letter.html?
_r=1&pagewanted=2

Consider for a moment how power is acquired and exercised: through economic might and military strength, through demographic resilience and access to natural resources, through the ability to display resolve and instill fear without showing it. By all those measures, the United States is so much more powerful than those who taunt Washington with impunity, demanding to know why Washington countenances a nuclear Israel but denies others the same trust. If this were a game of poker rather than a deadly debate, it would be seem oddly asymmetric. North Korea and Iran test-fire missiles, calculating that no one will fire back. Iran’s clerical hierarchy, its legitimacy drawn from a revolution 30 years ago defined by twin poles of faith and anti-Americanism, senses that Mr. Obama’s commitment to engagement strips him of the bully’s power to enforce.

and the number of US military personnel in Iraq is remaining largely intact for now. Some people say multi-polarization will "cause instability". because the international situation has been complicated and changing all the time. which the US would very much not have but cannot get rid of at the moment. Today's America is hurting but remains a superpower nonetheless. American advocates of unipolarism have time and again advertised the US as a "benign hegemony" capable of delivering order to the world community that will keep it mutually beneficial. only to further complicate them. but none of the major powers are strong enough to rival the US and therefore have to find solace in statements such as "superpowers" no longer exist. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified on June 9 that the United States would maintain an average of at least 100. While the military and most corporate media would like you to believe that from now on no US soldiers will step foot in Iraqi cities. http://www. with the US as the main cause of everything that was wrong. Hegemony high now with no apparent decline – Iraq proves. but rather it has been forced to go along with the latter. We have passed the June 30 deadline that. as a superpower reached its zenith after the Cold War as it single-mindedly pursued a unilateralist global strategy and there seemed to be only one pole left in the world. The SOFA is a sieve. The same is true with multi-polarization. this situation does not mean the US will give up unilateralism in favor of multilateralism. US military patrols in them are ongoing and will continue. was the date all US forces were to have been withdrawn from all of Iraq's cities. Because the gap between the "sole superpower" and "multiple major powers" is narrowing by the day. The basic situation during this transitional period is that the US will enjoy the "sole superpower" edge unchallenged for a rather long time within "a setup featuring one superpower and multiple major powers". Last year the US neo-conservatism was forced to make tactical adjustments with certain strategic implications after serious setbacks and under pressure to win the next presidential election. However. however. U. 2008. are US citizens. Researcher with the Research Center of Contemporary World. in many ways and to a significant degree. a strong rejection of US unilateralism.a number barely lower than the number that were there in 2003. which does not mean we are already there.iiss. in a "multilateral manner". The international situation in 2007 showed it was a year when the regional hot spots set on fire by the US sought a way out and achieved limited success amid malignant escalation. The number of "multiple major powers" is growing and the new comers are developing nations or their alliances only. And the US government has validated this notion repeatedly through its involvement in the Balkans and Middle East wars. If we see "the sole superpower" the US as one pole.S. U. Occupation of Iraq Continues Unabated. The ongoing accumulation and advancement of regional multi-polarization will complement and enrich the multi-polarization of the world.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/march-2008/us-stillcommitted-to-unilateralism/) The status of the U. according to a recent Department of Defense report.S. while in fact the world was in a relatively long transitional phase from a "bipolar" to "multi-polar" structure. There is a relatively lengthy period of transition when a new one is finally established. Last year major powers tried to adjust their relations. Dahr Jamail 6/7/2009 http://dahrjamailiraq. The embarrassing situation is evident in the war on terror and even more so in the anti-proliferation campaign. That means it is still committed to unilateralism but cannot do it on its own and has to rely on cooperation by other major powers. . It is these "pole" and "para-pole" that form the multi-polar world structure. such as certain members of the BRIC nations and VISTA countries and perhaps the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.610 and increasing).000 US soldiers in Iraq . then we probably should view the "multiple major powers" as a collective "para-pole". the idea of the world entering the era of "relative major powers" in the next 30 to 40 years sounds original.061 of which. In addition. Add to the 134.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High [2/6] Xue 7/311 Even if the world became more multipolar. whereas things are easier to do in a unipolar world with one voice.S. but it is far from confirming the word "superpower" is already obsolete. Multipolarization is a development trend.000 troops in Iraq through fiscal year 2010. The growing seriousness and complexity of the world situation last year was. The transition to a multi-polar is continuing. the US has been relegated from hegemonic unilateralism to head-of-the-pack unilateralism. With the war in Iraq as a mark. US would still be the hegemon Sui 08 (Yu.000 US soldiers almost the exact number of military contractors (132. 36. according to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on November 17. there are at least 134. including former arch rival Russia. while the ideas of "unipolar world" and "non-polar world" do not reflect the reality of today's world. Today.com/us-occupation-of-iraq-continues-unabated. The debate over the question of world structure has been going on since day one. 3/11.

6/12. http://www. America is the global pacesetter. New York. and there is no rival in sight. especially in the software and Internet areas that drive so much economic change and the processes of globalization itself. Sources of power The United States also derives geopolitical power from its singular capacity to develop new technologies and other valuable intellectual property in large volumes. Perseus. Other countries now lead in producing and improving the basic manufactures that American companies dominated a few generations ago — steel. once seen as the next superstate. and can even breed anti-American hostility. [P. Sonecon LLC co-founder. NO challengers in sight.S. or roughly as much as the rest of the world combined volumes. Brzezinski 04 (Zbigniew. Much more far-reaching.com/storyid. companies earn on their foreign sales. There is thus no realistic alternative to the prevailing American hegemony and the role of U. This capacity enhances America’s global position not because it increases the profits that U. and in the worldwide appeal of the multifaceted and often crass American mass culture. despite its economic progress. What’s so unusual and world-changing is not the extent of America’s military. and technological changes that promote growing global interconnections over and above national frontiers. American democracy—and the example of American success—disseminates economic. Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. the United States spent about $570 billion on defense. All of these give America matchless global political clout.S. Hegemony sky high . Of State. political and economic capacities — but the absence of countries that come anywhere close. Russia is no longer in the running. The Former Sect. These changes can undermine the very stability thatAmerican power seeks to ensure. it subtly aligns the economic paths of other countries with the United States and — whether or not they like it — makes them a little more like America.aspx?StoryId=7049) Xue 8/311 America’s global military power is so commonplace that it’s easy to overlook how historically unique it is. in the innovative impact of America’s technological dynamism. power as the indispensable component of global security. consumer electronics. is out of the race. while China. At the same time.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High [3/6] America’s military power is unprecedented Shapiro 08 (Robert J.US leads militarily and economically. a global peer. but it will be a long time before Europe acquires the degree of unity that would enable it to compete politically. In brief. cultural. For better or worse. and will not soon face. America’s power is unprecedented in its global military reach. America does not have.theglobalist. America’s historically anomalous position as a sole superpower with no near peer ended the balance-of-power geopolitics that organized much of world affairs for more than a thousand years — and will fundamentally shape a new geopolitics for at least the next generation. In 2006. lexis) At the outset of the twenty_first century. Japan. Europe might be competitive economically. automobiles — and much more. vii-viii] . in the centrality of America’s economic vitality for the well_being of the world economy. is likely to remain relatively poor for at least two generations and in the meantime may encounter severe political difficulties.

and innovation. currency. The National Interest.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity. During the 1990s. its economy is the world’s most successful. columnist. In the words of The Economist. Its technology is irresistible. but coming from so far behind it will be decades before it can challenge American primacy-and that assumes that its current growth continues unabated. Today.S.” The US has the most power in the world and will continue to do so for decades Haas 08 (Richard. it was mainly China and Russia that denounced unipolarity in their occasional joint communique s. with a myriad of countries trying to fend off the inexorable march of Internet-fueled mtv English. share of global imports is already down to 15 percent. GDP accounts for over 25 percent of the world's total. Britain had a smaller army than the land powers of Europe and its navy was equaled by the next two navies combined. Globalization wears a ~Made in USA’ label. Krauthammer 03 (Charles. is the world's largest. air force and space power are unrivaled.” French foreign minis. Its economy.” As global interdependence has increased. Only China grew in strength. Japan. language and the products of mass culture that inundate the world.ten Hubert Védnine argued in 1999 that the United States had gone beyond its superpower status of the twentieth century. Even at its height Britain could always be seriously challenged by the next greatest powers. economic. went into economic decline. forming thought and fascinating even the enemies of the United States. May/June 2004. commerce and communications. even linguistic. The Soviet Union ceased to exist. “Today’s international system is built not around a balance of power but around American hegemony. The dominant concern of foreign policy establishments everywhere became understanding and living with the 800-pound American gorilla. air. Dean. information. http://www. p. “The Decline of America’s Soft Power”. with a GDP of some $14 trillion. Its navy. diplomatic. . contracting into a smaller. American power is unmatched in any category. many have argued that globalization is simply a disguise for American imperialism. As the new century dawned it was on everyone's lips. the United States is and will long remain the largest single aggregation of power. Winter. “U.and with this relative decline in power an absolute decline in influence and independence.S. whose claim to power rested exclusively on economics.html) In this world.and boasts land. from Cairo to Caracas.all trends indicate it’ll stay that way. Nye 04 (Joseph. May/June.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High [4/6] US Heg is unrivaled . It spends more than $500 billion annually on its military -. a large number of which are growing at more than two or three times the rate of the United States.. A French foreign minister dubbed the United States not a superpower but a hyperpower. JFK School of Government at Harvard.The result is the dominance of a single power unlike anything ever seen. The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel reported that “American idols and icons are shaping the world from Katmandu to Kinshasa. It dominates business. cultural. lifestyle.foreignaffairs. supremacy today extends to the economy. American dominance has not gone unnoticed. The United States is also a major source of culture (through films and television). radically weakened Russia. and naval forces that are the world's most capable. American military spending exceeds that of the next twenty countries combined.” Or as two American triumphalists put it. military areas. It is dominant by every measure: military.and more than $700 billion if the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are included -. this percentage is sure to decline over time given the actual and projected differential between the United States' growth rate and those of the Asian giants and many other countries. Germany stagnated. “the United States bestrides the globe like a colossus. technological. online lexis) Xue 9/311 There is little need to rehearse the acceleration of unipolarity in the 1990s. Foreign Affairs. CFR pres. The European Union turned inward toward the great project of integration and built a strong social infrastructure at the expense of military capacity.S. its military might second to none. Proquest) Not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others. Although U. But the reality of American strength should not mask the relative decline of the United States' position in the world -. The U.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 10/311 .

is the dominant economic model for the rest of the developed world and much of the developing world. http://www.” . and will not soon face. in the innovative impact of America’s technological dynamism.” In direct foreign investment. once seen as the next superstate. For better or worse. JFK School of Government at Harvard. Proquest) How great is the disparity between our power and that of the rest of the world? In military power. as well as nine of the top ten business schools. Japan.S.”~ In the words of the Financial Times. We are the home of fifty-nine of the hundred largest companies in the world by market value (compared to thirtyone for Europe and seven for Japan. America’s power is unprecedented in its global military reach. the U. May/June 2004. America does not have. Navy.S. the United States is far and away the number one film and television exporter in the world. and the U. Foreign Affairs. Germany. Russia is no longer in the running. vii-viii] Military bases prove US leadership Topolanek 08 (Mirek. a global peer. At the same time. American e-commerce was three times that of Europe. which we are now unfortunately asked to hold in regard to the radar site. we are the only country with both nuclear weapons and conventional forces with global reach. Perseus. Europe might be competitive economically. in the centrality of America’s economic vitality for the well_being of the world economy. and we are the home of seven of the top ten software vendors. Army. 4/14.cfm) Fourteen European countries currently host bases of the U. Nye 04 (Joseph. 219 were American. Dean. but it will be a long time before Europe acquires the degree of unity that would enable it to compete politically. Our military expenditures are greater than those of the next eight countries combined. followed by Britain and Australia. That is why it was accepted.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High [5/6] Heg is high— the US leads militarily and economically with no challengers. Forty-two of the top seventy-five brands were American.S. cultural. we have a 27 percent share of world product. All of these give America matchless global political clout. and can even breed anti-American hostility.org/research/nationalsecurity/hl1076.” Economically. over 500. although India’s “Bollywood” actually produces more movies per year. [P. American democracy—and the example of American success— disseminates economic. while China. America is the global pacesetter.S.S. “the U. and in the worldwide appeal of the multifaceted and often crass American mass culture. Czech prime minister. These changes can undermine the very stability that American power seeks to ensure. and we lead in the informationbased “revolution in military affairs. and cultural leadership. There is thus no realistic alternative to the prevailing American hegemony and the role of U. “The Decline of America’s Soft Power”. is out of the race. Air Force. New York // wyo-tjc] Xue 11/311 At the outset of the twenty_first century. and there is no rival in sight. Of State) 2004 [Zbigniew.000 foreign scholars were in residence at American educational institutions in 2000. and technological changes that promote growing global interconnections over and above national frontiers.” We also attract the most foreign students each year to our institutions of higher education. 158 European. and appreciated. This military presence is a result of a strengthened will to provide defense after the two World Wars and the Cold War. American power is unmatchable all in categories—military. despite its economic progress. The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership.) Of the Financial Times’ listing of the 500 largest global companies. The American military presence in Europe ensures that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries on both sides of the Atlantic will be equally defended against any conventional threats. as evidenced by the complete absence of referenda. This is evidence of American leadership. Brzezinski (Former Sect. and 77 Japanese. economic.” In terms of soft power. we invested and received nearly twice as much as the next ranking country (Britain) and accounted for half of the top ten investment banks.heritage. France). which (at market prices) was equal to that of the next three countries combined (Japan. In brief. In addition to students. is likely to remain relatively poor for at least two generations and in the meantime may encounter severe political difficulties. power as the indispensable component of global security.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good [P. 35-36] Xue 12/311 .

S.” Eagle Rules? Foreign Policy and American Primacy in the Twenty-First Century. economic. 2002 (Robert J.S. the capacity to project power at great distance. “Foreign Policy and American Primacy. preponderance and U. Liever. and it is likely to continue. inter alia. political. as well as economies of scale and the dynamism of American cultural. military strength. edited by Robert J. sovereignty are likely to endure. argument can be made that . and culture (broadly defined to include lifestyle and entertainment). primacy and sovereignty by globalizing commerce and communications in ways that no state can control. both U. a strong because of the advantages accruing to the United States through its esarly lead in information technologies. technology. Villaplana American primacy has been sustained and even enhanced. economic dynamism. and social structures in accommodating technological change.S. The dimensions of this primacy include. Some have suggested that technological change will erode U.. M. These dimensions appear to be reinforced by the revolution in information technology. However. which is having an economic and a social impact comparable in many respects to the industrial revolutions of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Professor of Government and Foreign Service at Georetown University.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High [6/6] Xue 13/311 The sustainability and enhancement of American primacy is inevitable Liber.

“Russia does not want to fight with America.” Still. He said he was awaiting Mr. and is a significant problem for the Obama administration as it prepares for discussions on Monday. Putin stood in the way. peaceful and prosperous Russia”. This will save time and money. who the Americans say they believe may be easier to deal with than Mr. Putin. Putin said. Medvedev might be difficult to carry out. When Barack Obama arrived in Moscow for his first summit with the Russian president on July 6th. not fluff. He addressed the more neuralgic elements in Russia’s self-perception. had “one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new.” Mr. And he added pointedly that “governments which serve their own people survive and thrive. the former president. He talked up the rule of law and freedom of speech “because they are moral. who once taught law and embrace the Internet. Yet the bigger test will come over Iran. and it might even backfire. Dmitry Medvedev. Putin. it was an opportunity to preserve some semblance of nuclear parity. Moscow’s general policy is one of disengagement. an adviser on disarmament and foreign relations. Putin to avoid the appearance of being influenced by Mr. Mr. missile-defense plans and countries in the former Soviet space. For Mr Obama this was part of a vision of a non-nuclear world. But he stressed that “pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game” and that Georgia and Ukraine were entitled to their sovereignty. Medvedev. Mr Obama’s top Russia adviser. “We stand firmly on our feet and always look to the future. Mr.” Mr. The two sides agreed in principle to cut their nuclear arsenals by roughly a quarter in seven years. Mr Medvedev sat back. Governments which . Medvedev? Well. New York Times[In Russian Trip. “They are real things. Presidents Obama and Dmitri A.economist. Dmitry—and (offstage) Vladimir]http://www. Medvedev are relatively young leaders who represent a new generation of post-cold-war leadership. revealing a mix of reserve and polite attention to what Mr Obama had to offer. Obama’s comment. the strategy of empowering Mr. that is a bit more complicated. (Mr. Obama said that Mr. Obama heads toward dream of non-nuclear world by securing Russian relations The Economist July 9. but also because they work”. Medvedev might respond by emphatically moving closer to Mr.” The comment suggested that Mr. Obama is the undisputed head of his nation. Given that Russia’s stockpile is aging fast. Obama. He managed to do as much as could have been expected. seemed to go out of his way on Friday not to take offense at Mr. The Russians and Americans also agreed to renew military co-operation and work on non-proliferation. Mr. Mr Obama’s speech at the New Economic School in Moscow was an attempt to engage Russian society without trying to lecture it. but it is not prepared to make concessions to America either. who is often quick with a retort when criticized. Mr. Mr. his eyes fixed on his host. Mr. not love. Obama himself waded into the issue on Thursday when he made a pointed remark about Prime Minister Vladimir V. But the officials said they feared that Mr. Medvedev’s mentor and is widely assumed to be Russia’s real ruler.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High – AT: Russia [1/3] Obama in Russia attempting to “reset” relations with Russia NYT July 4.com/world/europe/displaystory. MOSCOW — The Putin. The improvement in relations is so fragile that it may not withstand the strain of potential Western action in Iran. He insisted that America wanted “a strong. One difference stands out. Obama’s visit with “very warm feelings. American officials said that Mr. 2009 [The Russia/America summit: Barack. Obama and Mr. Putin.cfm?story_id=13993072&fsrc=rss THE body language said it all. For the Russians. it will not have to do much to reach the target. he sat on the edge of his chair. but also make Russia’s southern border more secure. Medvedev met at the Group of 8 summit meeting in London in April and that they seemed to hit it off. 2009. Russia does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.” says Ivan Safranchuk.” says Michael McFaul. who is Mr. He praised the Russian people for ending the cold war. Medvedev even has a video blog. but nor does it want to lose influence for America’s sake. Medvedev “understands that. Obama also may have been trying to protect his own domestic political flank. Obama said that it was time to move forward and that Mr. Obama was trying to build up Mr. But Mr Obama came to Moscow for business. Obama to Take On Power Equation] Xue 14/311 summit meeting here this week revolves around two men with some notable affinities. anticipating criticism that he is too easy on the Kremlin. A dozen American aircraft a day will fly through Russian airspace carrying troops and equipment to Afghanistan. though: Mr.

” Xue 15/311 .ICWest 09-10 Heg Good serve only their own power do not.

very unsentimental. But it is also the result of Russian disillusionment with America. This shows that America realises the necessity to work together with the Russian Federation. twist American support into a green light for a war. a reference to Russia’s behaviour to its former republics. And on areas where we disagree. shrewd. He blamed George Bush for letting Mikheil Saakashvili. Vladimir Putin. According to Yury Ushakov. Even students remained largely indifferent to Mr Obama’s speech. . “I found him tough. like Georgia. 2009 [The Russia/America summit: Barack. I don’t anticipate a meeting of minds anytime soon.” This line was amplified by Russia’s main TV channel. “President Obama pledged to consider the regional significance of these countries for us. very pragmatic.” By the same token.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High – AT: Russia [2/3] Obama influencing Russian president that the US is changing its views on Russia The Economist July 9. which presented it as America’s concession and Russia’s victory. Mr Obama said he trusted Mr Medvedev and found him “straightforward and professional”. Georgia’s president. But he allowed his talks with Mr Obama to be twisted by his own side. Mr Medvedev’s prime minister. as saying: “All the sanctions that were imposed against Russia after the war in August 2008 are in the past. Russia’s main pro-Kremlin commentator. Dmitry—and (offstage) Vladimir]http://www. “I take what he said on board.” said one.com/world/europe/displaystory. smart. It quoted Vyacheslav Nikonov. Mr Putin’s chief foreign-policy adviser. into a case of American self-criticism. spent much of his two-hour breakfast with Mr Obama venting Russia’s grievances over America’s policy. Today nobody in Washington would shake Saakashvili’s hand. America has understood what was going on last August.economist.cfm?story_id=13993072&fsrc=rss Xue 16/311 Mr Obama’s speech was broadcast live by only one cable TV channel with limited reach. but I am not going jump to a conclusion. Such a reaction reflects the culture of cynicism and nationalism that has flourished in Russia in recent years. The main channels highlighted his endorsement of a “great Russia” and managed to turn his comments about “dominating and demonising other countries”.” Mr Obama has few illusions about Mr Putin.

and rebuild Russian power to work together as one strong force NYT July 10. without the support of Russia and China in the international politics of nuclear enforcement.nytimes. the notion of parity was always flawed. that “will be stronger if Russia occupies its rightful place as a great power. “If we fail to stand together” to press for nuclear nonproliferation. Moscow was not the economic.” Indeed. Obama asked in Moscow. Power] http://www.html But. “What world order will replace the Cold War? Those questions still don’t have clear answers. political or social equal of the United States. Obama said in Moscow. In so many ways. he said. beyond the nuclear arsenals.” In other words. Mr. New York Times [Finding the Limits of U. 20 years after the crumbling of the Soviet empire.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High – AT: Russia [3/3] Xue 17/311 Obama trying to gain the trust of. who will police the planet at a time when the nuclear debate entwines worries about terrorism and the resurgence of what was once described as a crescent of crisis stretching from Afghanistan and Pakistan through Iran and the Gulf to the Horn of Africa? Arguably. “international law will give way to the law of the jungle. “What kind of future are Russia and America going to have together?” Mr. the United States cannot hope for the leverage it needs to pressure Pyongyang or Tehran.S. And.com/2009/07/11/world/europe/11iht-letter. that imbalance has not been redressed any more than diplomacy has devised a new set of global rules. Mr. Obama is seeking a return to an older equilibrium after the roller-coaster years of Russia’s economic turmoil in the 1990s and its bullish nationalism under Vladimir V. Putin — a partnership.” . 2009.

pernicious impact on US interests in Asia: it has consumed US attention. the structure of the international system should remain as the Chinese describe it: one superpower and many great powers.with Australia. He is also one of America’s foremost experts on Japan and northeast Asia generally. He writes: “The Iraq war has had one important.23599516-7583.html) By the same token. the Islamist parties with anti-American rhetoric fared very poorly.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.realclearpolitics. whom she replaced. Yet Green’s positive thesis is fascinating.com. Return of History. and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbors. The same is true of France’s Nicolas Sarkozy.have in his view been strengthened by the Iraq campaign. So long as the United States remains at the center of the international economy and the predominant military power. their populations allegedly radicalised and polarised by Bush’s campaign in Iraq and the global war on terror more generally. Real Clear Politics http://www. or more accurately the universal values of democracy to which the US adheres.25197. is correct. Green states and acknowledges the negatives. Roh Moo-hyun. Iraq. Some have suggested that failure in Iraq would mean the end of predominance and unipolarity. a justification with which the Chinese were much more comfortable. is vastly more pro-American than his predecessor.theaustralian. More generally. and also because they wanted to use the Iraq campaign as an opportunity to strengthen their alliances with the US. Even with China. it is American values. Germany’s Angela Merkel is certainly more pro-American than Gerhard Schroeder. 7/19/07.in Vietnam or in Iraq -. 07 – a fellow at the German Marshall Fund and a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) End of Dreams. More importantly in terms of Green’s analysis. in a world supposedly awash in anti-US sentiment. Japan and South Korea . especially in terms of key alliances. on the other hand. was justified on the basis of weapons of mass destruction. Similarly Kevin Rudd was elected as a very pro-American Labor leader. Green also acknowledges that the US’s reputation has taken a battering among Muslim populations in Asia. with his traces of anti-Americanism. so long as the American public continues to support American predominance as it has consistently for six decades. Lee Myung-bak. Such notions could theoretically be used to justify action (not necessarily military action) against China over Taiwan and Tibet. Iraq doesn’t tank US predominance Kagan. foreign (Robert. in the politics and civil societies of Asian nations such as Indonesia. Australian 08 (4/26. But a superpower can lose a war -. senior associate policy failures do not necessarily undermine predominance. First. election results don’t show any evidence of these trends. Mike Green holds the Japan chair at Washington’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies and was for several years the Asia director at the National Security Council. Beijing was far more worried by the earlier US-led NATO intervention into Kosovo because it was based purely on notions of human rights in Kosovo. and the only way this could be reversed would be if it lost the will to continue the struggle and abandoned Iraq in defeat and disarray.” This has prevented the US from following up in sufficient detail on some positive developments in Asia. pro-American leaders keep winning elections. They did this because they believed in what the US was doing in Iraq. More generally. The US’s three most important Asian alliances .au/story/0. Even in majority Islamic societies.news. the same is also true of South Korea’s new President. http://www. the Iraq campaign was not a serious negative for the US.html) Xue 18/311 THE US war in Iraq has strengthened its strategic position. His thesis. Each of these nations sent substantial numbers of troops to help the US in Iraq. Japan and many others.without ceasing to be a superpower if the fundamental international conditions continue to support its predominance. In the most recent local elections in Indonesia. who was heavily defeated. that are more popular and receive greater adherence in Asia than before. elected in a landslide in December. India. applied strictly to the US position in Asia. unlike Mark Latham. . and in national elections in Pakistan.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High – AT: Iraq [1/1] Iraq has strengthened the US strategic position and boosted leadership.00.

first strike.S. The result today is a global nuclear imbalance unseen in 50 years.g. and China showed little interest in modernizing its nuclear weapons. but official U.” but the upgrades improve the planes’ ability to penetrate enemy airspace secretly.html) But little about the emerging nuclear balance between the United States and China should lead anyone to assume a similar stabilizing effect. missiles. These nuclear-missioncapable bombers are already “stealthy. These include precision “bunker buster” conventional bombs.) China has neither modern nuclear ballistic-missile submarines nor long-range nuclear bombers. the warheads are stored separately. preemptive attack would have generated horrific civilian casualties. and America’s counterforce capabilities have soared. of the submarine missile arsenal. relationship. http://brothersjuddblog. The Navy refitted its entire fleet of nuclear-armed submarines with new. Russia allowed its arsenal to decline precipitously. Perhaps as important. unclassified count of China’s DF-5 ICBMs.S.S. Russian and Chinese leaders apparently thought so.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High – Nuclear Primacy [1/1] Xue 19/311 The US has nuclear primacy Judd 08 (Brothers Judd review agency co-founder. (Unlike the solid fuel used in U. and Soviet missiles were too inaccurate to carry out a disarming strike—even against Beijing’s small force. (One kiloton is the explosive energy released by 1. The small strategic force that China built and deployed in the 1970s and early 1980s is essentially the same one it has today. the U.S. In the past. by “mopping up” a small number of incoming warheads that survived a U. the United States is pursuing a slew of nonnuclear weapons that will provide officials options they may find more palatable if they decide to attack an adversary’s nuclear arsenal. high-speed long-range cruise missiles. 6/17. (There is no definitive. and the missiles are kept unfueled. Furthermore. Moreover. In the 1990s. China has approximately 80 operationally deployed nuclear warheads. How the United States achieved nuclear dominance after the Soviet Union collapsed is an open secret. designed to find “relocatable” mobile missile launchers—that will make China’s nuclear forces vulnerable. essential for an attack on hardened silos. by flying very low and using the terrain to shield them from radar. The Air Force has also upgraded the avionics on B-2 bombers. because it would be easily overwhelmed by decoy warheads and the “penetration aids” that would accompany an adversary’s missiles.) The result is an unprecedented combination of accuracy and destructive power. nuclear weapons appeared to be relics.com/archives/2008/06/when_you_have_superiority_use. a U. highly accurate Trident II missiles and replaced many of the 100-kiloton W76 warheads on these missiles with 455-kiloton W88 warheads. . Critics of this system are right in claiming that it could not shield America from even a modest nuclear attack (e. made its remaining weapons more lethal and accurate. nuclear primacy clearer—or potentially more important—than in the Sino-U. with the Cold War receding. one of the biggest constraints that would deter American leaders from contemplating a disarming strike is fading away. but that may soon cease to be the case. and thus lethality.S. But meanwhile. China lacks an advanced early-warning system that would give Beijing reliable notice of an incoming attack. But it could enhance offensive nuclear capabilities. China’s ICBMs can’t be quickly launched. And nowhere is U. the United States steadily improved its “counterforce” capabilities—those nuclear weapons most effective at targeting an enemy’s nuclear arsenal. But China’s international presence is expanding. 25 warheads).S. and the resulting nuclear imbalance of power could dramatically exacerbate America’s rivalry with China.000 tons of TNT. the Air Force has improved the guidance systems of land-based Minuteman III missiles. Moreover.S. Many of these missiles are also being “retipped” with more-powerful warheads—and more-accurate reentry vehicles—taken from recently retired MX (“Peacekeeper”) missiles. and conventionally armed ballistic missiles—each of which could be used to destroy enemy missile silos.S. but only a few of them—those assigned to single-warhead DF-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)—can reach the continental United States. and when U. The United States is pursuing capabilities that are rendering MAD obsolete. Even as it reduced the number of weapons in its nuclear arsenal.. Even a missile-defense system substantially boosts U. For its part. statements have put the number at 18.) Finally. Washington is undertaking initiatives—including advances in antisatellite warfare and in wide-area remote sensing. but it is now obsolete. the liquid fuel used to propel Chinese ICBMs is highly corrosive. The Navy also recently tested a GPS guidance system that would dramatically boost the accuracy. The current Chinese force was designed for a different era:when China was a poor nation with a limited role on the world stage. offensive counterforce capabilities. This small arsenal fulfilled China’s strategic requirements in the 20th century.S.

to providing humanitarian assistance. Indeed. this network of bases has been dramatically reduced. when necessary. interagency. and multinational teammates.S. This seabased force—particularly its aircraft carriers and amphibious ships with embarked Marines— is capable of projecting influence and power ashore without reliance on ports and airfields in the objective area. which is one of the most powerful enablers on the battlefield today. and Intelligence Deputy G2 for III Corps. sets the conditions for the initial success of the surge in Iraq. according to the current counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine..edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i50.S.htm) We have seen a significant metamorphosis of intelligence operations in Iraq. analyst. the seabasing initiatives being pursued by the Navy-Marine\ team today are intended to benefit joint. Decentralization of ISR assets allowed BCT and regimental combat team (RCT) commanders (faced with vastly different problem sets) to gain and maintain contact with the enemy. It can do so in a selectively discrete or overt manner to conduct a range of operations—from conducting security cooperation activities.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i50. and Mastracchio 08 (Raymond. influence and power overseas. p. however. The American ability to cross wide expanses of ocean and to remain offshore at a time and place and for a duration of its own choosing cannot be contested today to the degree it was in previous eras. This significant advantage does not extend to the joint force as a whole. The successes enjoyed by Multi-National Corps–Iraq (MNC–I) are clearly demonstrated in the ability to leverage the sophistication of intelligence operations ongoing in Iraq today at the lowest levels of command. Fortunately. even as the United States is confronted by a variety of strategic challenges and locked in a global struggle for influence. Commanders now have the flexibility to push ISR assets to the lowest tactical echelon. for the foreseeable future. a navy without peer. Brooks. http://www. Although small in historical terms—and often stretched thin by current operational commitments—the U. 45-46. This asymmetric advantage means that the Navy-Marine team can use the sea as both maneuver space and a secure operating area to overcome impediments to access. lt. http://www. p. and military impediments to access has reemerged as a critical necessity for extending U.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High – Capabilities Gap [1/1] Xue 20/311 The US military is far above all others due to unprecedented military intelligence Odierno. but we are on the right track. The US navy is unchallengable. lt.ndu. King and Berry 8 (Douglas and John. Navy is. to deterring and. Just as the amphibious innovations championed by the Navy and Marine Corps during the 1920s and 1930s benefited the entire joint and Allied force in World War II. and Francisco. Nichoel. . The sealift that transports the preponderance of joint force materiel is still dependent upon secure infrastructure in a potential objective area.ndu. The ability to overcome geographic. ISR evolved along with the fight. fighting wars. Marine Corps Combat Development Command Director of Operations and Plans and sr. we still have much to learn. general.htm) In recent years. 52. col. the United States possesses an asymmetric advantage in that endeavor: seapower. Employment of ISR. The capacity and capability of our intelligence systems have improved greatly in just 3 years. political. The robust ISR currently available at the brigade level provides commanders with an unprecedented level of situational awareness.

14.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49. and payload to strike any target. JFQ. http://www. and procedures—to fully exploit the synergies of cross-domain dominance. anytime. techniques. and think tanks. precision. extends. global reach. http://www. . USAF Chief of Staff. global reach. 13. Heg is high – Air Force proves.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49. should deterrence fail. academia. anywhere. range. We are transforming our thinking from considering the space and cyber domains as mere enablers of air operations to a holistic approach that factors in their interdependence and leverages their unique characteristics. Michael. and.htm) Ends: Protect Democracy and Guard Freedom. adapt to. We must bolster our advantage through continued investment in our own science and technology.ndu. We will reform our procurement and acquisition system to ensure full transparency. Building these relationships not only expands. and overcome challenges. but also leverages airpower’s value as an instrument of America’s diplomacy in an increasingly interconnected world.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg High – Air Force [1/1] Heg is high – The US Air Force is the strongest Moseley 08 (T. The Air Force is formulating innovative operational concepts to anticipate. Moseley 8 (T Michael. open competition. Airmen deliver global surveillance. deter conflict and prevent surprise. We will accelerate the deployment of evolutionary and disruptive technologies as are address the urgent need to recapitalize and modernize.ndu. dissuade opponents. values. while attending to interoperability between allies and partners. USAF Chief of Staff. We must continue to push this conceptual envelope—and expand the boundaries of existing tactics. its interests. and the requisite speed. and allies. and adherence to operational timelines.htm) America’s strategic partnerships are more important than ever. prevail against any adversary. p. global command and control. capitalizing on the global community of like-minded Airmen. persistence. in any domain—and to assess the results. as well as outreach and integration with industry. p. Our Air Force will strengthen and broaden coalitions. assure allies. The Xue 21/311 Air Force’s nonnegotiable commitment to America’s joint team is to provide forces proficient across the full spectrum of military operations to protect the United States. and inflict strategic dislocation and paralysis on adversaries—all while minimizing the loss of life associated with land warfare. Global vigilance. and strengthens global vigilance. and global power. and global power grant joint and combined force commanders the ability to safeguard the homeland.

Today’s strategic context is completely different. To be sure the stress is real. with the capacity to defeat any – repeat. particularly for America’s ground forces. as I mentioned. Along with Fort Bliss. including Fort Hood and Camp Pendleton – the largest Army and Marine bases respectively. or stars – and put them in the right positions to see that the lessons learned in recent combat become rooted in the institutional culture. and they are likely to be supportive in the future. 5/13. and build out a fleet of ships that right now is the smallest we’ve had since the late 1930s. of defense. Not so today. I remember being a Second Lieutenant at Whiteman Air Force base in the late 1960s. Many of these skills and tasks used to be the province of the Special Forces. And it is hard to conceive of any country confronting the United States directly in conventional terms – ship to ship. http://www. we shouldn’t let personnel policies that were developed in peacetime hurt our wartime performance. I would stress that the perennial procurement cycle – going back many decades – of adding layer upon layer of cost and complexity onto fewer and fewer platforms that take longer and longer to build must come to an end. It is true that we would be hard-pressed to launch a major conventional ground operation elsewhere in the world at this time – but where would we sensibly do that? The United States has ample and untapped combat power in our naval and air forces. and best equipped it has ever been – skilled and experienced in the arduous complexities of irregular warfare.defenselink. I told the cadets that the most important assignment in their careers may not necessarily be commanding U. This is an understandable concern. are most likely to engage America’s military in the coming decades. Some people have made similar comparisons to the impact of Iraq on the Army. Overall.S. and Iraq. our service men and women and their families have shown extraordinary resilience. US sec. none of those ailments are present today. As I mentioned before. regular militaries.There are a number of measures underway and trends that should ease the strain on this small sliver of our population who have borne the burden of this conflict: • More and better programs to improve the quality of life for soldiers and their families. The last point I’d like to address is the strain placed on our ground forces. the Army’s 10-month staff college assigned 30 hours – about four days – for what is now called low-intensity conflict. suicides. unit for unit. In Texas. and promote the right people – at all ranks. soldiers. While America’s military was being bled in Vietnam. During the 1980s. about a decade after the fall of Saigon. What we should expect. the Air Force and the Navy will be America’s main strategic deterrent. That grad student was then-Army Major David Petraeus. This was about the same as what the Air Force was teaching at the time. the Israelis in Lebanon. And it’s even harder to do with the families of those who have been killed or wounded. and the first to be fought with an all-volunteer force since independence. but advising or mentoring the troops of other nations. it will be difficult to sustain support for these kinds of weapons programs in the future. terrorists – will find ways. but now are a core of the Army and Marine Corps as a whole. or in the Straits of Taiwan. • The ground forces are growing by more than 90. is a heightened level of scrutiny in the Congress. a superpower with vast fleets of tanks. Afghanistan. as well as for full-spectrum warfare.mil/speeches/speech. the Army is the best trained. and • U. . where there was a loss of nearly a generation of NCO leadership and rampant discipline problems.The American people have been generous when it comes to funding their Armed Forces over the past seven years. where if nature takes it course. force levels in Iraq will decline over time – the debate taking place is mostly over the pacing. any – adversary who committed an act of aggression – whether in the Persian Gulf. Without a fundamental change in this dynamic. This is the second longest war in American history since our Revolution. Morale is high. Similarly. and if necessary. bombers. irregular forces – insurgents. Overall. bars. We need to modernize our ageing inventory of aircraft. For years to come. whether they wear stripes. the United States in Somalia. as they always have. means we must institutionalize the lessons learned and capabilities honed from the ongoing conflicts. There are metrics that need to be watched – such as the number of waivers granted to new recruits. guerrillas. Soldier for soldier. as is recruiting and retention – particularly among units either in or just returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. especially the Army. The implication. will have to show some utility and relevance to the kind of irregular campaigns that.S. best led. There I caught a glimpse of the impact of the Vietnam War on America’s overall strategic strength: White-haired lieutenant colonels were being reassigned to Southeast Asia to make up for our pilot losses there. There is a history here.aspx?speechid=1240) Xue 22/311 But in a world of finite knowledge and limited resources. Smaller. So far. I’ve visited a number of other military installations over the past year. in order to remain viable. For example. Going forward we must find. though. Two points on the subject of procurement: First. retain. respond to. And even nation-states will try to exploit our perceived vulnerabilities in an asymmetric way. where we have to make choices and set priorities. at West Point last month. I had an opportunity to see a demonstration of the parts of the Army’s Future Combat Systems that have moved from the drawing board to reality.What we must guard against is the kind of backsliding that has occurred in the past. a Princeton graduate student noted in his dissertation that. for how this money is being spent – particularly when supplemental war funds are no longer available for modernization purposes. to frustrate and neutralize the advantages of larger. on the Korean Peninsula.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Readiness High Readiness high – the US can respond to any challenge despite responsibilities in Iraq. other competitors. and by the public. the discussion about the stress on the Army today is informed by the Vietnam experience – and the terrible shape of the service afterwards. as well as incidents of divorce and other signs of wear on military families. fighters.Second. the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need today. These forces provide the strategic flexibility we need to deter. I believe that any major weapons program. The record of the past quarter century is clear: the Soviets in Afghanistan. Gates 08 (Robert. these kinds of capabilities – that is counter-insurgency – tend to wither on the vine.000 over the next five years – with a bigger rotational pool of troops and units individual soldiers and Marines will deploy less frequently. it makes sense to lean toward the most likely and lethal scenarios for our military. A program like FCS – whose total cost could exceed $200 billion if completely built out – must continue to demonstrate its value for the types of irregular challenges we will face. There is a risk – but a prudent and manageable one. A few words about global risk – the threats we face elsewhere in the world while America’s ground forces are concentrated on Iraq. and nuclear weapons was poised to overrun Western Europe – then the central theater in that era’s long twilight struggle. tank to tank – for some time to come. fighter to fighter. rather than play to our inherent strengths. It is a difficult thing to look a family member in the eye whose father or son or daughter is being deployed again – sometimes on a second or third tour.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 23/311 .

defence spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. Defence-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. not part of the official defence budget. The Department of Defense’s planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations’ military budgets combined. Leaving out President Bush’s two on-going wars. in the current fiscal year (2008) we are Xue 24/311 spending insane amounts of money on “defence” projects that bear no relation to the national security of the US. The US has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. We are also keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segment of the population at strikingly low levels. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. http://mondediplo. The U.com/2008/02/05military) It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The defence budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the second world war.com/2008/02/05military There are three broad aspects to the US debt crisis. I mean the mistaken belief that public opposite is actually true. and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. Second.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Readiness Up – $ing Up U.S. military spending is high now Johnson 08 (President and Co-founder of Japan Policy Research Institute. military spending is high now Johnson 08 (President and Co-founder of Japan Policy Research Institute.S. . First. policies focused on frequent wars. we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures — “military Keynesianism” (which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic). http://mondediplo. By that. huge expenditures on weapons and munitions.

given that the rock-solid unity was both the product and cause of growing sectarian violence.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns) Four months later." It is no coincidence that as the mood and the reality have shifted. telling the enemy we're here. "Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country. in no small part by the American media. It could not be comforting to Sadr or al-Qaeda to read in the New York Times that the United States plans to keep higher force levels in Iraq through at least the beginning of 2008.that is having an obvious and palpable effect. even as coalition forces begin to establish themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City. The city was safer." U.a good sign. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply.attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U." The first impact of the "surge. political currents have shifted as well. The new American strategy of "getting out. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work. As for Sadr and the Mahdi Army. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. they are striking at more vulnerable targets in the provinces. "many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future. the plan to secure Baghdad "is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city. was psychological." A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. Violence is down in Baghdad. this alone shifted the dynamic. widely respected for their straight talk. that the United States was preparing to pull out. His Mahdi Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and Iraqi forces. decentralizing. But trying to wait out the American and Iraqi effort may be hazardous if the public becomes less tolerant of their violence. it is possible they may reemerge as a problem later. is having a significant effect. as Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda seek to prove that the surge is not working. and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city. As a result. forces tended to raid insurgent and terrorist strongholds and then pull back and hand over the areas to Iraqi forces. However. the Army's leading counterinsurgency strategist. the airport more secure.a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue. Before the arrival of Gen. "This change in mood is something huge by itself.S. When the opposite occurred. is that "the war has changed." The most prominent leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts -. there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy. backed by the infusion of new forces. increasing the sense of community. "One difference between this and earlier -.failed -. The Fadhils report.S." the Fadhils report. And cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition -. allowing for a better implementation of the 'clear and hold' strategy. As the Fadhils report.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Readiness Up – General (A2: Iraq) [1/1] Xue 25/311 The US military can overcome any military challenge with appropriate resources – surge proves. the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. U. The result. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad." they write. Carnegie Endowment for Internatoinal Peace sr. associate. There is still violence.S. who failed to hold them. David Petraeus." Apparently some American journalists see the difference. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil. The Interior Ministry has been purged of corrupt officials and of many suspected of torture and brutality. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq.washingtonpost. Kagan 7 (Robert. A national agreement on sharing oil revenue appears on its way to approval. The only good news for them would be if the Bush administration in its infinite wisdom starts to talk again about drawing down forces.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901839. bursts of American activity were followed by withdrawal and a return of the insurgents." Baghdadis "always want the 'hold' part to materialize. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back -. Some observers are reporting the shift. Now. say that "early signs are encouraging." In the past. . http://www.the bad guys can't intimidate as long as the troops are staying. Williams said. start talking to the locals -. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced. going into the neighborhoods. grabbing a toehold.

the armed forces are finding they can be more selective and can reduce enlistment and retention bonuses that have ballooned in recent years. Furthermore.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Military Recruitment High Xue 26/311 Bad economy makes it easy for the military to recruit Broder et al. Donnelly and Matthew Johnson. In these tough times. But with the struggling economy. the Army took in recruits without high school diplomas. In many cases. or with criminal histories. they all met or exceeded their goals for re-enlistments. John M. it was forced to lower standards for new recruits. . CQ Staff. The Defense Department released figures in February showing that all branches of the active-duty military met or exceeded their recruiting goals for January. CQ Staff Congressional Quarterly Weekly. the past several years. in large part due to the struggling economy. the Defense Department is getting better troops for less money. with the lowest scores on the armed forces qualification test. as the Army struggled to fill its barracks. 3/16/09 Jonathan Broder. “Military Readiness in Rough Times” military recruiting is getting easier. Both the activeduty Army and the Army Reserve -.both hard-hit by the extended conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan -exceeded recruiting goals from October through January. which hasn't been done since before the Iraq War began. 3/16/09. Over While the government eyes ways to scale back the defense budget.

they wield technologies at least two generations more advanced than anyone else’s. political and economic capacities — but the absence of countries that come anywhere close. consumer electronics. the United States spent about $570 billion on defense. In fact. companies earn on their foreign sales. the United States spent about $570 billion on defense. sailors and pilots to fight in other countries in their own regions. navy or air force to speak of. The United States is the only country with thousands of miles of ocean separating it from anyone else with an army. for example.S.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Hard Power High American hard power is absolute.theglobalist. Britain and Russia. What’s so unusual and world-changing is not the extent of America’s military. In 2006. China and India. Most wars begin in conflicts that in some way arise out of geographical proximity — and even today. All this spending has bought the United States its remarkable military dominance as the first military superpower in more than a millennium with no near peer in sight. Much of the world now embraces the United States' basic approach to organizing economies and doing business serious assault. America’s military power is unprecedented. America’s historically anomalous position as a sole superpower will fundamentally shape a new geopolitics for at least the next generation superpower. the U. http://www. Other nations have armies.S.theglobalist. 6/12. In 2006. automobiles — and much more. Geography reinforces America’s awesome military advantages.S. the proximity of Russia. especially in the software and Internet areas that drive so much economic change and the processes of globalization itself. This capacity enhances America’s global position not because it increases the profits that U. And the oceans and the air space above them and above every other country are part of America’s military territory. economic dominance is that it will indefinitely finance America’s position as the world’s sole military superpower. or roughly as much as the rest of the world combined volumes. Much more far-reaching. 6/12. will make it harder for them to work together to balance America’s military advantages. This asymmetry in military spending is also historically unprecedented. Geographical advantage These forces can prevent others from using their own militaries beyond their own borders and — as Saddam Hussein learned — no government can survive for long against their serious assault. Shapiro 8 (Robert J. Sources of power The United States also derives geopolitical power from its singular capacity to develop new technologies and other valuable intellectual property in large volumes. military spends more on research and development into new defense systems — some $73 billion in 2007 — than the entire defense budgets of every other country except China.aspx?StoryId=7049) America’s global military power is so commonplace that it’s easy to overlook how historically unique it is.com/storyid. since only its navy and air force can roam them freely. America’s historically anomalous position as a sole superpower with no near peer ended the balance-of-power geopolitics that organized much of world affairs for more than a thousand years — and will fundamentally shape a new geopolitics for at least the next generation.S. When they arrive. Projecting worldwide With some considerable lead time.com/storyid. Sonecon LLC co-founder. air forces and navies capable of protecting their borders from just about anyone else. Sonecon LLC co-founder. bases and those around the world. including China. or roughly as much as the rest of the world combined.aspx?StoryId=7049) Xue 27/311 The core business of geopolitics is national security — and the other critical geopolitical fact about U. Shapiro 08 (Robert J. it subtly aligns the economic paths of other countries with the United States and — whether or not they like it — . But the United States alone has a blue-water navy capable of operating in and across the world’s vast oceans — and a blue-sky air force that with little notice can project forces any where from U. Other countries now lead in producing and improving the basic manufactures that American companies dominated a few generations ago — steel. http://www. a few of them could send their soldiers.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good makes them a little more like America. Xue 28/311 .

Brazil and India that have used their role as subcontractors in the international structure to modernise their own manufacturing capacity and now seek to challenge existing second-tier suppliers in their export markets. Lesson one is that just about no mission is impossible for the United States military.uk/publications/economics/MakingArmsExec. But finally Lincoln found the right generals. Bush. . there are emerging nations including South Africa.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Hard Power High American hard power is the greatest in history – surge proves. like Lincoln. Second-tier suppliers include the UK. American troops are surely the most capable military force in history. http://www. CAAT 8 (6/20.php . They just need to be given the right orders." Gen. The US has supremacy in hard power – military technology. George Washington's forces seemed on the brink of defeat many times in the agonizing years before Yorktown.creators. David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno has succeeded where the stand-aside strategy employed by their predecessors failed. We have seen this before in American history. But it's clear now that the forward-moving surge strategy devised by Gens. South Korea. Grant pressed forward in Virginia. with the United States maintaining clear supremacy in first-tier sophisticated military platforms based on its massive procurement and R&D programmes. George W. South Vietnam fell three years later when the North Vietnamese army attacked en masse. and Russia offer other large platforms and weapons but with lesser capabilities.com/conservative/michael-barone/lessons-from-thesurge.html Xue 29/311 There are lessons to be learned from the dazzling success of the surge strategy in Iraq.30k -) A hierarchy of production exists. Franklin Roosevelt picked the right generals and admirals from the start in World War II. As Lewis Sorley argues persuasively in "A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam. Sherman took Atlanta and marched to the sea. France. www. not just by the new Democratic leaders in Congress but also in many parts of the Pentagon. Below this is a much larger group of countries supplying basic. mass-produced weapons including sub-machine guns and rifles. However. Barone 07 Michael. Abraham Lincoln's generals seemed so unsuccessful in the Civil War that in August 1864 it was widely believed he would be defeated for re-election. that containing the violence in Iraq was impossible. A year ago it was widely thought. Even Vietnam is not necessarily a counterexample.caat.S. but the first years of the war were filled with errors and mistakes. senior writer with US News and World Report. Creighton Abrams came up with a winning strategy by 1972. took his time finding the right generals. Now we have seen it done. had promised. including the most advanced fighter aircraft and weapons such as satellite-guided missiles. This ensures its domination of the global arms trade and provides a form of technological leverage with client states to gain support for its over-arching strategic goals.org. and Congress refused to allow the aid the U.

more than double the total spending of its European allies (whose budgets are so riddled with inefficiencies that. lexis) U. as Charles Krauthammer noted in these pages four years ago: "The result is the dominance of a single power unlike anything ever seen.newamerica. air force and space power are unrivaled. . July/August. No other power has the ability to move large and sophisticated forces around the globe. which receives more money than the entire defense budget of its largest European ally.commits the United States to outspend all other great military powers. American military spending exceeds that of the next twenty countries combined. military power is of a different order entirely.S. Today." By the end of the 1990s. the world has seen nothing like the U. however. the United States dominates.S.is the dissuasion or "deterring [of] potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. jammed rifles. to coordinate and direct its own forces and those of its allies. the European pillar of NATO is militarily irrelevant). http://www. an unprecedented phenomenon in military history. and healthy. military technology far surpasses that of any potential opponent. and to support those troops with precision firepower and unsurpassed amounts of information and intelligence. In virtually every sphere of warfare. fed. Navy and Air Force. Viewed from the outside. No other country is remotely close to having the resources. Foreign Affairs. This qualitative advantage looms even larger at the higher levels of the armed forces. military.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Hard Power High The US is the absolute leader in hardpower Lind 07 (Michael. No other research establishment can match that of the United States. Viewed from within. with a few exceptions (mostly allies of the United States). peacekeeping. Its navy. No other military has the B-2 bombers or the satellite constellation. British infantrymen in 1900 shot more accurately than their continental European counterparts but did not differ all that much from them in terms of equipment and unit skills (and the Tommies found themselves inferior to Boer citizen-soldiers equipped with German-made rifles). the picture looks very different. to keep troops equipped. soldiers know all too well their own deficiencies and vulnerabilities: they grouse about aging trucks. and it has officers and sergeants groomed by a military schooling system more thorough than any in history.S. Even at its height Britain could always be seriously challenged by the next greatest powers. of course. Beyond American Hegemony. U. Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies “History and the Hyperpower”. On and above the earth and on and below the sea.S. whether friend or foe. it trains more effectively in the field." US hard power is unmatched: 1) More resources than any other nation 2) Is more specialized than any other nation 3) Can project power at any to time to anywhere on the globe Cohen 2K4 (Eliot. Director.of the U. the aircraft carriers or the long-range unmanned aircraft afforded by a $400 billion defense budget or the accumulated military-industrial capital of years of spending on construction and infrastructure.S. This policy’s goal -. U. and intermittent data links. New America Foundation. and some niche capabilities.directed at actual or potential challengers to the United States -.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381) Xue 30/311 Dissuasion -. Today. The United States now accounts for between 40 and 50 percent of global defense spending.in the words of the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance draft leaked from then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney’s Pentagon -. battalion has better kit-from body armor to night vision devices--than any comparable unit in the world. aside from territorial defense.S. an average U. Britain had a smaller army than the land powers of Europe and its navy was equaled by the next two navies combined.

Why is the world so interested? America's bulk is only part of the answer. Visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. http://www.S. It is not even America's blue-water navy or its new bunkerbusting munitions. It's worth noting that the declinist canon has emerged at the nadir of the Bush years. meritocratic and optimistic. it is not really the size of the U. 6/17.iht.com/articles/2008/06/17/opinion/edfullilove.the ability to get others to want what you want . Ultimately. whether or not they are a Clinton.the case for America's decline is easily overstated. democratic. Rather. America's soft power account will look much healthier the instant the next president is inaugurated. a country that is the cockpit of global culture. our politics as well. America retains its hold on the world's imagination. America's politics are.php) Xue 31/311 In terms of soft power. For most non-Americans around the world. too . economy that draws our attention. a polity in which all candidates for public office. at some level. seem to come from a place called Hope. Director of the global issues program at the Lowy Institute. and will continue with new president Fullilove 08 (Michael. it is the idea of America which continues to fascinate: a superpower that is open.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Soft Power High US soft power high. .

-. and see its military presence in Asia as a stabilizing force.Majorities or pluralities in every country are at least "somewhat worried" that China could become a military threat to their country in the future (Vietnamese were not asked this question).U. especially in the diplomatic.6) and South Koreans (4. Chinese give both the United States and the EU the same score (7. The results were organized to produce indexes of the pillars of soft power: economic. notably preventing an arms race between China and Japan. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and EAI conducted more than 6. .7) and South Korea (6.agree that it would.Pluralities or majorities in China (44%). On the United States: -. The five indexes were averaged to produce an overall Soft Power Index. a majority of Asians in the surveyed countries still admire the United States on many fronts. China (86%). cultural and educational.0) and Vietnamese (8. (49%).The United States is given the highest mean score for importance as a trade and investment partner by South Koreans (8. executive director for studies at The Chicago Council.5 on a 0-10 scale). South Korea (42%) and Indonesia (58%) all agree that U. Japan (47%).8)." said Christopher Whitney.the ability to wield influence by indirect. diplomatic reputations. universities. Japan. http://www. "The findings of this report clearly illustrate that China is recognized by its neighbors as the undisputed future leader of Asia. But. significantly ahead of Japan (6.epicos.000 interviews in China. "It is clear that the United States still has a strong foundation upon which to build in the region. and human capital power in Asia.9). Vietnam and South Korea see overall U. "Considering negative perceptions of the United States elsewhere in the world. South Korea. South Korea (82%). -. Bouton. Indonesia (65%) and Vietnam (85%) . before the unrest in Tibet and the Sichuan earthquake placed a spotlight on events inside China. Japanese (4. cultural influence in Asia as positive. Change was measured on a few key questions that were also asked in a 2006 Chicago Council survey. different political systems. influence and U. commercial prowess and brands. In contrast. influence in Asia has increased over the last 10 years. political. which is based on public opinion surveys in five East and Southeast Asian countries and the United States.On the question of whether China builds trust and cooperation among Asian countries. To enhance its credibility in Asia. Chinese perceptions of the United States have grown noticeably warmer compared to the 2006 survey and Chinese demonstrate consistently positive attitudes towards U. -. Japan. including economic. American feelings towards China have deteriorated since similar surveys were taken by The Chicago Council in '04 and '06 and a significant number of those questioned expressed general unease about the future of the relationship. China will need to invest more resources in building up its soft power.The United States ranks at or near the top of every category in the Soft Power Index. at the same time.psml/js_panename/News+Information+Article+View. diplomatic.But when asked whether China will increase its prestige by hosting the 2008 Summer Olympics pluralities or majorities in all countries surveyed .0).S.China trails the United States in perceptions of its diplomatic.generally trail those of the United States and Japan.S. though perceptions are more positive in Southeast Asia than East Asia. president of The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. but it still has real work to do to win hearts and minds in the region. ranking China third or fourth among the group -. sizeable majorities in all the countries surveyed agreed that hosting the games will ultimately increase China's prestige. Vietnam." Another unexpected finding of the report focuses on the complex relationship between the United States and China. it receives low ratings on a 0-10 scale from Americans (3.tomcat5? articleid=106756&showfull=false) The report. it was somewhat surprising to see such strongly positive feelings about the United States among the Asian countries we surveyed. Japan (56%). social and cultural spheres. The report also reveals that contrary to other polls taken since the United States invaded Iraq which reflected negative views of the United States. Among the key findings: On China: -. human capital. reveals that perceptions of China's "soft power" . intellectual influence and appeal. and more. China is also seen as less effective than the United States in promoting its policies to people in Asia by all surveyed publics -.S. Japanese (8. influence in Asia. These perceptions persist despite China's strong economic relationships in Asia and around the world. Majorities in China.com/epicos/portal/media- Xue 32/311 type/html/user/anon/page/default. non-military means .ICWest 09-10 Heg Good US Soft Power High – Asia US Soft power with Asian countries highest in 10 years Chicago Council on Global Affairs 08 (6/18. The survey asked between 40 and 60 questions in each country designed to gauge how citizens of these five Asian nations and the United States view each country's popular culture." said Marshall M.jsessionid=9C89C76560E5E50DC787AA67D8E3A9ED. cultural. and concerted efforts by Beijing to leverage the Olympic Games to bolster its public image.6). Indonesia and the United States in January and February 2008. diplomatic and political.S.5).S.

and influence. Princeton IR prof. Vietnam. have damaged perceptions of the United States in much of the world. asked ordinary citizens questions about how they view each country’s culture. But a new study of perceptions in Asia suggests that favorable opinions of the U. What’s more.S.S.S. and Latin America. and the United States. Indonesia. influence in Asia has increased over the last 10 years..S. By many accounts.S. leadership by bolstering its own influence across Asia. president with a more multilateral foreign policy will find many overseas partners who seek and support his leadership. The findings are striking: majorities in every country except Indonesia see U. and Asians have more positive perceptions of America’s diplomatic.S. Tama 08 (Jordan. typified by its reckless invasion of Iraq. economy.000 people in China. as their first choice for their children’s higher education. influence in Asia as positive. the underpinnings of America’s standing in Asia remain strong. South Korea. politics. The survey. and human capital power than they do of China’s. China has taken advantage of this lapse in U. pluralities or majorities in most countries state that U. despite the many failings of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. . Japan. will outlast the Bush years and that China still has a long way to go before it can match America’s soft power. This offers grounds for optimism that forecasts of America’s global decline are premature and that a new U. Africa. 6/24. The new study is a survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the East Asia Institute of more than 6.psaonline. http://blog. conducted before this year’s unrest in Tibet and the devastating Sichuan earthquake. political.org/2008/06/24/declarations-of-american-decline-are-premature/) Xue 33/311 The Bush administration’s unilateralism and incompetence. All of this suggests that.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Soft Power High – A2: Unilateralism/Bush Asia proves leadership is high despite Bush policy and credibility loss. Even Chinese views of America’s soft power are quite favorable: 44% of Chinese would pick the U.

Bouton. Change was measured on a few key questions that were also asked in a 2006 Chicago Council survey. "Considering negative perceptions of the United States elsewhere in the world.Majorities or pluralities in every country are at least "somewhat worried" that China could become a military threat to their country in the future (Vietnamese were not asked this question). In contrast. influence in Asia. and human capital power in Asia. South Korea. but it still has real work to do to win hearts and minds in the region. political. The survey asked between 40 and 60 questions in each country designed to gauge how citizens of these five Asian nations and the United States view each country's popular culture. The results were organized to produce indexes of the pillars of soft power: economic. -.S. human capital. China will need to invest more resources in building up its soft power. Japan. The report also reveals that contrary to other polls taken since the United States invaded Iraq which reflected negative views of the United States. and see its military presence in Asia as a stabilizing force. 2008] "The findings of this report clearly illustrate that China is recognized by its neighbors as the undisputed future leader of Asia. president of The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. executive director for studies at The Chicago Council. universities." Another unexpected finding of the report focuses on the complex relationship between the United States and China.China trails the United States in perceptions of its diplomatic." said Marshall M.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS152332+17-Jun2008+PRN20080617. diplomatic. Indonesia and the United States in January and February 2008. http://www. including economic.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Soft Power High – A2: China (1/2) Xue 34/311 China has low soft power – 2 reasons: 1) China has hard work to do till it gains soft power 2) The U. The five indexes were averaged to produce an overall Soft Power Index. though perceptions are more positive in Southeast Asia than East Asia. diplomatic reputations. Chinese perceptions of the United States have grown noticeably warmer compared to the 2006 survey and Chinese demonstrate consistently positive attitudes towards U. different political systems." said Christopher Whitney. commercial prowess and brands. To enhance its credibility in Asia. Among the key findings: On China: -. especially in the diplomatic. cultural. and more. June 17. "It is clear that the United States still has a strong foundation upon which to build in the region. American feelings towards China have deteriorated since similar surveys were taken by The Chicago Council in '04 and '06 and a significant number of those questioned expressed general unease about the future of the relationship. it was somewhat surprising to see such strongly positive feelings about the United States among the Asian countries we surveyed. before the unrest in Tibet and the Sichuan earthquake placed a spotlight on events inside China. in Using Non-Military 'Soft Power' to Gain Influence in Asia. intellectual influence and appeal. China is also seen as less effective than the United States in promoting its policies to people in Asia by all surveyed publics .S. social and cultural spheres. cultural and educational.S.000 interviews in China. Vietnam. diplomatic and political. China Lags Behind U. a majority of Asians in the surveyed countries still admire the United States on many fronts. notably preventing an arms race between China and Japan. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and EAI conducted more than 6. will always dominate China in soft power US Newswire 8 [Washington.

it said.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Soft Power High – A2: China (2/2) China doesn’t have the ability to improve soft power – Its own citizens even admire other countries more Parameswaran 8 [P. China will need to invest more resources in building up its soft power. and politics.htm." said Marshall Bouton. China's soft power trails U. executive director for studies at The Chicago Council. including economic.the ability to wield influence by indirect. cultural and educational. Americans..com. According to the poll. diplomatic. Indonesia.S. They see U. it was somewhat surprising to see such strongly positive feelings about the United States among the Asian countries we surveyed. June 18."generally trail those of the United States and Japan. said the report by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the East Asia Institute of South Korea. South Koreans and Vietnamese see it trailing only the United States." said the report based on public opinion surveys in Japan. Japanese. "It is clear that the United States still has a strong foundation upon which to build in the region. The report also said that contrary to other polls taken since the unpopular U.tw/asia/regional Xue 35/311 %20news/2008/06/18/161478/China's-soft. South Korea. "Considering negative perceptions of the United States elsewhere in the world. notably preventing an arms race between China and Japan. "The findings of this report clearly illustrate that China is recognized by its neighbors as the undisputed future leader of Asia. China and the United States. social and cultural spheres. http://www. diplomacy. military presence in Asia as a stabilizing force. Writer for the China Post. but it still has real work to do to win hearts and minds in the region. non-military means -. culture. Another "unexpected" finding showed that American feelings towards China had deteriorated since similar surveys were taken by The Chicago Council in 2004 and 2006. especially in the diplomatic. human capital. a majority of Asians in the surveyed countries still "admire" the United States on many fronts. president of The Chicago Council. invasion of Iraq in 2003.chinapost." These perceptions persist despite China's strong economic relationships in Asia and around the world. It was held before the unrest in Tibet and the Sichuan earthquake placed a spotlight on events inside China." it said. "China's growing economic and military might have not yet been fully translated into the elements of soft power that help a nation wield indirect influence in its region and the world. It revealed that perceptions of China's soft power -.S." said Christopher Whitney. Japan in Asia. Vietnam. "To enhance its credibility in Asia. .000 interviews were conducted in January and February 2008 during the survey in the six nations.S." he said. More than 6. 2008] The United States in particular remains highly regarded in all five key areas of soft power addressed in the survey: economics. the report said. and concerted efforts by Beijing to leverage the upcoming summer Olympic Games to bolster its public image. Chinese. and Indonesians all believe that China has the greatest economic influence of any nation in Asia.

many great powers. Return of History”. Kagan. and hence against a comparable global conflict.hoover. In addition.are thus not currently operative in world politics. Russian military power remains in decline. Assistant professor and associate professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. there is far less danger of war emerging from the misperceptions. Two of the prime causes of past great-power conflicts -. 2002 Stephen G. there has been much anticipation of the end of unipolarity and the rise of a multipolar world in which the United States is no longer the predominant power. August/September] These American traditions. miscalculations. American leadership seemed under challenge by a militarily and ideologically strong Soviet Union. Overall.hegemonic rivalry and misperception -. They have created at least one institution. there has been a widespread assumption that the American position in the world must finally be eroding. moreover. Russia and China certainly share a common and openly expressed goal of checking American hegemony. As a result. wants to maneuver itself into a situation in which it will have to contend with the focused enmity of the United States. but it either cannot or does not want to increase its military capability sufficiently to begin counterbalancing the United States. Not only realist theorists but others both inside and outside the United States have long argued the theoretical and practical unsustainability. engaged in a long-term military buildup. other than the United States. Chinese strategists. as measured in public opinion polls. The result was the Cold War. apparently at an all-time high. The American military is not only the largest but the only one capable of projecting force into distant theaters. Because the United States is too powerful to balance. aimed at resisting American influence in Central Asia. 2007 [Robert. China’s buildup is driven at least as much by its own long-term ambitions as by a desire to balance the United States. Others expected the post-Cold War era to be characterized by the primacy of geoeconomics over geopolitics and foresaw a multipolar world with the economic giants of Europe. Brooks and William C. The anticipated global balancing has for the most part not occurred. 02. American democratic principles are shared by over a hundred nations. In the middle of the twentieth century. They are traditional rivals. The result was World War I. or group of countries. however. not to mention undesirability. U.S. dominance today militates against a comparable challenge. have catapulted the United States to a position of pre-eminence in the world. Yet American predominance in the main categories of power persists as a key feature of the international system. no global challenge to the United States is likely to emerge for the foreseeable future. Since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of this “unipolar” world. see the world not as multipolar but as characterized by “one superpower. in the wake of the Iraq War and with hostility to the United States. At the dawn of the twentieth century. counterbalancing won’t occur Brooks and Wohlforth. and so forth that have . the two powers do not trust one another. and China is the only power in the world. Russia has been using its vast reserves of oil and natural gas as a lever to compensate for the lack of military power. But Sino-Russian hostility to American predominance has not yet produced a concerted and cooperative effort at balancing. prof gov Dartmouth. of a world with only one superpower. moreover. and the rise of China inspires at least as much nervousness in Russia as it does in the United States. Foreign Affairs pg lexis //EM These are not just facts about the current system. German Marshall Fund. together with historical events beyond Americans’ control. At the moment. The enormous and productive American economy remains at the center of the international economic system. Its dependence on the American market and foreign investment and its perception that the United States remains a potentially formidable adversary mitigate against an openly confrontational approach.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable Xue 36/311 Their authors are wrong – the world is still unipolar and hegemony is sustainable – no challenge to American power. No foreseeable enemy to US supremacy. arms races. Japan. India.org/publications/policyreview/8552512. Finally. Wohlforth. Senior Transatlantic Fellow. they are recognized as such by the major players involved. “End of Dreams.html#n10. http://www.” and this configuration seems likely to persist into the future absent either a catastrophic blow to American power or a decision by the United States to diminish its power and international influence voluntarily. a militarily powerful Germany challenged the United Kingdom's claim to leadership. July/August 2002. who spend a great deal of time thinking about these things. “American Primacy in Perspective”. the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Mainstream realist theory has assumed that other powers must inevitably band together to balance against the superpower. No country. China is less abrasively confrontational with the United States. and China rivaling the United States. Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

there is no need for one. as long as unipolarity lasts. .Cold War Bismarck. Luckily.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 37/311 traditionally plagued balancing attempts. Pundits often lament the absence of a post -.

with about 20% of the world’s product. In the early 1960s. 50% of its military expenditures and most of its top research universities. they suffer a defeat and humiliation here or there. the United States has fallen from global empire to hapless Gulliver in a mere four years. The short- America’s back-up systems are enormous. They hold on. upheavals on the scale of Soviet collapse. they went. But one of the “rise and fall” lessons of history is that great powers (the Ottomans. the Hapsburgs. When Charles Krauthammer—the columnist who originally coined the term “unipolar moment”—has announced Perceptions of rapid polarity shifts of this sort are not unusual. 1970s. In all of these cases. plus a bankruptcy or two. from century to century economic and military balances do shift gradually from one country or part of the world to another. lived 20th-century empires – Nazi. an extremely strong demographic profile and the best agricultural acreage-to-population ratio among all the large nations. But in each case. massive R&D spending. Multipolarity is impossible to predict – the US will remain the unipolar power Wohlforth. the British) take an awful long time to collapse. a highly sophisticated services industry to complement its industrial base. one will see that bipolarity is still the order of the day. Waltz’s Theory of International Politics. After the fall of Saigon in 1975. In 2003. The Hapsburgs held on because they had an army that could operate in 14 languages. there are some simple rules of power analysis that can help prevent wild fluctuations in response to current events. Waltz argued. This is not an imperium that will tumble into the sand overnight. real changes were occurring that suggested a redistribution of power. the 1970s (Vietnam and stagflation). Indeed. “Unipolar Stability” Harvard International Review. the United States will lose its competitive edge in foreign relations.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable Xue 38/311 Heg sustainable – even if power shifts. It is a separate thing to recall that. If one looks past the headlines to the deep material structure of the world. slow down a minute. only “empire” could capture the extraordinary position of power that the United States appeared to occupy. and the 1980s (the Soviet threat and Japan as a potential challenger). The most influential scholarly book the end of unipolarity. The British held on because of the City of London and a lot of useful naval bases. They take knocks on the head. Kenneth N. They came. Such perceived polarity shifts are usually accompanied by decline scares—concern that as other powers rise. It is one thing to argue that the United States has been weakened by fiscal extravagance and military overstretch. Soviet – had no such back-up systems. in the eyes of the foreign policy commentariat. it is hardly a leap to suggest that multipolarity is nigh. Fortunately. and each decline scare ended with the United It is impossible to know for sure whether or not the scare is for real this time—shifts in the distribution of power are notoriously hard to forecast. The trick is to determine when subtle quantitative shifts will lead to a major qualitative transformation of the basic structure of the international system. scholars were already proclaiming the return of multipolarity as postwar recoveries in Europe and Japan took off. regardless of regime follies. 10/12) Well. they again announced the advent of multipolarity. only a decade after analysts had developed the notion of bipolarity. It is a super-great-power. Unfortunately.harvardir. Often they hold on because the rising powers don’t know how to replace them. Spring 07 http://www. Japanese. Waltz himself proclaimed that the return of multipolarity was around the corner. or early 1990s. Barring geopolitical States’ position of primacy arguably strengthened. Multipolarity—an international system marked by three or more roughly equally matched major powers—did not return in the 1960s. The current decline scare is the fourth since 1945—the first three occurred during the 1950s (Sputnik). on international relations of the past generation. pundits considered the term “unipolar” to be too modest.org/articles/1611/1/) The potential for the rise of a multipolar world order certainly seems far more plausible now than it did several years ago. But they hold on. the US will take a long time to collapse Kennedy 08 J. because they have massive resources. . the inter-state scales of power tend to change slowly. a trifle diminished although not mortally wounded. too. Right now both of those developments – American political incompetence and geopolitical shifts – have joined in time to make the world a less easy place for the United States. was written in part to dispel these flighty views and show that bipolarity still endured. analysts’ responses to those changes seem to have been overblown. arguments for multipolarity’s rapid return usually run afoul of them. Yet in the early 1990s. Richardson Dilworth Professor of History at Yale University (Paul “Is this the end of the American era?” Times of London. 07 – Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale (William.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 39/311 .

Rome was long dead and buried when Gibbon. It is. 30 in China (the data include Hong Kong and Taiwan). Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of Johns Hopkins University. While some may seek to write the obituaries of the American imperial republic. Oct 29. They are content to work and prosper.S. acknowledge this. notwithstanding the exception of its behavior towards Iraq.S. The Chinese know Asia's bloody history. Too many commentators today are proclaiming the end of American hegemony.. The Chinese hold well over a trillion dollars in American treasury securities. a staggering $700 billion. 09 Colin S. (2) in major respects U. After the partisanship in our country subsides. values (i. and 2 in India. under American primacy and tutelage. which is fortunate since it is not easily alterable.strategicstudiesinstitute. conducted by Shanghai University. these societies.” http://www. But for the time being and for many years to come. culture is highly attractive.S. friction. long mired in poverty and squalor and handicapped by dominant traditions of inequality and caste. the country could afford it. The destiny of the American empire is still unfolding. the well-announced “rise of “ China and India. It is true that there are visible Page 206 trends hostile to U. and move large numbers of their people out of poverty.army. The bailout package. It is not yet time to pen The Decline and Fall of the American Empire. in any matter of grave significance for international security. its sense of obligation to other lands. but that prowess has not extended across the whole of the conflict spectrum. A more sensible interpretation of events would be the following: (1) the United States is the only candidate for contemporary hegemon. This is to say that it will be the global leader.e. The Resilience of American Power) There can be no doubt that we were due for our moment of reckoning. prof IR Reading. working in London.S. but it does need to be advertised and applied with care and restraint abroad. The Chinese. hegemony. armed forces have been demonstrably incompetent. for Americans and some others. They lack the openness of the United States.S.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable Xue 40/311 Heg sustainable-no competitors Gray. But Edward Gibbon wannabes should proceed with caution. U. Also. It would be mistake to conclude that: (1) the United States should cease to act hegemonically. “After Iraq: The Search for a Sustainable National Security Strategy. and bad luck should not be mistaken for precipitate decline. are in no position to inherit the American place in the order of nations. the United States will be the hegemon. culture) are flawed. (Fouad. Americans know that the alternative to the American order in the world is not the hegemony of China or Russia or India but rather outright anarchy. They are not about to bring the house down. just possibly. shrewd about the ways of the world. For all the talk about the rise of China and India. professor of International Relations at Reading. even one that makes some policy errors 9 . the EU/Europe. is only 5 percent of our national output. the United States has to learn to cope with occasional policy failure. Likewise in the volatile Persian Gulf: The commerce of that vital region and the traffic of its oil depend upon the American Navy. a consequence of conscious American choice and effort. leadership. and will be. No one can take our place and no one wants us gone Ajami 08 Majid Khadduri professor in Middle East Studies and Director of the Middle East Studies Program at the Paul H. and the alternatives to it are infinitely worse. its willingness to defend the global order.cfm?pubid=902 The long list of U. and the Indians and the Europeans are not contenders to assume what has been America's role. problems in Afghanistan and Iraq should not be misinterpreted. and even a long-delayed Japan and Brazil. .S. Gray. American hegemony has been benign. Failure through human error or sheer incompetence. certainly the most important player.mil/pubs/display. published his first volume of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776. 1/2009. (3) the U. a survey of universities placing in the top 500 globally. will rest upon a base provided by broad global consent. and one day. gave the United States a huge lead in such institutions: 159 versus 31 in Japan. In common with all great powers in the past. and world order needs a hegemon willing and able to serve as world policeman. This will be what one might call a default reality. No one in that tinderbox wants a Pax Iranica. albeit not always of an enthusiastic kind. (3) Americans have become very competent at warfighting. (2) U.

11. "The United States cannot dominate. as measured by global polls. And I'm confident the American people would take a dim view if he tried. as well as with Syria. So perhaps a little perspective is in order. In the 1950s and 1960s. Make no mistake America is thriving. While the Chinese and Russian militaries are both growing. If the past is any guide. can match the scale of damage to America's position in the world. and the next president will be able to improve them even further. Many would say. as Zakaria notes. the adaptable American economy will be the first to come out of recession and may actually find its position in the global economy enhanced. Nostalgia swells for the wondrous American-dominated era after World War II. Realist theorists have consistently predicted for the past two decades that the world would "balance" against the United States. and expect that others will follow. Kennedy. much less dictate. 2008) Yet the evidence of American decline is weak. Nothing similar has occurred as a result of the Iraq war. and continues to outpace them technologically. "But what about Iraq?" Yet even in the Middle East. dictate and always have its way? Many declinists imagine a mythical past when the world danced to America's tune. But by more serious Moscow and the Egypt of Gamal Abdel Nasser.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable Xue 41/311 Heg is sustainable due to our economy and military – and counterbalancing won’t happen – rising powers just balance against each other Kagan 08 Senior Associate @ Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Robert. the world's largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore and the largest measures of power. is now an ally. which was once an adversary. Russian and Chinese power is growing relative to their neighbors and their regions. and Iraq. Meanwhile. it is against China. Russia and Iran. President Bush has managed to restore closer relations with allies in Europe and Asia. But when was it not? Was there ever a time when the United States could dominate." That is true. No event in the past decade. America's image is certainly damaged. Yes. too. the stirrings of postcolonial nationalism in Indochina -. NYT Nov 1. 22 percent in 1980 and 24 percent in 1960. The good news is that I doubt either nominee really will. there has been no fundamental strategic realignment. have systematically neglected their defenses. The "loss" of China to communism. American military power is unmatched. Is America's image today worse than it was in the 1960s and early 1970s. the Soviet testing of a hydrogen bomb. Contrast this with the strategic setbacks the United States suffered during the Cold War. Sober analysts such as Richard Haass acknowledge that the United States remains "the single most powerful entity in the world. That produced a fundamental shift in the strategic balance from which the United States is still suffering. the United States is not in decline. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. But nations such as India are drawing closer to America. In 1979. .each proved a strategic setback of the first order. with the Vietnam War. with the exception of Sept. Although the United States is suffering through a financial crisis." But he warns. but between 1945 and 1965 the United States actually suffered one calamity after another. The danger of today's declinism is not that it is true but that the next president will act as if it is. especially in Europe. including a quasi-alliance between casino in Macau. America's is growing. not even relative to other powers. the central pillar of American strategy toppled when the pro-American Shah of Iran was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. which will pose strategic problems. the North Korean invasion of South Korea. the assassinations of John F. so is every other major economy. the My Lai massacre. where America's image has suffered most as a result of that war. despite the polls. but that is because American allies. the Watts riots. and if any balancing is occurring. Longtime American allies remain allies. Its share of the global economy last year was about 21 percent. compared with about 23 percent in 1990. but the practical effects of this are far from clear. And each was beyond America's power to control or even to manage successfully. the pan-Arab nationalist movement swept out pro-American governments and opened the door to unprecedented Soviet involvement. and Watergate? Does anyone recall that millions of anti-American protesters took to the streets in Europe in those years? Today.

S. this time against anti-U.000 people per year--hardly the way to great-power status. More likely. . Further." he says. the current credit crash follows in a long tradition of occasional panics and meltdowns in both the British Empire and the United States." No other currency." Mead says--but the damage is mostly reversible. diplomat. It reflects. the warping of policy by partisan politics. They both face underdevelopment in their vast countrysides. "Those crises haven't sunk us in 300 years. the disfavor visited on the United States because of its racial segregation and bigotry and a polarizing war in Vietnam.S. nevertheless.-initiated postwar system. American leadership persists. and intemperate rhetoric all are recurring features of U. policy aims to make China a "responsible stakeholder. compared with 9 percent in the Vietnam War." Even so." reasons Mead. "The Asians are not happy about America being so weakened.S. he insists." U. "The fundamentals of America's power position in the world. including the euro and the Chinese renminbi. the rest of the world catches a cold. Nor are doubts about American competence a new factor." says Robert Kagan. also count America's demographics as a key source of vigor." asserts Walter Russell Mead. But it is also a de facto hedge against the strengthening of still-authoritarian China.S. meanwhile. Winner of the Edwin M.S.2 percent of the nation's GDP. so do they. Neither country will find that its path to restored greatness is clear and smooth." If China were to sell off its trove of U. strategists welcome a closer relationship with moderate Brazil." Rising to the occasion. and East European countries are looking to Washington for reassurance against a more assertive Russia. ethnic tensions. the near globalization of the U.S. Through its acceptance of immigration and its higher birthrates. a leading French strategic thinker. for all the deflating news." says Mahbubani. economy remains central. The restorative capacity of America. is yet ready to replace the dollar. Says George Schwab.S. say the anti-declinists. Magoo. "are probably as strong as they were in 2001. "If the West goes into decline. public debt. China is also graying quickly. the European Union ambassador in Washington. decline believe that other weaknesses are exaggerated and that the U. in the end. America's population is projected not only to grow but to avoid taking on the aging profiles of China. In East Asia. in general. defense expenditures today equal 4. John Bruton. for instance. in the 21st century. president of the New York-based National Committee on American Foreign Policy. the United States remains the ultimate balancer to China. The interdependence woven into the existing system creates mutual vulnerabilities that might deter efforts to weaken the United States directly.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable Declinists are wrong – US power is underestimated Omestad 08 Former Associate Editor of Foreign Policy. "When Wall Street coughs. is no good at foreign policy. environmental constraints. Bush and a new set of more proAmerican European leaders have been setting aside scraps over Iraq and other issues.S." Those who contend American decline is being exaggerated--or not happening--say that the unipolar moment was never destined to last and that the degree of deference actually accorded to Washington in happier days was never as much as is portrayed. Russia. Nor. The economic burdens of leadership are said to be manageable.S. It has forged a strategic tie to the South Asian giant of India that reflects democratic and multicultural affinities. it might be prudent to spread a few wagers on others as well. Blunders. "The Bush administration has danced with the world in the worst way. He likens the robustness of America's global standing to the muddling through of the comic bumbler Mr. "The U. policymaking. Nor. reasons Thérèse Delpech.S. should the rise of others stir angst. a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and author of The Return of History and the End of Dreams. in part because of its one-child policy. it would undercut the value of its own assets. despite the opinion polls." reckons Kagan. Russia's population is shrinking by 720. "We are still the glue that holds things together. But. leaders in Latin America. by contrast. "there is no other country's hand I'd rather play. U. a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World. and Western Europe. Beijing sees buying treasury bills as both a good investment and a way to balance a relationship in which it has to sell to the American market to make its long climb out of poverty. U. and the perhaps inevitable return of political pressures for democratic change." Skeptics of U. "It was American strategy to see them get stronger. whose very openness should accommodate the peaceful rise of newer powers. Is America Really on the Decline? US News and World Report. the time-tested ability of American society to assess and overcome problems should interject caution about proclaiming the American century over and done with. "is constantly underestimated abroad and even sometimes at home. in part as more hedging. "Bet against America at your peril. 10/29) Xue 42/311 And yet." Says a senior U. is America without geopolitical options. errors of judgment. Few doubt that America's global position will experience "relative shifts." to use the diplomatic language of State's Cohen.N. Take. says. "We seem to find a way to manage them. Hood Award for Diplomatic Journalism (Thomas. The anti-declinists.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 43/311 .

Kiely gives his own account of the future state of American hegemony: while its willingness to exert its hard power in new territories such as Iran and Syria alongside Iraq may have left the US overstretched. the American superpower has advantages that transcend war and economics. And that is also why the military abilities of Russia and China must also be seen in the light of their economic weaknesses. In the '60s it was Sputnik's launch into outer space. Then there is the economy.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable Heg is sustainable – qualitative and quantitative advantages in all areas Jerusalem Post 08 (Amotz Asa-El.Brazil. the motorcar and the computer to the motion picture. he argues. with all its problems. the economic crisis has not given rise to an alternative power. Jun 2007 http://proquest. ‘Empire in the Age of Globalisation: US Hegemony and Neoliberal Disorder’ Journal of International Relations and Development. all of which now face drastically reduced demand. . And if there is no rising alternative then there is no declining superpower. America. for now. As Kennedy concluded already before the USSR's downfall. Beyond this. these are likely to be progressive and emerge from the bottom up rather than come from above. That rules out. is first of all military reach. India and China . India and Japan. considering that its entire investment-banking industry is now lying in the middle of Wall Street as fallen and broken as the Twin Towers on 9/12.that are turning America's eulogizers on with their new economic vitality. They too will need money should they fight long and distant wars. question America's current condition. Culturally. Although US hard power may face tensions. although accepting that each perspective on its own merits has provided a convincing argument. Russia abandons millions to the devices of organized crime. To him. he notes in the end that this anti-American reactionism is not necessarily progressive in challenging the existing world order as in the case of Europe's tactical rather than challenging opposition to the Iraq war. Nonetheless. Brazil has even more millions teeming in favelas. superpowers must also be financially super. The Obama presidency will indeed be measured by the state of the gap between America's clout and these emerging THE SUBSTANCE of superpowers. everyone is in it together. America has just tapped into deep social aquifers in a way that none of its rivals will do any time soon. and the difference between them and America is that they will have even less of it. is socially healthier than all of them. Middle Israel: Barack Obama and the decline of America. And now it is the so-called BRIC powers . First of all. In fact. which by the late '80s reached an annual $50 billion and surpassed America's. for him. India still has pariahs who can only dream of American blacks' acceptance. Now add to this America's social power. as German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck argued last month in the Bundestag? Is the American superpower itself history? Not quite. Brazil. scholars now agree. If alternatives to this hegemonic order are to come about. There is no sign for now of a Russian. A superpower must by definition possess the capacity to arrive quickly anywhere with troops that can impose their government's will. Among the possible global agents capable of challenging to US are the anti-globalization movement and Habermasian European social democrats. That obviously calls into powers' sway. from China with its overproduction of cheap goods to Russia and its overreliance on extraction of raw materials.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=07-09-2014&FMT=7&DID=1288558801&RQT=309 Here. Nov 13) Xue 44/311 Decline is by definition a relative term. Japanese or Chinese Alexander Graham Bell. China distances its masses from civic leadership. they would also provide possible ways of restoring control over the market economy. Has the US lost its financial superpower status. an imminent collapse of US hegemony appears. only a superpower in crisis. and this is while America's delivery in its two current wars has not been decisive. US hegemony will not collapse Ömer Kurtba. Yet this doesn't at all mean America is on its way out. despite these sources of weakness. none of America's rivals offers even a fraction of its originality. an achievement that shocked the West and made many suspect that the Soviets had become scientifically superior to America. and America's many eulogizers were never short of choices to anoint as Uncle Sam's successors. Two decades ago. all were impressed. but Russia and China sure can throw their weight around. all the would-be successors have themselves been exposed as economically ill by the crisis.umi. Indian. when Japan was the eulogizers' toast. and Europe keeps at arm's length vast immigrant populations. The world still rotates around an axis made of American inventions. Russia. with its foreign aid program. Orville Wright. out of question. and rightly. Professor in Ankara University. although these alternatives might be inconsistent in themselves. each of which offers its own alternative to US-led globalization. the skyscraper and spaceship. However. from the airplane. Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. its domestic weaknesses and tensions in the world economy are likely to force the administration to constrain itself.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 45/311 .

of course. the United States is still the hegemon. armed forces in the Middle East. however. As if on cue. @ Tufts U. and the robust growth of the BRIC nations guarantees that U. however. In December of last year China signed two bilateral agreements with the U. Drezner 8 (Daniel W. .S. this is the last year of a deeply unpopular administration that has exhausted U. 2/20.S. China announced plans to overhaul health and safety inspections of Chinese exports. Power is a relative measure. for all the talk about waning American power. By most measures. Militarily. Publicly officials began opening up more factories to inspection by Western journalists. the European Union and China off each other to advance their aims." the author.S. Chávez has been in power for close to a decade. American consumer and capital markets are still the primary engine of global economic growth. In the recent rash of health and safety scares revolving around products made in China. ongtime observers of international relations will have a sense of déjà vu in reading about America's decline. Using standard metrics of power. saying. However. This past Sunday Chávez backed down from his threat. This even applies to sovereign wealth funds. India and China. In a recent cover story in the New York Times Magazine titled "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony. Six months later. China's productive power remains less salient on the world stage than the market power of the United States. and the current gnashing of teeth sounds like a replay of debates from the 1980s. http://www. most other asset markets are neither big enough nor open enough to cater to large-scale sovereign wealth investments. If anything. the United States will be first among equals. Are we already living in a multipolar world? Not so fast. Department of Health and Human Services widening access to Chinese factories. that the declinists don't have a point. Two decades ago international-relations scholars were enmeshed in a debate about American decline. "We don't have plans to stop sending oil to the United States. This topic has been a growth industry among the commentariat in recent weeks—and for good reason. markets stabilized only when Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke announced an emergency interest rate cut. Parag Khanna. Economically. the very countries ginning up sovereign wealth funds at the moment are the most protectionist when it comes to foreign direct investment. So don't believe the hype. the United States needs the money to finance its large current account deficit. The effect of uncertainty in America's mortgage market had ripple effects across the globe. There is a difference between forming expectations about future trends and believing that the future is now. associate IR prof. including improving its information database on all exports. Replace China with Japan.S. To be sure. financial institutions were forced to rely on bailouts from sovereign wealth funds to retain their solvency. and the United States remains Venezuela's largest export market. The collapse of the subprime mortgage market in the United States has constipated other financial markets and contributed to the fall in the dollar. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez announced last week that his country was contemplating a cutoff of oil sales to the United States.com/id/114011/page/2) Xue 46/311 If it's Tuesday then it's time to bemoan the waning of American hegemony yet again. Second. Consider Venezuela again. First. the demographic and economic vitality of the American economy is difficult to dispute compared with possible peer competitors. Over the long term. Last month the Federal Reserve sprang into action to avert a panic—but not before U. This does not mean. the United States is in a relative decline. Indeed.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable Hegemony is sustainable – this card assumes all their arguments. influence will decline in the future. The really important question for America—and the world—is how Americans will manage this adjustment." Clearly Chávez wishes he could carry out the threat—but the only refineries that can process Venezuelan oil into a useful commodity are based in the United States. Beijing blustered in a way that suggested it held the upper hand. For decades to come. an underlying cause behind the worldwide financial hiccup is that producers across the globe rely on the American consumer to purchase their wares. the United States seems headed for a recession—or worse. Chinese diplomats demonstrated greater contrition in private negotiations with Western officials. One Chinese academic concluded that the agreements represented "a very big response to U." Contrary to popular perception.newsweek. These market jitters revealed two facts. recent events reaffirm the primacy of American power. America's decline is matched with growing buzz over the rise of the BRICs—Brazil.S. Russia. The ability of rising states to play the United States off Europe and China is also open to question. asserted that rising powers like Venezuela and India would be playing the United States. demands.

by restricting their access to economic. and political assistance….1 shows. Command of the commons is the key military enabler of the U.S.. Previous leading states were either great commercial and naval powers or great military powers on land.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable Xue 47/311 Heg is completely sustainable – The U. This capacity arises from “command of the commons” – that is. World Out of Balance. make any effort to match U. and no other nation comes close. It allows the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power. at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was dominant economically as well as in air and naval capabilities. cumulated over many decades.S. for example. and most of those powers are its allies. far less than the nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War. These vast commitments have created a preeminence in military capabilities vis-à-vis all the other major powers that is unique after the seventeenth century. The British Empire in its heyday and the United States during the Cold War. 27. shared the world with other powers that matched or exceeded them in some areas.” . including its own economic and military might as well as the economic and military might of its allies. “Being Number One at great cost is one thing. As Kennedy sums up. While other powers could contest U. with the sole exception of its own position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily depressed every other major economy). never both. Similarly.” historian Paul Kennedy observes: “I have returned to all of the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. and outgunned by both France and Russia. the United States has invested over three times more than the entire European Union on military R&D. military. The United spends more on defense that all the other major military powers combined. in 2004 U.S global power position. 2731) “Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power. But the Soviet Union retained overall military parity. nothing. p. surpassed that of any leading state in modern history. & William C. being the world’s single superpower on the cheap is astonishing. Even when capabilities are understood broadly to include economic. for example.Command of the commons provides the United States with more useful military potential for a hegemonic foreign policy than any other offshore power has ever had.S. Its massive investments in the human. they are concentrated in the United States to a degree never before experienced in the history of the modern system of states and thus never contemplated by balance-of-power theorists. military R&D expenditures were more than six times greater than those of Germany. dominates all power categories. air. and Britain combined. and the burden borne by most of the major powers of the past. forces near their homelands. As table 2. As Barry Posen puts it. The size of the U. the United States is and will long remain the only state capable of projecting major military power globally. The United States’ share of world GDP in 2006. capabilities even more daunting that the gross spending numbers imply. the United Kingdom was outspent. Brooks & Wohlforth 08 Associate Professors of Government at Dartmouth College (Stephen G. 1950-70.” Though assessments of U.5 percent. technological. they remain true.S. Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its adversaries. Posen’s study of American military primacy ratifies Kennedy’s emphasis on the historical importance of the economic foundations of national power. institutional. outmanned. unassailable military dominance over the sea. Even at the height of the Pax Britannica. and thanks to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize territory in Eurasia. And this disparity has been sustained for decades: over the past 30 years. France. especially over issues on which nuclear deterrence is credible. It is the combination of military and economic potential that sets the United States apart from its predecessors at the top of the international system. and other wellsprings of national power. power have changed since those words were written in 2002.S economy means that its massive military capabilities required roughly 4 percent of its GDP in 2005.S. By some estimates over half the military R&D expenditures in the world are American. Japan. and space. and technological requisites of military power. Military research and development (R&D) may best capture the scale of the long-term investment that give the United States a dramatic qualitative edge in military capabilities.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable

Xue 48/311

Military, economic and technological power ensure that US hegemony is sustainable Brooks and Wohlforth ‘8 (Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth 08 Associate Professors in the Department of Government @
Dartmouth College, (World Out of Balance, p. 27-31))

“Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing,” historian Paul Kennedy observes: “I have returned to all of
the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and no other nation comes close.” Though assessments of U.S. power have changed since those words were written in 2002, they remain true. Even when capabilities are understood broadly to include economic,

technological, and other wellsprings of national power, they are concentrated in the United States to a degree never before experienced in the history of the modern system of states and thus never contemplated by balance-of-power theorists. The United States spends more on defense that all the other major military powers combined, and most of those powers are its allies. Its massive investments in the human, institutional, and technological requisites of military power, cumulated over many decades, make any effort to match U.S. capabilities even more daunting that the gross spending numbers imply. Military research and development (R&D) may best capture the scale of the long-term investment that give the United States a dramatic qualitative edge in military capabilities. As table 2.1 shows, in 2004 U.S. military R&D expenditures were more
than six times greater than those of Germany, Japan, France, and Britain combined. By some estimates over half the military R&D expenditures in the world are American. And this disparity has been sustained for decades: over the past 30 years, for example, the United States has invested over three times more than the entire European Union on military R&D. These

vast commitments have created a preeminence in military capabilities vis-à-vis all the other major powers that is unique after the seventeenth century. While other powers could contest U.S. forces near their
homelands, especially over issues on which nuclear deterrence is credible, the United States is and will long remain the only state capable of projecting major military power globally. This

capacity arises from “command of the commons” – that is, unassailable military dominance over the sea, air, and space. As Barry Posen puts it, Command of the commons is the key military enabler of
the U.S global power position. It allows the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power, including its own economic and military might as well as the economic and military might of its allies. Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its adversaries, by restricting their access to economic, military, and political assistance….Command

of the commons provides the United States with more useful military potential for a hegemonic foreign policy than any other offshore power has ever had. Posen’s study of American military primacy ratifies Kennedy’s emphasis on the historical importance of the economic foundations of national power. It is the combination of military and economic potential that sets the United States apart from its predecessors at the top of the international system. Previous leading states were either great commercial and naval powers or great military powers on land, never both. The British Empire in its heyday and the United States during the Cold War, for example, shared the world with other powers that matched or exceeded them in some areas. Even at the height of the Pax Britannica, the United Kingdom was outspent, outmanned, and outgunned by both France and Russia. Similarly, at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was dominant economically as well as in air and naval
capabilities. But the Soviet Union retained overall military parity, and thanks to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize territory in Eurasia. The

United States’ share of world GDP in 2006, 27.5 percent, surpassed that of any leading state in modern history, with the sole exception of its own position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily depressed every other major economy). The size of the U.S economy means that its massive military capabilities required roughly 4 percent of its GDP in 2005, far less than the nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War, 1950-70, and the burden borne by most of the major powers of the past. As Kennedy sums up, “Being Number
One at great cost is one thing; being the world’s single superpower on the cheap is astonishing.”

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable

Xue 49/311

The US has the most power in the world and will for decades Haas 8 (Richard, CFR pres., May/June, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html) In this world, the United States is and will long remain the largest single aggregation of power. It spends more than $500 billion annually on its military -- and more than $700 billion if the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are included -- and boasts land, air, and naval forces that are the world's most capable. Its economy, with a GDP of some $14 trillion, is the world's largest. The United States is also a major source of culture (through films and television), information, and innovation. But the reality of American strength should not mask the relative decline of the United States' position in the world -- and with this
relative decline in power an absolute decline in influence and independence. The U.S. share of global imports is already down to 15 percent. Although U.S. GDP accounts for over 25 percent of the world's total, this percentage is sure to decline over time given the actual and projected differential between the United States' growth rate and those of the Asian giants and many other countries, a large number of which are growing at more than two or three times the rate of the United States.

Heg is completely sustainable – The U.S. dominates all power categories.
Brooks & Wohlforth 08 Associate Professors of Government at Dartmouth College (Stephen G. & William C., World Out of Balance, p. 27-31)

“Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing,” historian Paul Kennedy observes: “I have returned to all of
the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and no other nation comes close.” Though assessments of U.S. power have changed since those words were written in 2002, they remain true. Even when capabilities are understood broadly to include economic,

technological, and other wellsprings of national power, they are concentrated in the United States to a degree never before experienced in the history of the modern system of states and thus never contemplated by balance-of-power theorists. The United spends more on defense that all the other major military powers combined, and most of those powers are its allies. Its massive investments in the human, institutional, and technological requisites of military power, cumulated over many decades, make any effort to match U.S. capabilities even more daunting that the gross spending numbers imply. Military research and development (R&D) may best capture the scale of the long-term investment that give the United States a dramatic qualitative edge in military capabilities. As table 2.1 shows, in 2004 U.S. military R&D
expenditures were more than six times greater than those of Germany, Japan, France, and Britain combined. By some estimates over half the military R&D expenditures in the world are American. And this disparity has been sustained for decades: over the past 30 years, for example, the United States has invested over three times more than the entire European Union on military R&D. These vast commitments have created a preeminence in military capabilities vis-à-vis all the other major powers that is unique after the seventeenth century. While other powers could contest U.S. forces near their homelands, especially over issues on which nuclear deterrence is credible, the United

States is and will long remain the only state capable of projecting major military power globally. This capacity arises from “command of the commons” – that is, unassailable military dominance over the sea, air, and space. As Barry Posen puts it, Command of the commons is the key military enabler of the U.S global power position. It allows the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power, including its own economic and military might as well as the economic and military might of its allies. Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its adversaries, by restricting their access to economic, military, and political assistance….Command of the commons provides the United States with more useful military potential for a hegemonic foreign policy than any other offshore power has ever had. Posen’s study of American military primacy ratifies Kennedy’s emphasis on the historical importance of the economic foundations of national power. It is the combination of military and economic potential that sets the United States apart from its predecessors at the top of the international system. Previous leading states were either great commercial and naval powers or
great military powers on land, never both. The British Empire in its heyday and the United States during the Cold War, for example, shared the world with other powers that matched or exceeded them in some areas. Even at the height of the Pax Britannica, the United Kingdom was outspent, outmanned, and outgunned by both France and Russia. Similarly, at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was dominant economically as well as in air and naval capabilities. But the Soviet Union retained overall military parity, and thanks to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize territory in Eurasia. The

United States’ share of world GDP in 2006, 27.5 percent, surpassed that of any leading state in modern history, with the sole exception of its own position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily depressed every other major economy). The size of the U.S economy means that its massive military capabilities required roughly 4 percent of its GDP in 2005, far less than the nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War, 1950-70, and the burden borne by most of the major powers of the past. As Kennedy sums up, “Being Number

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good
One at great cost is one thing; being the world’s single superpower on the cheap is astonishing.”

Xue 50/311

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable

Xue 51/311

The U.S. is too far ahead in primacy for our primacy to fail. Zakaria, Foreign Affairs Expert, 2008 Fareed Zakaria, American journalist, columnist, author, editor, commentator, and television
host specializing in international relations and foreign affairs, May/June 2008, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303-p80/fareedzakaria/the-future-of-american-power.html

U.S. military power is not the cause of its strength but the consequence. The fuel is the United States' economic and technological base, which remains extremely strong. The United States does face larger,
deeper, and broader challenges than it has ever faced in its history, and it will undoubtedly lose some share of global GDP. But the process will look nothing like Britain's slide in the twentieth century, when the country lost the lead in innovation, energy, and entrepreneurship. The

United States will remain a vital, vibrant economy, at the forefront of the next revolutions in science, technology, and industry. In trying to understand how the United States will fare in the new world, the first thing to do is simply look around: the future is already here. Over the last 20 years, globalization has been gaining breadth and depth. More countries are making goods, communications technology has been leveling the playing field, capital has been free to move across the world -- and the United States has benefited massively from these trends. Its economy has received hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, and its companies have entered new countries and industries with great success. Despite two decades of a very expensive dollar, U.S. exports have held ground, and the World Economic Forum currently ranks the United States as the world's most competitive economy. GDP growth, the bottom line, has averaged just over three percent in the United States for 25 years, significantly higher than in Europe or Japan. Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, a full percentage point higher than the European average. This superior growth trajectory might be petering out, and perhaps U.S. growth will be more typical for an advanced industrialized country for the next few years. But the general point -- that the United States is a highly dynamic economy at the cutting edge, despite its enormous size -- holds.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – Economy

Xue 52/311

Hegemony is sustainable – other countries are forced to adopt US economics and identify with US economic and social philosophies. Shapiro 8 (Robert J, Sonecon LLC co-founder, 6/12, http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=7049) The Internet’s software infrastructure developed in a typically American way — by entrepreneurs working in areas largely untouched by government regulation — into a radically open and decentralized system. As a result, the Internet has become essentially “American” wherever it is, and not just because U.S. companies dominate its development and content. Free flow of ideas Much more than that, it creates American-style opportunities wherever it reaches, disseminating information without restriction and spurring the development of new services and products by newly formed companies in new ways. There are no credible alternatives anywhere in the world to America’s basic take on the limits of the government’s role in the economy and how businesses should run. services and products by newly formed companies operating in new ways. That can produce geopolitical benefits for America, as tens or hundreds of thousands of newly successful people around the world associate their success with its continuing technological achievements. The heart of the geopolitical clout that America derives from its economic preeminence, however, is that so much of the world now embraces its basic approach to organizing their economies and doing business. In less than a generation, the alternative models that much of the world had followed for decades have been discredited — and largely discarded. The American alternative This reaches past the epochal collapse of Soviet collectivism and China’s startling conversion to capitalism. The appeal of the more mixed models of a private economy with heavy government direction also has waned, after Asia’s bumper economies melted down or stagnated and Europe’s entered a decade of disappointing growth. Some leaders in Europe and Japan may deny it, but for the first time there are no credible, grand alternatives anywhere in the world to America’s basic take on the limits of the government’s role in the economy and how businesses should run. In sync with current demands This doesn’t make
the American economic approach “right” in an objective sense, like the composition of the atom. Rather, it’s What’s so unusual and world-changing is not the extent of America’s military, political and economic capacities — but the absence of countries that come anywhere close. very broadly preferred right now, because it’s in sync with the current demands of globalization. For a long time, the European and Japanese approaches — not to mention what passed for an economic model in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China — produced more equality and economic security for individuals than Americanstyle capitalism. But for nearly a generation, globalization has crippled the capacity of those approaches to generate strong, sustained growth — and greater equality and security are less appealing when people also face a prospect of growing poorer. International systems This simply is a time when growth in both advanced and developing economies depends on governments not only stepping up to invest in education, health and modern infrastructure, but also stepping back from protections and regulations that slow or muck up the era’s massive transfers of technologies, capital and expertise. Almost

every country also now supports the international institutions that enforce American-style rules of globalization, especially the World Trade Organization and World Intellectual Property Organization — but also the older International Monetary
Fund, World Bank and Paris Club (which deals with sovereign debt default issues among countries).

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – Innovation America’s matrix of innovation ensures sustainability. AAU 8 (association of American universities, March, p. 3, http://www.aau.edu/reports/SAAS_08.pdf)
The next President will make decisions that determine our nation’s place in the 21st century. We

Xue 53/311

remain the world’s military and economic superpower, yet at home and abroad we face economic and national security challenges to our leadership with serious consequences for future generations of Americans. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Americans will judge candidates on their ability to lead the nation in addressing these challenges. As each candidate considers the resources on which his or her administration might draw for ideas and talent, few are as valuable as the people and organizations that comprise America’s matrix of innovation. The elements of this matrix— universities, businesses, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and individual innovators —are seeking and creating real solutions for the challenges we face. It is this innovation matrix— decentralized, networked, cross-disciplinary, and sparked by the intellectual genius of Americans and people from around the world—that can ensure America’s national and economic security and world leadership in the 21st century. At the core of this great national innovation matrix is our system of higher education and research. This system sets the standard for the world, in part because of the autonomy and extraordinary diversity of its 4,000 institutions. Our colleges and universities educate the men and women who, in turn, create the ideas that spark innovation. Among these institutions, America’s research universities serve particularly as drivers of innovation because they fully integrate research with education. With strong government support, these institutions have made America the world’s leading incubator of innovators and innovation. Hegemony is sustainable – American innovation allows us to continuously recreate our leadership. Martino 7 (foreign policy research institute, www.fpri.org/orbis/5102/martino.innovationamericanleadership.pdf) The United States of course faced great challenges to its security and economy in the past, most obviously from Germany and Japan in the first half of the twentieth century and from the Soviet Union in the second half. Crucial to America’s ability to prevail over these past challenges was our technological and industrial leadership, and especially our ability to continuously recreate it. Indeed, the United States has been unique among great powers in its ability to keep on creating and recreating new technologies and new industries, generation after generation. Perpetual innovation and technological leadership might even be said to be the American way of maintaining primacy in world affairs. They are almost certainly what America will have to pursue in order to prevail over the contemporary challenges involving economic competitiveness and
energy dependence.

And as unnerving as terrorism is. The country could clearly devote a greater proportion of its economy to military spending: today it spends only about 4 percent of its GDP on the military. This situation should be contrasted with what might be termed “self-inflicted overstretch”—a situation in which a state lacks the sufficient resources to meet its current foreign policy commitments in the short term. The problem with this argument is that it fails to distinguish between actual and latent power. Yale historian Paul Kennedy coined the term “imperial overstretch” to describe the situation in which a state’s actual and latent capabilities cannot possibly match its foreign policy commitments. the United States is not acting like a country under intense international pressure. to put its fiscal house back in order.Spring 2007) US military forces are stretched thin. With latent power in the picture. Even more radically. 29 (1) . this has already happened to some extent. or history to suggest that such policies would be any less likely to succeed than China is to continue to grow rapidly for decades. Vol. Aside from the volunteer servicemen and women and their families. Although it is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and claims to be fighting a global “war” on terrorism. its budget and trade deficits are high. It could also spend its military budget more efficiently. A Tilted Balance. These developments have prompted many analysts to warn that the United States suffers from “imperial overstretch. Indeed. political science. but has untapped latent power and readily available policy choices that it can use to draw on this power. but there is nothing in economics. US citizens have not been asked to make sacrifices for the sake of national prosperity and security. But the US government has not attempted to extract more resources from its population to meet its foreign policy commitments. . China’s rise might push India and Japan closer to the United States—indeed. it becomes clear that unipolarity might have more built-in self-reinforcing mechanisms than many analysts realize. the argument goes. as compared to 7 to 14 percent during the peak years of the Cold War. For example. it has moved strongly in the opposite direction by slashing personal and corporate tax rates. one can never know for sure what a state is capable of until it has been seriously challenged. it could reinstitute military conscription.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – Latent Power Xue 54/311 US has large wellsprings of “latent power” it can tap Wohlforth 07 Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University (William. Instead. There is also the strong possibility that a peer rival that comes to be seen as a threat would create strong incentives for the United States to end its self-inflicted overstretch and tap potentially large wellsprings of latent power. No one knows for sure what would happen if a US president undertook such drastic measures.” And if US power is overstretched now. Most of those who study US politics would argue that the likelihood and potential success of such power-generating policies depends on public support. shifting resources from pay and benefits to training and equipping more soldiers. This is arguably the situation that the United States is in today. shifting resources from expensive weapons systems to boots on the ground. It is often noted that the rise of a peer competitor to the United States might be thwarted by the counterbalancing actions of neighboring powers. and the country continues to finance its profligate ways by borrowing from abroad—notably from the Chinese government. And how much a government asks of its public is partly a function of the severity of the challenges that it faces. notably on fossil fuels. On the economic front. Unipolar Stability: The Rules of Power Analysis. unipolarity can hardly be sustainable for long. it could raise taxes in a number of ways. One must be careful to take into account both the level of resources that can be mobilized and the degree to which a government actually tries to mobilize them. there is nothing like the threat of another hostile power rising up in opposition to the United States for mobilizing public support. which is a function of the public’s perception of a threat.

this deficit is inextricably tied to the dollar’s hegemony in today’s markets. So. or a trans-Atlantic free trade association (TAFTA) cannot fundamentally reverse this trend. which is encouraged by cultural diversity and political ambitions in addition to economic reasons. if Chinese foreign policy in the short run seeks to prevent the rapid decline of the United States. Thus. A Policy of Mutual Cooperation As I have previously noted. The perception of globalization as a one-way process has generated a great deal of resistance. will begin to have an increasingly less influential voice in world politics. global hegemony is becoming less and less feasible. Coca Cola has become a Chinese cultural icon. eventually the United States will not only give up its illusions of global grandeur. Vol. who is widely regarded in China as the pop star who was able to make it in the United States. the foundations of US hegemony.” Today. while it will remain the preeminent North American power. Cuba. is assuaging disgruntled antiglobalizationalists and thus. but will realize that China is an important player in the world order and indeed the one that can best guarantee the United States’ hold on power. the situation is comparable to one in which “the American sells the house but the money to buy the house comes from China. Haier. as they must purchase dollars in order to keep the dollar strong and thus avoid massive losses. and moreover. It should stop dealing with China in the same way that it dealt with Japan during the majority of the last century: as a rising power that threatens US hegemony and must be contained. The effect of this has been that after the Cold War a once-united world has parted to follow separate paths. taken up by some Latin American countries such as Venezuela. has less This sort of globalization must change. The so-called process of one-way globalization can more truly be called Westernization. Together. Nascent free trade areas have already been established and have also promoted regional security integration goals. A. Taking US hegemony and Western preeminence as the starting point.” NATO. An Unlikely Pillar of US Hegemony. have accumulated large dollar reserves. is more efficient than globalization in coming to agreements and improving international competitiveness. One of the consequences of globalization has been that countries such as China. the best-known Chinese brand in the United States. In this way. Bolivia has proposed the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) in opposition to the American Free Trade Zone. for the United States to remain powerful on a global scale. otherwise it will be replaced by a system marked by a number of autonomous. and. as gender equality progresses. the United States is bound to bear a trade deficit. which depend on exporting to US markets. is still relatively unknown. the US trade deficit with China is US$200 billion. regionalization is a prominent trend in the post-Cold War world. China holds over US$1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves and US$350 billion in US bonds. China is providing. and Bolivia. But this view is inconsistent with the phenomenon of one-way globalization. Thus. The “concert of democracies. The artificially high dollar and the US economy at large depend in a very real sense on China’s investment in the dollar. because it is providing an additional focal point to the West in a globalizing world. rather paradoxically.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – China Xue 55/311 China’s rise makes heg sustainable – preserves dollar heg and prevents regionalization Yiwei 07 Assistant Dean at the Fudan University Institute of International Studies and Associate Professor at Fudan's Center for American Studies. If this trend of regionalization continues. inasmuch as it is tinged by Western unilateralism and entails the dissemination of essentially Western standards and ideology. As Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times. but global power structures and the . rather than a system of autonomous regional blocs. This has been unavoidable for these countries. and Wang Fei. Regionalization. China. Thus. the United States. which has found an outlet in the creation of regional free trade areas and blocs. China's Rise. (Wang. rather than destabilizing. The United States’ ultimate strategy should be one of cooperation with China in order to ensure that they both become strong regional powers. We must step out of a narrowly national mindset and reconsider what Chinese development means for the United States. a more traditional international system must be preserved. when considering the risks and opportunities of Chinese development. 29 (1) . Today’s globalization is still in large part driven by the West. regional free trade areas. A Tilted Balance. Chinese women look to Western women for inspiration. Louis Vuitton stores crowd high-end shopping districts in Shanghai.” Former US treasury secretary Lawrence Summers even affirms that China and the United States may be in a kind of imprudent “balance of financial terror. Thus. many have concluded that the rise of China presents a threat. Low US inflation and interest rates similarly depend on the thousands of “Made in China” labels distributed across the United States. The premise of this logic is that the international system predicated on US hegemony and Western preeminence would be destabilized by the rise of a second major power. Because of this. For example. the Chinese and US economies account for half of global economic growth. The World Social Forum’s slogan “Another World Is Possible” has been name-recognition there than a first-round American Idol cut. one must consider not only strength and intent. supporting the traditional international order of a globally interconnected world and market.Spring 2007) It is important to extend the discussion beyond platitudes regarding “US decline” or the “rise of China” and the invective-laden debate over threats and security issues that arises from these. a fantastic situation has arisen: China’s rise is actually supporting US hegemony. In contrast. as opposed to a system that emphasizes regional alternatives.

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson described the situation well: “the biggest risk we face is not that China will overtake the United States.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good macro-level implications of change in economic arenas. Despite regional quibbles and the occasional ruffled diplomatic feathers. it is China’s rise—through peace and for peace—that promises to sustain US global hegemony. and harmonious international order and to avoid isolation. the greatest threat to the continuation of the stable world order of the present is not a rising China. China Xue 56/311 presents a successful model for other developing countries to follow. Thus. but the failure of China to develop further. Regionalization cannot be sustainable in the long run. but that China won’t move ahead with the reforms necessary to sustain its growth and to address the very serious problems facing the nation. not to fight but to embrace globalization in order to bring about a more just. and could result in a far more unstable world than one marked by a power-sharing arrangement between China and the United States. reasonable.” And China intends to use reform and liberalization to realize its peaceful rise. .

hope will not be enough. despite Obama's pledge to expand the armed forces. Those who want real change will have to fight for it. Economic failure may yet force military cutbacks. as in the domestic arena. But. And even if conditions are very different from those which led to the New Deal of the 1930s not least the lack of a powerful labour movement Obama could yet. whoever the president.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – Obama Obama gives us breathing room to improve leadership The Canberra Times 08 (SEUMAS MILNE. with a military presence in 130 of the world's 195 countries. be propelled by events to adopt more radical positions. the Xue 57/311 US will remain a global colossus. the reaction may end up being all the sharper. The Obama campaign grew out of popular opposition to the Iraq War and its success has been based on the mobilisation of supporters who will certainly want to go further and faster than their candidate. like Roosevelt. if expectations of change are dashed. In any case. if Obama is to begin to fulfill the confidence invested in him. The benefit of the doubt that will be given to Obama in the early period of a new administration in Europe that's likely to stretch to defence of the indefensible. 3/11) Of course. What seems certain is that Obama's election will be a catalyst that creates political opportunities both at home and abroad. . Economic conditions are also likely to demand a more decisive response. But it is also a power in unmistakable relative decline and an Obama presidency offers the US a breathing space to re-order its relations with the rest of the world accordingly. as in the Clinton years potentially gives the US extra room for manoeuvre.

Navy's 11 carriers to be permanently stationed ("homeported") in a foreign country. influence will undoubtedly wane as more and more countries build confidence in each other. the Balkan Wars of the 1990s happened in the European Union's backyard. finito. Just to cite one example. There's just one problem with this thesis: The United States was short on cash long before this latest crisis hit. China. It's also one of many reasons why the 21st century Today's great powers are economically linked in all sorts of ways that make big wars a lot less likely. Russia? Give me a break. That includes. But that's going to take a long time. the Seventh Fleet is a powerful insurance policy that ensures more or less stable rules of the game. and Taiwan—all dependent on the same oil—would immediately have to confront similar concerns. it's the only one of the U. Treasury debt. allies and placed far less emphasis on Bush-style unilateralism. the American Empire is over. (According to one estimate. Oct 31) Conventional wisdom has it that the George Washington is soon to become an empty symbol. is that none of its countries trust each other. China would suddenly get very nervous about protecting what strategists call its "sea-line of communications. the Seventh Fleet were to evaporate tomorrow. Aircraft carriers like the George Washington cost $4. If. And because China hardly offers a model of transparent government. and other East Asian economic giants who have America buy their stuff by loading themselves down with U.S.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Financial Crisis Xue 58/311 Financial collapse won’t constrain military spending – US military is not obsolete. The reason is simple enough: the financial and economic crisis is already tipping the United States into recession. voters are already less inclined to pay for overseas adventures. Japan. The huge amounts of money now being spent on reviving the banking system will crimp America's leading role in the world. trust is still the rarest commodity of all. Why is that? Just take a look at the map. and the rest of the world doesn't always like the United States when it does.") Americans may not want to play that role. and keeping them afloat isn't much cheaper. budget deficit can only get bigger. it still provides stability. the Strait of Malacca. the world would still be a much more dangerous place without America around.S. This is something that those neo-conservative theoreticians who rejoiced at America's new spirit of foreign policy activism after 9/11 didn't like to talk about much. So does that mean that the military factor is irrelevant in today's globalized world? Not at all. though. Just to make it more interesting. he'll find it hard to push-through dramatic tax increases. but they ended only when the United States— belatedly and reluctantly—applied its military leverage.) Many people may not have noticed.S.S. The problem with East Asia. For the reasons I've described above. The same principle applies around the world. much less a strategy for regional security and defense. America is overstretched. for its part. Were China to beef up its military presence there.S. the U. for example. enforcer.S. and without additional revenue. And there's certainly a lot of work to be done in all these respects. China. China? Many of its neighbors are unlikely to be enthusiastic.S. And I readily concede that America's intense belief in the rightness of its own system sometimes tempts it into destabilizing adventures. though. the world will probably need someone to play the role of arbiter. the Department of Defense budget was about $440 billion—and that didn't include additional funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Imperialism. which add more to the bill. the already huge U. No one can take our place despite all our problems Caryl 08 Newsweek Web Exclusive( Christian. Unpredictability is a very dangerous thing when the vital national interests of states are involved. but that didn't stop it from continuing to build up the world's most formidable military. No question about it. Every year a quarter of the world's oil sails through that narrow chokepoint from its source in the Persian Gulf to the economies of East Asia—one of the world's three major economic centers of gravity. Surely the sheer lack of cash will end up restraining Washington's ambitions to remake the world. they would find themselves having to do a lot of guessing. hegemon—call it what you will—for a long while to come. has good historical reasons to worry about the motives of Japan. U. as my colleague Fareed Zakaria has argued. Washington. is a Greek word that means "leadership. but for the past few years the United States has paid for its policies by borrowing money from other countries—primarily Japan. Since it arrived in Japan this September. whose area of responsibility extends from the western Pacific to the Indian Ocean. Long Live U. Yet.5 billion a pop. let us say. According to everyone from Hamas to Maureen Dowd of The New York Times. The European Union? It can't even forge a common foreign policy. on balance. is going to go on paying for the Seventh Fleet. Both have talked about overarching challenges that unite the international community. which helps them to build confidence in each other.S. Whoever the next president is. The era of U. It's entirely true that. Like it or not. accounted for 47 percent of the world's defense spending in 2003. The George Washington is the biggest ship of the 50-some-odd vessels that make up America's Seventh Fleet. In a world of intensifying competition for natural resources. hegemony is done for. But I have a feeling that someone. In 2007. That's a good thing and undoubtedly serves the cause of general stability.S. Yet I don't see anyone around who's ready to take its place. America's pseudo-imperial role is being diluted as more and more countries embrace their own forms of market-oriented democracy." Four-fifths of China's entire supply of oil comes through the Strait of Malacca. they don't have much choice. South Korea. while South Korea is intensely paranoid about both Japan and China. As economic turbulence hits home. Let's go back to the USS George usually turns out to be more complicated than talk of 19th-century statecraft and balance of power politics would allow. U. ("Hegemony. Both McCain and Obama have talked about the greater need for cooperation with U." by the way. . along with the United States and the European Union. Yet to an extent. somehow.

Thus. Viewing world order from a more comprehensive standpoint.S.. will not be attractive. It is impossible for not only Japan but also China to sever their relations with the U.S. A United States that behaves in an excessive manner is a threat to Japan. would also be a threat to Japan. Japan's basic approach should be to make clear both internally and externally that it will support moderate Having said that.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Financial Crisis Xue 59/311 American economy is still the most powerful – other countries still rely on it Takadoro 08 Keio University Professor of International Political Science and Economics (Masayuki.S. economy without triggering major economic dislocation. At this time of crisis. which will play special roles in managing the globalized economy after the current financial crisis and economic slump that will inevitably follow it. itself. even if possible. unless the world is divided into several spheres of influence. which relies on it for national security and the international economic order it provides. discord between nations could threaten not only the global economy but world order as a whole Japan now has a good chance to persuade Washington. Financial crisis marks end of US as hyper power.S. This is not tantamount to blindly obeying the U. While it is easy to criticize the United States. while trying to enhance its own ability to act independently. its sensible leadership is still the best hope for the world to create a liberal and open world order.S. World order led by either Russia or China. .S. Nov 5) it is very difficult for me to imagine any alternative to the leadership of the U. which may be prepared to listen to the friendly counsel of its ally. to the world and above all to the U. Mainchini. not only Japan but also Europe has no ability or coordinated will to replace Pax Americana. to revert to sensible leadership as Japan's financial system is relatively stable and sound. However. a shaky U. and sensible leadership by the U.

Despite being badly hit by the credit crisis.at least for some years to come.at least for now What does the current financial crisis mean for the standing of the US in the world? Will it mark the end of US hegemony and superpowerdom? For many commentators the crisis represents "a true global watershed" between a world dominated by the American brand. the US dollar will continue to lead the international monetary system-as the euro is far from having a global role and hence able to seriously challenge the greenback's dominance. is the existence. After several weeks of market turmoil there is no doubt that the world economy is taking a "synchronised dive". In the case of the US economy. However.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Financial Crisis Despite the financial crisis. epitomised. notably the US.asp?p=3522) Xue 60/311 Despite the rise of China and India. Paola Subacchi. In addition to the cost of the $700bn bailout (and an additional $100bn of tax provisions for businesses and the middle class). In spite of all the talk about decoupling. The critical point here. For Peer Steinbrück. emerging market economies are surely more "self-reliant" than before and so far better insulated from the effects of the financial crisis. in the short term. it is not even a matter of time: "The United States is no longer a financial superpower". house prices may not climb until after 2010. It also constrains policy initiatives in a way that will be felt in years to come. declined at least in part as a result of economic weakness. Financial meltdown and recession in the US may act as a catalyst to the ongoing shift of the world economic order by dramatically rupturing the credibility of and respect for the American model. ’08 (Dr. cries for the end of US economic hegemony may be premature. partly because their financial sector is still relatively small and disconnected from the real economy. and the one which could bear significant consequences. The US is due to remain at the helm of the international economic and monetary system . the US remains the engine of the world's economic growth. Research Director of international economics at Chatham House. . so the effects of the financial crisis in the west are inevitably spilling over into the emerging economies. from military intervention to discretionary international aid and projects. notably the US. the US may still show great resilience. with no economy left immune from the current trouble. by capitalism and liberal democracy. will be the rising cost of healthcare programmes that are under strain due to an increase in the ageing population. heg is still sustainable Subacchi. Moreover. "Primus inter pares" and the emerging economies The crisis certainly exacerbates the economic weaknesses that could be ignored over the last decade because of foreign investors' willingness to invest in the US. in Francis Fukuyama's words. increasing indebtedness and bloated budget deficit. due to their large population. Germany's finance minister. the latest IMF outlook predicts the return to potential growth in 2010. The US has an almost zero national savings rate. Large empires. it implies tighter fiscal policy and constraints on policy in a number of areas. the recovery from which promises to be slow. All this will accelerate the relative decline of the US. as are predictions of China's takeover. Can the crisis accelerate this "shift of power"? Structural weaknesses and reduced scope for policies The global financial turmoil is huge in scale. he said in a recent interview. China's rapid economic growth and the potential for other emerging market economies to expand substantially over the next three to five decades.net/publications/articles/article. the US is set to remain a first amongst equals . within the US economy. “THE END OF US ECONOMIC HEGEMONY?” Foresight. strong economic expansion and integration in the world economy. and the post-American world in which the US is no longer the world's only superpower and economic hegemon. It is the economy best endowed with the flexibility and resources needed to get past present difficulties. seem to indicate the emergence of a new world order.foresightproject. October 2008. from ancient Rome to Great Britain. Following years of high growth. Such a shift has been prophesised for some time. However. But there are many risks that could derail the recovery: the credit crunch could be worse than feared. New players could use their recently acquired economic might to gain influence and challenge established powers. a higher unemployment rate and low confidence could constrain domestic demand growth. In the longer term. limited scope for loose fiscal policy and continuous reliance on foreign lenders. worthy of comparison to the Great Depression in the 1930s where stress in financial markets led to prolonged recession. their growth depends on demand from developed countries. http://www. The increase in expenditure means. of structural weaknesses that enhance the current distress and limit the scope for future policy action.

Russia is scarcely even an open-market economy any longer. Every foreign government knows that America is still the main stabilizer of the international system—American power overlays every region of the planet and supplies the control rods that restrain rogues. Washington Correspondent for Newsweek. hostile states and arms races from East Asia to Latin America.com/id/161990) True enough.newsweek. wrote last July.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Financial Crisis Despite the Financial crisis the U. that "as a result. But We've got time. rather because of. This status quo is unlikely to change over our lifetimes. is STILL the only superpower out there Hirsh. we're still lapping everyone else. "For four big reasons—dire demographics. the dollar is still the world's safe haven because America is still the only reliable great power out there. because it's an important one. http://www." So devoid of credibility and influence is Bush today that the bailout package seemed to move forward in spite of. The Beijing Olympics in August were an impressive shout to the world: we're ready! But as Washington Post editor John Pomfret. one of the journalism world's most astute observers the Chinese really aren't ready. the never-relenting hype about its imminent rise to superpowerdom would make P. When times really get tough. joked the other day. his support. we've suffered a lot of self-inflicted damage over the last eight years.S. Barnum blush. Sure. Conan O'Brien didn't have to explain himself when he of China. Let's reiterate that latter point. Russia is riding high now thanks to soaring energy prices. But it's a city-state that owes its calm prosperity to the U. like London. ’08 Xue 61/311 (Micheal Hirsh. President Bush was able to cross off the 10th and final item on his administration's bucket list. anyone? As for Singapore—yes. it's a very impressive little place. yes. Hong Kong and Singapore. . It's also true that other financial-market centers. The rising power of China or Russia or the European Union has always been more alleged than real. “The Making of America 2. an environment under siege and an ideology that doesn't travel well—China is more likely to remain the muscle-bound adolescent of the international system than to become the master of the world. But with Vladimir Putin's KGB pals in charge of increasingly powerful state companies. So. The EU actually has bigger banking and financial problems than we do—one reason the euro hit its lowest point against the dollar in 13 months on Thursday—and Europe remains a hopelessly fractious cacophony of voices. As for China. Set aside for the moment the deeply unpopular invasion of Iraq. as does Japan. an overrated economy.S. are looking to grab as much new business for themselves as they can while the former titans that ruled Wall Street—like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley—are focused inward in cleaning up their balance sheets and remaking themselves into more conservative commercial banks. as a country we've slowed to a crawl in the great global race. enabling globalization to proceed apace. after the Dow's record one-day 778-point drop. But let's be blunt: there is no other country or market that is even within sight of replacing the United States and the money masters of Manhattan island. October 2nd 2008. Fascism. when there are belligerent rising powers or threats. T." To the north.0”. defense umbrella in Asia.

hoover. A Tilted Balance. Senior Transatlantic Fellow. the structure of the international system should remain as the Chinese describe it: one superpower and many great powers. There is no reason to believe that China. Russia. They contend that counterinsurgency campaigns have become much more difficult to execute than what used to be the case. Return of History”. And simply because high-technology weaponry has not altered the centuries-old power balance between governments and armed insurgents. Insurgency has always been difficult to thwart. The bottom line is that the world did not suddenly become multipolar when the United States’ counterinsurgency in Vietnam failed. According to numerous recent studies conducted by the US military and independent scholars. so long as the American public continues to support American predominance as it has consistently for six decades. 29 (1) . Russia in Chechnya—it is usually the result of deploying very large military forces willing to use ferocious violence on a mass scale against innocent civilians. German Marshall Fund. the United States’ inability to foster stability in Iraq is tragic. . But if this is so. Iraq doesn’t show decline – any other country would fail. it does not necessarily follow that unipolarity is about to end. but not surprising. 2007 [Robert. http://www. Some have suggested that failure in Iraq would mean the end of predominance and unipolarity. Once an insurgency takes root. India. not just the United States. Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Iraq Xue 62/311 Foreign policy failures don’t undermine hegemony – US Heg is sustainable even with Iraq Kagan.org/publications/policyreview/8552512. Unipolar Stability: The Rules of Power Analysis. governments rarely prevail.Spring 2007) But the example of Iraq exhibits a balance of power dynamic between states and non-state insurgents. Vietnam also proves Wohlforth 07 Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University (William. Vol. and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbors. August/September] By the same token. When they do—as in the case of Britain in South Africa at the turn of the last century and more recently. or the European Union would perform any better if faced with the challenges that the US military confronts in Iraq. not one between several different states. So long as the United States remains at the center of the international economy and the predominant military power.html#n10. foreign policy failures do not necessarily undermine predominance. “End of Dreams. Some scholars argue that Iraq demonstrates new information about the state versus non-state balance. But a superpower can lose a war — in Vietnam or in Iraq — without ceasing to be a superpower if the fundamental international conditions continue to support its predominance. With a comparatively small force in a large and populous country. this argument is not correct. then it applies to all the great powers.

The US has the best universities and research institutes and trains more engineers in relation to its population than any other major economy. February 2009. p. which accounts for more than a quarter of the world's gross domestic product (GDP).the dominance of American global communications such as the internet and television .2 percent in Europe and 1. which is increasing its higher education investments. it is easy to overlook the fact that America is structurally superior to all other countries and will remain so for the foreseeable future. It has the capacity to heal its own wounds like no other country. the structural components of soft power remain intact. but also enjoys favourable medium. Russia as well as China. however. In spite of the present crisis. both Barack Obama and his Republican opponent John McCain expressed the view that the United States was and ought to remain the guarantor of international stability and the indispensable stabilising power. Thanks to immigration and a high birth rate.1 percent in Japan. Over the past twenty five years. senior foreign policy advisor to the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the german bundestag. Hegemony is sustainable – The U. is still far below the double-digit Cold War peak. The World Today. 11) During the presidential election campaign. Iraq and the Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib problems have severely dented the image and thereby diminished its 'soft power'. Nevertheless. no other country comes close to matching the capability of the US to project its power globally. with particular strengths in crucial strategic areas such as nanotechnology and bioengineering. at 4. the economy is adaptable and more innovative than any other.S. the economy.2 percent of GDP. is dominant in every single sector Kreft. compared with 1. America accounts for almost half of global military spending.6 percent of its GDP in higher education. Current defence spending. Against the backdrop of the present financial and economic crisis and rekindled discussion about the decline of US power. are the ingredients of superiority. Senior Policy Advisor at CDU. In contrast to the 'hard power' of military strength. STRENGTHS The US not only possesses large deposits of natural resources and vast areas of productive farmland. It invests 2. Japan. President Barack Obama's plan for more educational investment aims to maintain this advantage also against China. from US mass culture . is essentially vibrant. its military strength and economic competitiveness as well as its liberal political and economic traditions.to the unfailing appeal of its universities. it has a young population compared to Europe. This makes the burden of providing for an ageing population far less onerous. . this is less than one per cent of GDP and hence considerably lower than the cost of the Vietnam war.and long-term demographic trends. THE GEOGRAPHICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE UNITED States. In the military domain too. It is the most competitive globally. its only potential rival. ’09 (Heinrich Kreft. its growth has been significantly higher than Europe's and Japan's.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – Structural Superiority Xue 63/311 U. Even if the cost of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan runs at an annual figure of $125 billion. its material resources and human capital. six times more than China.S.

“Obama’s Foreign Policy” Special to the Washington Post. That is the issue of democracy and human rights. President Obama has made generally sound decisions on Afghanistan. selling the pretense of radical change has required some sleight of hand . In the broadest sense. Another Times headline trumpeted a new "softer tone on North Korea. Thus The New York Times reports a dramatic "shift" in China policy to "rigorous and persistent engagement.and a helpful press corps. So. or its offer to negotiate Russia's acquiescence to this plan and even to share missile defense technology. significantly expands Predator drone attacks in Pakistan and agrees to a timetable for drawing down troops in Iraq scarcely distinguishable from what a third Bush administration (with the same defense secretary) might have ordered. 23.but not a fourth .even as the Obama administration sends 17.S.as soon as it agrees to "verifiable and complete dismantling and denuclearization. and sticks. The media have also reported a dramatic shift in the Obama administration's approach to conducting the Activity Formerly Known as the War on Terror. high-level negotiations but to focus instead on mid-level contacts or multilateral meetings on other subjects such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq. too. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates began these negotiations with Moscow more than a year ago. in the form of a global political and economic embrace if Tehran stops pursuing nuclear weapons." as if the previous two administrations had been doing something else for the past decade and a half. Add to this the administration's justifiable hesitancy. On Iran. http://www. is not exactly novel. Along with the language of unclenched fists and reset buttons. this has been absurdly easy: Obama had the world at hello. the basic goals and premises of U. All this is widely celebrated as new.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – A/T: Obama Xue 64/311 The Obama administration is sticking to Bush’s foreign policy despite media claims Kagan. Ever since Clinton's confirmation hearing. "Bush's War' on Terror Comes to Sudden End.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/03/09/20090309WP-kagan0309. If the world views this as a revolution. ’09 (Robert Kagan. When it comes to actual policies.azcentral. Whatever works. however. where she talked about three D's . the administration's insistence on linking proposed missile defense installations in Europe to the "threat" posed by Iran. Yet there is another area where the administration claims to depart from the Bush legacy but really hasn't. to jump into direct.democracy . This is all to the good.html) President Obama's foreign policy team has been working hard to present its policies to the world as constituting a radical break from the Bush years. campaign rhetoric notwithstanding." based on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's suggestion that the United States would have a "great openness to working with" Pyongyang . policy have not shifted. diplomacy and development . and I wish that it would. and subsequent stories have proclaimed a transformation from "hard power" to "soft power. in the form of international sanctions and isolation if it doesn't.the press has made much of this allegedly sharp departure from the Bush administration's "freedom agenda. so much the better." from military action to diplomacy ." . senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. the emphasis on carrots. 9-07.defense. missile defense and Iran." Startling. So far.000 troops to Afghanistan." The Post announced on Jan. Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. and it's no surprise if Iranian officials wonder what's the big deal.

Yet in the early 1990s. or early 1990s. and the 1980s (the of these cases. But in each case. If one looks past the headlines to the deep material structure of the world. 1970s. the inter-state scales of power tend to change slowly. Kenneth N. The most influential scholarly book on international relations of the past generation. Barring geopolitical upheavals on the scale of Soviet collapse. After the fall of Saigon in 1975. Unipolar Stability: The Rules of Power Analysis. In the early 1960s. and each decline scare ended with the United States’ position of primacy arguably strengthened. they again announced the advent of multipolarity. In all . Waltz argued. Waltz himself proclaimed that the return of multipolarity was around the corner. Vol. was written in part to dispel these flighty views and show that bipolarity still endured. A Tilted Balance. Unfortunately. Soviet threat and Japan as a potential challenger). the United States will lose its competitive edge in foreign relations. The current decline scare is the fourth since 1945—the first three occurred during the 1950s (Sputnik). The trick is to determine when subtle quantitative shifts will lead to a major qualitative transformation of the basic structure of the international system.Spring 2007) Perceptions of rapid polarity shifts of this sort are not unusual. Waltz’s Theory of International Politics. Such perceived polarity shifts are usually accompanied by decline scares—concern that as other powers rise. Fortunately. Multipolarity—an international system marked by three or more roughly equally matched major powers—did not return in the 1960s. one will see that bipolarity is still the order of the day. the 1970s (Vietnam and stagflation). arguments for multipolarity’s rapid return usually run afoul of them. only a decade after analysts had developed the notion of bipolarity. real changes were occurring that suggested a redistribution of power.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Multipolarity Inevitable Xue 65/311 Multipolarity is impossible to predict Wohlforth 07 Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University (William. 29 (1) . It is impossible to know for sure whether or not the scare is for real this time— shifts in the distribution of power are notoriously hard to forecast. there are some simple rules of power analysis that can help prevent wild fluctuations in response to current events. analysts’ responses to those changes seem to have been overblown. scholars were already proclaiming the return of multipolarity as postwar recoveries in Europe and Japan took off.

Samuel Huntington defined a unipolar state as one able “effectively to resolve all important international issues alone. such as terrorism. Cold Warscale arms races. In turn. and the greater the apparent gap between its material capabilities and the ends it can achieve. . Clearly. “structural” effects of US power that are not dependent upon active management. The result is an endless raising of the bar for what it takes to be a unipolar power. hegemonic rivalry for dominance. Spring 07 http://www. that are particularly important to the United States. but patterns of events that do go its way are often missed. But the selection bias goes much further. Great European powers did not lose great power status when they failed to have their way. Defining power as the ability to solve whatever global problem is currently in the headlines virtually guarantees highly volatile prognostications about polarity. for example. just as it feeds today’s multipolar mania. the Balkans in the nineteenth century. and decisions by Japan and others to nuclearize. The better the United States becomes at acquiring resources. This approach inevitably leads to a selection bias against evidence of the indirect. such as the attempt at a second resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq. security dilemmas among Asian powers. and no combination of other states would have the power to prevent it from doing so. fails to note how the institution’s entire agenda has shifted to address concerns. Not only are non-events downplayed in comparison to salient events that appear to demonstrate the powerlessness of the United States. Many effects that can be attributed to the unipolar distribution of power are developments that never occur: counter-balancing coalitions. Assessing active attempts by the United States to employ its power capabilities may well be the most misleading way to think about power.” This is an extraordinary standard that essentially conflates unipolarity with universal empire. but it does not have bearing on the polarity of the international system. the United States did not cease to be a superpower when it failed to overthrow Fidel Castro in the 1960s. This sort of headline chasing led to talk of “empire” in 2002 and 2003. And. for example. assessing unipolarity’s potential effects involves weighing such non-events against the more salient examples in which active attempts to use power resources are stymied. a focus on highly contested issues.harvardir. Consider. “Unipolar Stability” Harvard International Review.org/articles/1611/1/) The larger problem with conflating power-as-resources with power-as-influence is that it leads to a constant shifting of the goalposts.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Multipolarity Inevitable Xue 66/311 Predictions of hegemonic decline and multipolarity are flawed Wohlforth. the greater the array of global problems it is expected to be able to resolve. 07 – Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale (William. The fact that Washington cannot prevent Hugo Chavez from thumbing his nose at US power is interesting and perhaps even important. even in the United Nations. how often Washington’s failure to have its way in the United Nations is cited as compared to its experience in the IMF. in.

S. because the primary goal for most elected officials is to ensure reelection.S. “The Problem of International Order Revisted”. theoretical arguments alone will not tell us whether the choice to transform is more likely to benefit the hegemon over the long run than is the decision to dominate. Summer. Second. leaders have few if any domestic incentives to abandon policies of autonomy and unilateralism in favor of multilateralism and self-restraint. few if any foreign policy experts forecasted America's current supremacy in a unipolar world. Because nature and politics abhor a vacuum. etc. spheres of influence. political leaders “can be said to act under external compulsion rather than in accordance with their preferences”:[27] That is. not bind.[26] Hegemonic postwar junctures are precisely when great powers. their power.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Transition Now Better Xue 67/311 Arguments about transitioning early and showing restraint now are wrong – the US would never do it. as Ikenberry himself acknowledges. increases in the size of the new hegemon's territorial boundaries. and glory—though history is replete with such cases—but rather because anarchy compels states to enhance their security and influence over others and their environment whenever it is possible and pragmatic for them to do SO. should we expect democratically elected policymakers of a newly hegemonic state to forgo immediate gains for long-run payoffs that may or may not be reaped decades later—long after they have left office? Finally. elected officials must answer to a domestic audience.Second. the deliberate choice to restrain the exercise of power now because of the possibility (but not certainty) of exerting relatively less power later is like committing suicide for fear of death.g. although hegemonic decline may be inevitable. This is because the power trajectories of nations. colonial possessions. The key question for postwar leaders is not whether but when decline will come and how much deterioration can be expected. for example. especially the leading state. the victors will move quickly to fill the political vacuums left behind by the defeated great powers. This predictive failure.[29] The (painful for some) truth is that the future power position of the United States or any other country is simply beyond prediction.. This is particularly true for leaders of democratic states. when presented with such an extraordinary opportunity to expand the state's territory and influence. especially powerful ones. Thankfully. Why. been persuaded by the chorus of scholars in the 1970s to late 1980s proclaiming that U. it is not self-evident that a policy of strategic restraint better serves the hegemon's longrun interests than simply taking advantage of its power position to grab immediate gains. The incentive structure of elites. Had American policymakers. and unelected bureaucrats must serve and promote the autonomy and interests of the bureaucratic organization to which they belong. “American power in the 1990s is without historical precedent” (p. First. They have done so not necessarily to satisfy an innate lust for power. the Cold War might have continued for decades longer. even foreign policy ones. politics. not international. then. p. instead of constraining American power and preparing for inevitable decline. This is predictable behavior because.[28] Consequently. Best to maximize power’s benefits while we have it. there has been a strong relationship between the growth in power of a state and its desire to extend its territorial control. International Security. Schweller 2K1 (Randall Assoc. is not proof of the impoverishment of international relations theories. and it surely would noth ave ended in total victory for the West.In practice. Because one can make an equally impressive logical case to support either position. they are the result of wise or imprudent policy choices. arresting America's relative decline through bold policy choices. their actions are driven by irresistible temptation. power capabilities in the 1980s. and it shouldn’t anyways. lexis) First. No matter how much internationalists may champion multilateral solutions. there are plenty of reasons why they would not and should not act on that belief. history records few decisionmakers who acted in such a farsighted manner. 270). are not structurally determined. Professor Political Science at Ohio State. and domination of the international economy. can be expected to expand. Ikenberry's claim rests on an unrealistic assumption about the time horizons of democratic leaders. Indeed there is no a priori reason to conclude that instant postwar benefits (e.It is worth pointing out that even in the late 1980s. however. even if decisionmakers believe that hegemonic decline is inevitable. . prestige. as many have claimed.[25] Great powers have tended to expand when they can. It is ultimately an empirical question. Even if we concede the point that the creation of a constitutional order is a wise long-term investment for the new hegemonic state.) will not continue to accrue significant future gains and thereby better serve to arrest the pace of hegemonic decline than Ikenberry's alternative of a constitutional peace settlement. is primarily a function of domestic. power was in terminal decline. political influence. the Reagan administration began ramping up U.

and the isolationist strains that have influenced U. a reduction of the country’s global role does have the potential to go too far. New York. Especially because of the natural security afforded by America’s location. [P. Professor of International Relations @ Georgetown. 65] And. At the same time. Kupchan 2K2 Xue 68/311 (Charles. lexis) If America’s politics soon come to rein in its foreign policy. incremental threats of the sort that recently emerged in the Middle East and the Balkans would go unchecked. Knopf. The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the 21st Century. but also of Saudi Arabia and its massive oil reserves. Alfred A. A reining in of America’s overseas commitments is one thing. represent the most immediate threat to the country’s well-being. It would have dire consequences precisely because global stability is at present so dependent on American power and purpose. the allure of preserving that security by pulling back from commitments that may compromise it. Nor does it mark the return of the dark and illusory brand of isolationism that so sorely misguided the nation in the past. foreign policy since the founding of the republic. Alfred A. Drawing out early leads to massive instability in the gulf and the Balkans Kupchan 2K2 (Charles.S. and of a strategic environment in which terror attacks against the homeland. the United States might well bow out before others are prepared to fill the void. lexis) America’s diminishing internationalism is not the product of political decay. With no one around to mind the store. And the Balkan Peninsula could be in turmoil. The nation’s politics are in the process of catching up with geopolitical realities. It is inevitable and can be done gradually and with adequate preparation so as to minimize the attendant risks. Knopf. 205-206] . of America’s location. An American withdrawal from global affairs is another matter altogether. doing irreversible damage to southeastern Europe and calling into question the relevance and legitimacy of NATO and the EU. No other country has the combination of military capability and political clout needed to put together a campaign of the size that drove Iraqi troops from Kuwait or the Yugoslav army from Kosovo. Iraq today could well be in control of not just Kuwait. New York. Professor of International Relations @ Georgetown. a waning internationalism does have the potential to turn into a dangerous isolationism. not hegemonic wars in Europe or Asia. It is the logical consequence of the times. [P. Had the United States chosen not to contain Saddam Hussein in the early i99os.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Transition Now Better Transition would be slow – reigning in the US would spread instability. The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the 21st Century.

As a result." Today's distribution of power is unprecedented. . security competition. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. evaluating the merits of contending theories for understanding the international politics of unipolarity presents greater empirical challenges than many scholars have acknowledged. the existing distribution of capabilities generates incentives for cooperation. and balancing is not necessarily the result of ideational or institutional change. The absence of hegemonic rivalry.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Realism Xue 69/311 The unipolar system does not follow realist predictions. Rather. International Security. Summer 19 99. This is not to assert that realism provides the best explanation for the absence of security and prestige competition. In contrast to the past. however. "The Stability of a Unipolar World. the conclusion is that it offers an explanation that may compete with or complement those of other theoretical traditions. and power-centric theories naturally expect politics among nations to be different than in past systems. We must look to other theories William Wohlforth.

it is not self-evident that a policy of strategic restraint better serves the hegemon's long. power was in terminal decline.. power capabilities in the 1980s. not international. the victors will move quickly to fill the political vacuums left behind by the defeated great powers. in . This predictive failure. In practice. political influence.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable – AT: Decline Inevitable Xue 70/311 Turn – It’s IMPOSSIBLE to predict when America will collapse and even if Hegemonic decline is inevitable withdrawing from the international system prematurely will create a global power vacuum and Great Power Wars Schweller. The key question for postwar leaders is not whether but when decline will come and how much deterioration can be expected. they run the risk of achieving a foolish. as Ikenberry himself acknowledges.g. been persuaded by the chorus of scholars in the 1970s to late 1980s proclaiming that U. especially powerful ones. and it surely would not have ended in total victory for the West. Indeed there is no a priori reason to conclude that instant post-war benefits (e. More to the matters at hand. as many have claimed. there are plenty of reasons why they would not and should not act on that belief. arresting America's relative decline through bold policy choices. prestige. policymakers [End Page 175] act on the belief that Pax Americana is an artificial moment. and domination of the international economy. Second. because the primary goal for most elected officials is to ensure reelection.jhu. No matter how much internationalists may champion multilateral solutions. [End Page 173] Because one can make an equally impressive logical case to support either position. ’01 (Randall Schweller.run interests than simply taking advantage of its power position to grab immediate gains. The incentive structure of elites. Because nature and politics abhor a vacuum.S. is not proof of the impoverishment of international relations theories. Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University. instead of constraining American power and preparing for inevitable decline. or is only halfway there.S. when presented with such an extraordinary opportunity to expand the state's territory and influence. leaders have few if any domestic incentives to abandon policies of autonomy and unilateralism in favor of multilateralism and self-restraint. history records few decisionmakers who acted in such a farsighted manner. it would have been a terrible mistake for U. political leaders "can be said to act under external compulsion rather than in accordance with their preferences": 27 That is. after fifty-six years of American leadership of the free world and still counting.S. politics. and glory--though history is replete with such cases--but rather because anarchy compels states to enhance their security and influence over others and their environment whenever it is possible and pragmatic for them to do so. self-fulfilling prophecy. they are the result of wise or imprudent policy choices. http://muse. Hence it is impossible to tell whether the United States has currently reached its power zenith. It is worth pointing out that even in the late 1980s. for example. increases in the size of the new hegemon's territorial boundaries. however. 26 Hegemonic postwar junctures are precisely when great powers. In 1993. This is particularly true for leaders of democratic states. theoretical arguments alone will not tell us whether the choice to transform is more likely to benefit the hegemon over the long run than is he decision to dominate.) will not continue to accrue significant future gains and thereby better serve to arrest the pace of hegemonic decline than Ikenberry's alternative of a constitutional peace settlement. colonial possessions. First. Ikenberry's claim rests on an unrealistic assumption about the time horizons of democratic leaders. “The Problem of International Order Revisited”. especially the leading state. elected officials must answer to a domestic audience. or is anywhere in between. International Security. even if decisionmakers believe that hegemonic decline is inevitable. Even if we concede the point that the creation of a constitutional order is a wise long-term investment for the new hegemonic [End Page 174] state. Olin Post-Doctoral Fellowship in National Security at the Center for International Affairs. Second. few if any foreign policy experts forecasted America's current supremacy in a unipolar world. It is ultimately an empirical question. 28 Consequently. 30 What can be said is that if current U. the Reagan administration began ramping up U. This is because the power trajectories of nations. are not structurally determined. is primarily a function of domestic. They have done so not necessarily to satisfy an innate lust for power.1schweller. This is predictable behavior because.S. and unelected bureaucrats must serve and promote the autonomy and interests of the bureaucratic organization to which they belong. 270). can be expected to expand. etc. then. there has been a strong relationship between the growth in power of a state and its desire to extend its territorial control. should we expect democratically elected policymakers of a newly hegemonic state to forgo immediate gains for long-run payoffs that may or may not be reaped decades later--long after they have left office? Finally. "American power in the 1990s is without historical precedent" (p. their power. He is currently a member of the editorial board of International Security. he received a John M. the deliberate choice to restrain the exercise of power now because of the possibility (but not certainty) of exerting relatively less power later is like committing suicide for fear of death. although hegemonic decline may be inevitable. Harvard University. their actions are driven by irresistible temptation. 29 The (painful for some) truth is that the future power position of the United States or any other country is simply beyond prediction. Why.edu/journals/international_security/v026/26. spheres of influence.html) First. Had American policymakers. even foreign policy ones. Thankfully. the Cold War might have continued for decades longer. policymakers to have acted on this assumption of inevitable decline in 1945. not bind. 25 Great powers have tended to expand when they can.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good accordance with Ikenberry's prescription Xue 71/311 .

what impact would this have on the rest of the world? The last occasion on which the United States placed itself on the periphery rather than at the center of international affairs. .ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Sustainable . to cope with the consequences of fiscal crises outside its borders. 186-7) If public pressure within the United States were to compel the American government to withdraw most or all of the military forces stationed beyond North America and to do far less than it had become accustomed to doing to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons.S. ’06 Xue 72/311 (Michael Mandlebaum. Indeed. Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University “THE CASE FOR GOLIAATH: HOW AMERICA ACTS AS THE WORLD’S GOVERNMENT IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY”.first-century role as the world's government lie in the fear. the period between the two world wars. and to help keep global markets open to trade. isolationism causes world war Mandelbaum. after World War II. that in the absence of an expansive American international presence the world would experience repetitions of the two global disasters of the 1930s and the I940s-the Great Depression and World War II. Professor of American Foreign Policy at JHU. 2006.U. was not a happy one.AT: Isolationism Good Turn . pp. the antecedents of the American twenty.

That led to a fundamental shift in the strategic balance in the region from which the United States is still suffering. meanwhile. Why we need the 800-pound gorilla. the United States has built or expanded bases in Afghanistan. In the 1950s and 1960s. largely because much of the world does not really want it to. A few years ago. Qatar and of course. the structure of the international system should remain as it has been. The more pro-American foreign policies of Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel are not only a matter of their unique personalities but also reflect a reassessment of French. American predominance is unlikely to fade anytime soon. as it has consistently for six decades. that will transform the strategic equation in the region. China and Russia have been working together to balance against the United States. in Bulgaria. Close but not uncritical relations with the United States. The most striking change has occurred in India. who are worried about Iran. and India--are drawing closer to the United States geopolitically. Oman. Meanwhile.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing Xue 73/311 Others aren’t counterbalancing – they are siding with US to prevent the rise of other powers Kagan 08 senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Robert. Djibouti. this anti-Iranian coalition seems stronger than any anti-American coalition Iran has been able to assemble. Jordan. 2001. if not a formal strategic alliance. But now France. give a boost to European power and influence that Europe cannot achieve on its own. 2008) As it happens. like Russia and China. In Europe there is also an unmistakable trend toward closer strategic relations with the United States. do the nations of the Persian Gulf organized in the Gulf Cooperation Council.' would be my answer … The friendship between Europe and the United States is a cornerstone of world stability. Yet they also remain traditional rivals. . the predominant military power. with Russia selling billions of dollars' worth of advanced military technology and weaponry to the Chinese for use against the United States in any conflict that may arise. Despite the opinion polls." French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said. as well as Syria. Kyrgyzstan. as well as in the Philippines. and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbours. If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. despite somewhat greater pressure emanating from Washington for political reform of these autocracies. Lebanon remains a battleground but is arguably closer to the United States today than it was when more fully under Syria's thumb a few years ago. a key pillar of the American strategic position in the region toppled when the pro-American shah of Iran was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini's virulently anti-American revolution. Nothing similar has yet occurred as a result of the Iraq War. Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac flirted with drawing closer to Russia as a way of counterbalancing American power. Japan. Japanese leaders came to a similar conclusion a decade ago. and the rest of Europe have been moving in the other direction. It is a response to changing international circumstances and to lessons learned from the past." Even in the Middle East. and the leading apostle of the world's most popular political philosophy. and they are probably right. Saudi Arabia and Morocco continue to work closely with the United States. Chinese strategists believe the present international configuration is likely to endure for some time. Another problem for China and Russia is that the world's other great powers -. is more dependent on the American market than is the oil-exporting Russia. In 1979. This favourable strategic balance could shift suddenly and dramatically. Egypt. with one superpower and several great powers. however. and partly as a means of enhancing Japan's own position in East Asia and the world. But there are obstacles to a lasting strategic alliance between the two powers. National Post July 25. Hungary. Along with Israel. Poland and Romania in Europe. Iran itself faces some regional balancing. They have entered into an arms alliance.S. Iraq. the number of overseas American military bases continues to grow in the Middle East and elsewhere. In the meantime. Georgia. " 'the U. Since September 11. the strategic relationship between the two countries has grown stronger. the pan-Arab nationalist movement swept across the region and opened the door to unprecedented Soviet involvement. partly because of Japan's escalating concerns about China and North Korea. Iraq has shifted from implacable anti-Americanism under Saddam Hussein to dependence on the United States. This lack of fundamental realignment in the Middle East contrasts sharply with the major strategic setbacks the United States suffered during the Cold War. they believe. So long as the United States remains at the center of the international economy. too. so long as the American public continues to support American predominance. Russians continue to fear that the massive and productive Chinese population will quietly overrun Russia's sparsely populated Siberian and far eastern territory. the Japanese-American alliance was in danger of eroding. In the mid-1990s. Pakistan. including a quasi-alliance between Moscow and the Egypt of Gamal Abdel Nasser. China's manufacturing economy. period. German and European interests. An alliance of Sunni states worries about the expanding Iranian and Shiite influence in the Middle East. "If you asked me which of the [two] countries France will have closer relations with-. They have strengthened the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an increasingly military as well as political institution. This is not out of renewed affection for the United States.the democratic powers of Europe. and backed by the American superpower. Libya has moved from being squarely in the anti-American camp to a more ambiguous posture. America's relations with both old and new allies have actually strengthened in recent years. But since 1997. the strategic balance has not shifted very much. a former ally of Moscow that today sees good relations with the United States as essential to achieving its broader strategic and economic goals. where anti-Americanism runs hottest. So. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. Germany.the United States or Russia.

No one is going to balance against US hegemony. alliances or internal military buildups to counter America. but especially because of America's overwhelming material predominance. If anything. foreign policy will be formed.S. convincing. Clifford Kupchan. The U. history. Additionally.4dueck. and the United States is the central actor in maintaining an open international trading system. In particular. primarily because no coalition of states could expect to rival America's dominance. America's geographic position as an offshore power reduces the perceived threat by regional powers. to explain patterns of adjustment in American grand strategy in a theoretically informed manner. They want the goodies. “New Perspectives on American Grand Strategy: A Review Essay” http://muse. the new literature fails. structural realists predicted that the United States would soon be counterbalanced by other major powers. America's military presence in Asia. less powerful states should be expected to balance only when they believe that doing so can be effective. all regional powers face constraints on balancing from within their region. the liberal internationalist tradition seems in the past to have encouraged a persistent gap between commitments and capabilities in U. plays the key role in sustaining regional stability. Balance of power theory predicts that preponderant power should give rise to opposing power.jhu. the balance of power has been suspended.S. The gap between the United States and other states is just too big for competition to be fruitful. Moreover. Formal balancing can take two forms: organized anti-U. especially in Japan. .S. and that the United States may be able to prevent this contingency through the exercise of a prudent grand strategy. 2004. the United States will avoid becoming the target of counterbalancing coalitions. 2004 (Real Democratik. and theory—including causal variables at both the domestic and international level—to provide a more complete.edu/journals/international_security/v028/28.S. India would feel threatened and respond. New research on the subject suggests that such great power counterbalancing is far from inevitable. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Colorado. Future research will need to integrate policy.-dominated order provides goods to other nations which they value. in most cases. The strongly deters current unipolar structure balancing. Balancing is suspended for several other reasons as well. to increase its power to balance against the United States. However. Lexis | SWON) Unipolarity is the primary reason that other great powers have not and will not soon balance against America's preponderant power. for example. Finally. The National Interest. Boulder. a number of recent authors suggest that by following a strategy of liberal internationalism. most of which lie in Eurasia. Vice President of the Nixon Center.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing Xue 74/311 Liberal internationalism protects the US from counterbalancing Colin Dueck. American unipolarity will last for at least the next several decades and is the structure within which U.html#authbio New developments in the literature on American grand strategy represent an important and intriguing challenge to structural realism. because preponderance makes lesser powers feel threatened. Yet the question still remains as to whether this approach will actually render the United States immune to the fate of previous hegemons. foreign policy. For all these reasons. States are reluctant to balance against an order that provides them significant returns. A decade ago. In effect. were China. Fall. and predictive model of changes in American grand strategy.

the United States is unlikely to face a challenge to its pre-eminence from other states unless it acts so arrogantly that it helps the others to overcome their incompatibilities and work together. meanwhile. Nevertheless. indicating agreement with the American view that China is a potential strategic concern. relations with Japan grow ever closer as the Japanese become increasingly concerned about China and a nuclear-armed North Korea.” Survival. Alexander Hamilton Fellow at American Univ. Soft power prevents balaninng – keeps states from forming coalitions which remedies their weaknesses Joseph Nye. . “Still the Colossus”. and even the project of creating a common foreign and defense policy has slowed if not stalled. the growing threat is Russia. For Eastern and Central Europe. Kagan 2006 (Robert. Chancellor Angela Merkel promises to work closely with Washington on the question of the China arms embargo. China's (and Malaysia's) attempt to exclude Australia from a prominent regional role at the recent East Asian summit has reinforced Sydney's desire for closer ties. because Western Europeans no longer feel threatened and therefore do not seek American protection. is working hard and ostentatiously to improve relations. Distinguished Professor at Harvard and Former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government. Europeans would be taking more urgent steps to strengthen the European Union's hand to check it. America retains enormous advantages in the international arena. and the big question remains what it was in the 1990s: Who will be invited to join NATO? In East Asia. But even so. just as it did after the nadir of American Cold War popularity in the late 1960s and early 1970s. meaningful number of troops. The Washington Post. democratic ideology remains appealing in a world that is more democratic than ever. even with an administration they allegedly despise. Its liberal. On the contrary. March 2008 At the moment. while still dissenting from U. most notably by continuing to supply a small but. the unpopularity of recent actions will prove ephemeral. “Recovering American Leadership. Its potent economy remains the driving wheel of the international economy. Nor are Europeans refusing to cooperate. Only in South Korea does hostility to the United States remain high. It even trumpets its willingness to train Iraqi soldiers.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing Counter balancing not happening.has simply not occurred. in Europe the idea has all but vanished. in German terms.which the realists have been anticipating for more than 15 years now -. policy in Iraq. the current trend is toward closer cooperation. U. the question posed to my panel by the South Korean organizers was: "How will the United States solve the problem of North Korea's nuclear weapons?" The truth is. But if they really feared American power.S. It is bending over backward to show support for the mission in Afghanistan. The greater challenge for the United States will be to learn how to work with other countries to better control the non-state actors that will increasingly share the stage with nation-states..S. This is mostly the product of the new democracy's understandable historical resentments and desire for greater independence. not America. How to control the bottom chessboard in a threedimensional game and how to make hard and soft power reinforce each other are the key foreign policy challenges for American leadership. Compared with these powerful forces. Both trends are primarily the result of internal European politics. European Union defense budgets continue their steady decline. January 15) Xue 75/311 The much-anticipated global effort to balance against American hegemony -. when I attended a conference in Seoul recently. Western Europe will not be a strategic partner as it was during the Cold War. Germany's new government.

55–68) Because of its leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment in traditional power resources. Science and Technology. economic and so-power terms well into the twenty-first century. Likewise. they also show that the cause of the decline is government policies. 2007 Efstathios T. Faced with such a threat. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. coercive power in an overbearing. and the 'democratization' of technology that puts massive destructive power. . beneficial. while culture and values change more slowly. to inculcate in them US beliefs. which adds two new coal-fired generating plants each week. 50 no. is justified if it produces global goods. but the United States cannot manage the problem by itself. China and India have differing goals and priorities. March 2008. and vision in such a way as to correspond with their national preferences. Project Muse] The other reason is because abusing preponderance might provoke counterbalancing. men like Hitler. pp. For example. His vision of hegemony in the form of a Pax Americana triggers widespread opposition due to the fact that it is portrayed as aggressive and colonial by other states’ policy makers and public opinion. Fakiolas. it is herein that stands the Achilles heel of Bush’s grandiose pursuit of Pax Americana. and Tassos E. In essence. Moscow. Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard. Today. George W. Washington must work with others and mobilize international coalitions to address these new security threats. they could bring about enormous changes to the United States and the world. values orientation. Even if Washington had a more inward-looking foreign policy. And in a world where borders are becoming more porous than ever to everything from drugs to infectious diseases to terrorism. into the hands of groups and individuals all add new dimensions to global politics. PhD from the Department of War Studies. Last year China. but the country regained much of its so power within a decade. curtailed its alliances and followed a more isolationist foreign policy. and socialize great powers other than Britain and Japan in a frame of reference compatible with their interests — that is. though the direction of such change is difficult to predict. the British navy reduced the scourge of piracy well before international conventions were signed in the middle of the nineteenth century. and it is unlikely that they would become from military allies unless the United States used its hard. ’08 (Joseph S.”111 Besides the broader question of the power ability. American policies in Vietnam led to low ratings in polls. Soft power solves counterbalancing. such as the war in Afghanistan. Instead. once the sole preserve of governments. In light of these new circumstances. currently working as a strategy and southeastern European affairs analyst at ATEbank. While potential coalitions to check American power could be created. Stalin and Mao needed the power of the state to wreak great evil. international financial stability is vital to the prosperity of Americans. Chair of the National Intelligence Council. Russian Academy of Sciences and is a special adviser on Russian and east European affairs for a Greek business firm. if transnational terrorists were to obtain nuclear materials and use them to cause great destruction or great disruption of society. the rise of transnational domains (including the Internet). Survival. But isolationism would not remove the vulnerability. While polls show that American soft power has declined in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. In the last century. Because soft power is particularly important in dealing with issues arising from the boom chessboard of transnational relations. Isolationism and unilateralism after Iraq? The dramatically decreased cost of communication. This is important because policies can change relatively quickly. not American culture and values. Americans cannot achieve all their international goals alone. unilateral manner that undermined its soft or attractive power. PhD in political science from Harvard. Afer all. may have overtaken the United States as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. this is meant to imply that “balancing behavior will be less likely if foreign elites hold positive images of the United States. and legitimate. Bush has drawn little attention to the need to articulate. radical groups would resent the power of the American economy that would still reach well beyond its shores. Obviously. how will the only superpower guide its foreign policy aer the experience of the Iraq war? Will it provide global leadership or conclude that the best course in world afairs is to remain uninvolved? Some Americans are tempted to believe that the United States could reduce its vulnerability if it withdrew its troops. the United States will likely remain the world's single most powerful country in military. global climate change will affect Americans' quality of life. But isolationism or extreme unilateralism are not promising options for the world's largest state. vol. PhD from IMEMO. countries like Russia. “Pax Americana or Multilateralism? Reflecting on the United States’ Grand Strategic Vision of Hegemony in the Wake of the 11 September Attacks”. share similar outlooks on most global problems. In the early s. he has devalued the fact that the effectiveness of grand strategy “increasingly becomes a function of how well one is able to manipulate symbols to create or reinforce images. and Fakiolas. but the United States needs the cooperation of others to attain it. a certain degree of unilateral action.. King’s College London. 1. America's resources in this area are increasingly important. manipulating primacy and hegemonic pretensions with prudence and sense of restraint is most effective in mustering loyalty and sustaining international support. and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance. Nye.”112 In other words. and in general regard US preponderance as benevolent.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing Xue 76/311 American Military Dominance is sustainable in the squo – No Counter Balancing Nye. deploy.

25 Great powers have tended to expand when they can. then. can be expected to expand. 29 The (painful for some) truth is that the future power position of the United States or any other country is simply beyond prediction. This is because the power trajectories of nations. Even if we concede the point that the creation of a constitutional order is a wise long-term investment for the new hegemonic [End Page 174] state. leaders have few if any domestic incentives to abandon policies of autonomy and unilateralism in favor of multilateralism and selfrestraint. as Ikenberry himself acknowledges. Second. "American power in the 1990s is without historical precedent" (p. This is particularly true for leaders of democratic states. They have done so not necessarily to satisfy an innate lust for power. arresting America's relative decline through bold policy choices. is primarily a function of domestic. Why. Because nature and politics abhor a vacuum. Thankfully. The incentive structure of elites. is not proof of the impoverishment of international relations theories. they run the risk of achieving a foolish. however. policymakers [End Page 175] act on the belief that Pax Americana is an artificial moment. colonial possessions. they are the result of wise or imprudent policy choices.S. their power. especially powerful ones. This predictive failure. Had American policymakers. instead of constraining American power and preparing for inevitable decline. prestige. The key question for postwar leaders is not whether but when decline will come and how much deterioration can be expected. the Cold War might have continued for decades longer. policymakers to have acted on this assumption of inevitable decline in 1945. self-fulfilling prophecy. the deliberate choice to restrain the exercise of power now because of the possibility (but not certainty) of exerting relatively less power later is like committing suicide for fear of death. the victors will move quickly to fill the political vacuums left behind by the defeated great powers. power was in terminal decline. More to the matters at hand. should we expect democratically elected policymakers of a newly hegemonic state to forgo immediate gains for long-run payoffs that may or may not be reaped decades later--long after they have left office? Finally. Indeed there is no a priori reason to conclude that instant post-war benefits (e. especially the leading state. even if decisionmakers believe that hegemonic decline is inevitable. Hence it is impossible to tell whether the United States has currently reached its power zenith. because the primary goal for most elected officials is to ensure reelection. politics.S. Ikenberry's claim rests on an unrealistic assumption about the time horizons of democratic leaders. or is only halfway there.g. although hegemonic decline may be inevitable. the Reagan administration began ramping up U. political leaders "can be said to act under external compulsion rather than in accordance with their preferences": 27 That is. No matter how much internationalists may champion multilateral solutions. This is predictable behavior because. even foreign policy ones. there are plenty of reasons why they would not and should not act on that belief. been persuaded by the chorus of scholars in the 1970s to late 1980s proclaiming that U. Second. The Problem of International Order Revisited International Security 26. or is anywhere in between. etc. 30 What can be said is that if current U.) will not continue to accrue significant future gains and thereby better serve to arrest the pace of hegemonic decline than Ikenberry's alternative of a constitutional peace settlement. 270). elected officials must answer to a domestic audience.S. their actions are driven by irresistible temptation. [End Page 173] Because one can make an equally impressive logical case to support either position. In practice. for example. as many have claimed. power capabilities in the 1980s. theoretical arguments alone will not tell us whether the choice to transform is more likely to benefit the hegemon over the long run than is the decision to dominate. few if any foreign policy experts forecasted America's current supremacy in a unipolar world. It is ultimately an empirical question. First. it would have been a terrible mistake for U. It is worth pointing out that even in the late 1980s. and unelected bureaucrats must serve and promote the autonomy and interests of the bureaucratic organization to which they belong.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing Xue 77/311 Theoretical arguments about inevitable decline are bunk – they are just a self-fulfilling prophecy – we should still act to preserve US power Schweller 01 Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University (Randall. not bind. not international. there has been a strong relationship between the growth in power of a state and its desire to extend its territorial control. and it surely would noth ave ended in total victory for the West. spheres of influence. and glory--though history is replete with such cases--but rather because anarchy compels states to enhance their security and influence over others and their environment whenever it is possible and pragmatic for them to do so. are not structurally determined. it is not self-evident that a policy of strategic restraint better serves the hegemon's long-run interests than simply taking advantage of its power position to grab immediate gains. in accordance with Ikenberry's prescription . history records few decisionmakers who acted in such a farsighted manner.S. 26 Hegemonic postwar junctures are precisely when great powers. when presented with such an extraordinary opportunity to expand the state's territory and influence.. and domination of the international economy. after fifty-six years of American leadership of the free world and still counting. political influence.1) First. 28 Consequently. increases in the size of the new hegemon's territorial boundaries.

create the ideas that spark innovation. meanwhile. nonprofit organizations. these institutions have made America the world’s leading incubator of innovators and innovation. research policy issues. To the extent that alliances are inefficient at pooling power.edu/reports/SAAS_08.pdf The next President will make decisions that determine our nation’s place in the 21st century. a single state gets more bang for the buck than several states in an alliance. defense industries. "The Stability of a Unipolar World. Alliances aggregate power only to the extent that they are reliably binding and permit the merging of armed forces. States have to worry about being abandoned by alliance partners when the chips are down or being dragged into conflicts of others' making. AAU today focuses on issues that are important to research-intensive universities. As each candidate considers the resources on which his or her administration might draw for ideas and talent. AAU.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing The U. and graduate and undergraduate education. It is this innovation matrix— decentralized. America’s research universities serve particularly as drivers of innovation because they fully integrate research with education. such as funding for research. A glance at international history shows how difficult it is to coordinate counterhegemonic alliances. networked. yet at home and abroad we face economic and national security challenges to our leadership with serious consequences for future generations of Americans. research universities. the sole pole obtains greater power per unit of aggregate capabilities than any alliance that might take shape against it." Alliances are not structural. When a counterbalance becomes possible. Summer 19 99.46 A unipolar system is one in which a counterbalance is impossible. http://www. the hegemon for the 21st century. . Our colleges and universities educate the men and women who. and strategic decisionmaking. few are as valuable as the people and organizations that comprise America’s matrix of innovation. During the 2008 presidential campaign. The point at which this structural shift can happen is determined in part by how efficiently alliances can aggregate the power of individual states. With strong government support. has only to make sure its domestic house is in order. or bandwagon in search of favors from the aspiring hegemon. Organization of universities that do research on current events. At the core of this great national innovation matrix is our system of higher education and research. and sparked by the intellectual genius of Americans and people from around the world—that can ensure America’s national and economic security and world leadership in the 21st century. in part because of the autonomy and extraordinary diversity of its 4.S. Among these institutions.000 institutions. pass the buck. the odds are skewed in favor of the unipolar power. R&D infrastructures. The elements of this matrix— universities. Alliances cannot counterbalance as they are not as strong as the members acting individually William Wohlforth. businesses. Right away. most scholars follow Waltz in making a distinction between the distribution of capabilities among states and the alliances states may form.47 The aspiring hegemon. This system sets the standard for the world. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown.S. cross-disciplinary. and individual innovators —are seeking and creating real solutions for the challenges we face. march 2008. in turn. We remain the world’s military and economic superpower. the system is not unipolar.aau. States are tempted to free ride. 2008 Xue 78/311 Association of American Universities. International Security.’s Innovation will keep the U. Founded in 1900 to advance the international standing of U. The Association of American Universities (AAU) is a nonprofit organization of 62 leading public and private research universities in the United States and Canada. government agencies. In short. Because alliances are far less effective than states in producing and deploying power internationally.S. Americans will judge candidates on their ability to lead the nation in addressing these challenges.

and sought to exclude other major powers from the Western Hemisphere. in each region there are smaller "pivotal states" that make natural U. however. America's position in the world is not perfect. Germany. allies against an aspiring regional power. 2002. 2002.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing Xue 79/311 The U. ." The key. encouraged immigration and foreign investment. it is more than twice as big as that of Japan. allies the moment an unambiguous challenge to Washington's preeminence emerges. Professor of international affairs at Harvard. Any second-tier state seeking to counterbalance has to contend with the existing pro-U. hegemony. separate from Eurasia. The U. (2) Even if alliances have counterbalanced in the past. If things go poorly. bandwagon. The United States spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined. television. the aspiring counterbalancer will have to confront not just the capabilities of the unipolar state. economy.49 Indeed. and because seven of those nine countries are its close allies. economy produces about 25 percent of the world's goods and services. but also those of its other great power allies.S. cinema. and culture. All of the aspiring poles face a problem the United States does not: great power neighbors that could become crucial U. During the nineteenth century the United States gradually expanded to become a continental power. the world's number-two economic power. and the Soviet Union) that constituted relatively unambiguous security threats to their neighbors.48 Even a declining offshore unipolar state will have unusually wide opportunities to play divide and rule. and its cultural shadow--in music. the United States' first move in any counterbalancing game of this sort could be to try to promote such pivotal states to great power status.S.S. foreign policy was the goal of making the nation a hegemon in its own neighborhood. there is no other country close to replacing the U. "The Stability of a Unipolar World. But the United States is also number one because its leaders have deliberately sought to achieve and maintain that position. perhaps. and other arts--is enormous. Walt.S.S. The United States is the world leader in higher education and information technology. Coordinating a counterbalance against an offshore state that has already achieved unipolar status will be much more difficult. hegemony is the highest in the world due to a superior military.S. is that the countercoalitions of the past-on which most of our empirical knowledge of alliance politics is based-formed against centrally located land powers (France. education. the position of the US. (1) This position of primacy is partly due to good fortune and especially to having been founded on a continent rich in resources yet far from other major powers. Summer 19 99. As the Monroe Doctrine and the concept of Manifest Destiny symbolized. Stephen M Walt. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown.S. but Americans could hardly ask for much more. the guiding star of U. International Security. In addition. makes it invulnerable William Wohlforth. as it did with China against the Soviet Union in the latter days of the Cold War. Professor of international affairs at Harvard. the effective advantage is even larger. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JIW/is_2_55/ai_88174226/ The end of the Cold War left the United States in a position of power unseen since the Roman Empire.

10 there is no sign of a balancing tendency and we are still in a unipolar world order comprising one sole superpower. if unipolarity was only a “moment” in history.allacademic. it is vastly long-term Brighenti 7 Olivier. 7 Realists have also paid attention to the durability of a unipolar configuration. In our perspective.e. i. It is an uncontested reality and no one can predict when the disrupted balance will be restored. a structural anomaly or if this type of configuration could be sustained at length. in historical perspectives it will come in a blink of an eye. Candidate University of Geneva. 8 Until the beginning of the new millennium. US Grand Strategy and the Unipolar International Structure.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing Xue 80/311 No nation can effectively balance—even if multipolarity it inevitable. First of all. Within the international relations scholarly community most of the debate on unipolarity has focused on the stability of the system. it was widely believed that the unipolar world configuration would not last and that the balance would be restored. the unipolar structure of world politics is not a temporary setback due to vanish only because international politics abhors unbalanced power. “Power Maximization. Kenneth Waltz echoes this view: “Theory enables us to say that a new balance of power will form but not to say how long it will take.php Thus we are years away from any balancing coalition and even more remote from the emergence of a new pole. . the new balance of power is emerging slowly. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/8/7/3/pages178731/p178731-2.” http://www. National and international conditions determine that. in other words if a unipolar world configuration is peaceful or more prone to instability and war. PhD. Those who refer to the unipolar moment are right.” 9 Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War and Krauthammer’s path-breaking article.

even if China’s overall GDP did come to equal that of the United States. what drives most of these projections is China. This common practice seriously inflates estimates of China’s future economic size—exaggerating the speed with which China’s economy will overtake that of the United States in total size. its per-capita GDP would still be only one-quarter that of the United States. Even setting aside the manifold challenges that this country faces on the road to superpowerdom—including a looming demographic crisis. Studies of national power in the post-industrial age find that what matters most today is not just economic size. and therefore labor-intensive products and services tend to be relatively cheap in poor counties. China doesn’t threaten counterbalancing Council on Foreign Relations 08 Michael Moran March 16. this method provides better estimates of comparative living standards. China’s armed forces remain second-tier in quality. Unipolar Stability: The Rules of Power Analysis. and China) will alter the global balance of power. Beijing’s military spending is still relatively low even if the highest American estimate—$137 billion in 2007—is accepted. the U. “China Reaps Benefits from our 5-Year War with Iraq” http://www. Current projections of China’s economic rise may well be overstated. What’s more. and thus the PPP to converge with the market exchange rate.” Projections must take into account the fact that growth will cause prices to converge with international norms. India is estimated to have had a much larger economy than the British Isles when it was colonized in the nineteenth century.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – China Xue 81/311 China’s wont catch up – haters use flawed statistical analysis and crappy measures of economic growth Wohlforth 07 Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University (William. Keidel estimates that it will take until 2050 for China’s total economic size to equal the United States. We all know that relying on one simple indicator of power is not a good idea. we will likely see that one indicator alone is being used to project China’s rise: the growth of its gross domestic product (GDP). and the political challenges inherent in a capitalist country ruled by a communist party—extrapolating its rise based on GDP and PPP estimates of its current size is a dubious analytical exercise. Using such a methodology. But forecasts about China’s rise should not be based on predictions of its living standards.” Economists universally agree that. they can create a large economy that is much less capable of generating power than the raw numbers would suggest. and historians continues to demonstrate that decisionmakers and analysts tend to break this basic rule. 2008.Spring 2007) When analysts forecast the coming of multipolarity. Iraq aside. Yet research by political scientists. No one knows how much to discount the PPP numbers for the purposes of making comparisons of national power. PPP stands for the “purchasing power parity” estimate of countries’ exchange rates—the size of their economies in dollar terms. psychologists.cfr. Projections of China’s rise are a case in point. spent $450 billion on defense in the same fiscal year. Indeed. is that one should not “use projections of national accounting growth rates from a PPP base. Although the prices of many manufactured products tend to be equalized by international trade. Vol. and it can be a misleading one. PPP clearly exaggerates this sort of power. economist Albert Keidel notes. But economic size is only one indicator of power. After all. what is most responsible for the virtual shift to multipolarity is not a word but an acronym: PPP. the price of labor is not. the report says. India.org/publication/15765/china_reaps_benefits_from_our_5year_war_in_iraq. China’s global clout will certainly rise with the relative size of its economy. primarily defensive in their posture. a shaky financial system. If we carefully examine the numbers. but wealth and technological development. What is certain. When a huge number of poor people are gathered together in one country. “the World Bank’s decision in 1994 to shift to a PPP estimate for China’s economy was crucial in propelling perceptions of that country’s imminent rise to great power status. Russia. A Tilted Balance. National power is a complex phenomenon. 29 (1) .html It is important to emphasize that Chinese power has not taken the aggressive military form that simplistic scaremongers like to stoke. PPP corrects for this discontinuity by using prices for a locally selected basket of goods to adjust the exchange rate for converting local currency into dollars. They should discuss China’s presence as a great power in international politics—its ability to use money to purchase goods and influence matters abroad. As University of Pennsylvania professor Avery Goldstein notes. they often talk of how the rising BRIC countries (Brazil. By comparison.S. not including another $120 billion spent on . And if examined even more closely. properly applied.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Iraq and Afghanistan. Xue 82/311 .

missile defense plans.S.in Central Asia. Bilateral trade rose by about onethird last year to some $48 billion. Researcher at the Centre for East Asian Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (“Are China-Russia ties cooling off?” 10-25) Xue 83/311 There is evidence too of Russian concerns both over the balance within the SCO and that Russia's resource-rich east is being left too close to a rising China.via Belarus -. dominance. and its posited long-term eyeing up of the strategic vacuum in central Asia left by the USSR's demise may at some point in the future prompt some pushback from a Russian government which appears to be looking to grow back into its role as a major global power. editor of Russia in Global Affairs magazine. holding joint military maneuvers and engaging in high-level talks on creating a "multipolar world.russia.700 mile border." They have taken a coordinated stance on several global issues. China and Russia lack cohesion to balance the US. China's economic interests. he traveled to London -. and Russia has sponsored an alternative central Asian organisation which does not include China. and taking a similar approach to the Iran nuclear issue. head of the Moscow-based Institute for Strategic Assessment. If one of the purposes of the SCO for Beijing is to enhance its strategic influence in central Asia. reaching a long-delayed agreement on demarcation of the 2.with a message Russia wanted closer ties to the West. Medvedev's trip to Kazakhstan was apparently intended to send a message to both Beijing and the West that Moscow continues to see the former Soviet Central Asia as its home turf. Putin greatly strengthened relations with China. "Moscow has grown accustomed to viewing Central Asia as its backyard. though it is not clear exactly where. economic ties have lagged behind. CNN 8 (5/23. Vladimir Putin. "Russia is worried by China's quiet expansion in Central Asia.S.cnn. China's opposition to Russia's action in Georgia should therefore be seen against this backdrop." said Fyodor Lukyanov. There is also rich symbolism in Medvedev's choice of China as the main destination of his first foreign trip. So any signs of a change in Russian policy towards its periphery do not only have the potential to affect states on its European borders. but continued friction remains -. there is no evidence that Moscow is currently concerned by a military threat from China (or Japan for that matter) in the east. sharing opposition to Kosovo's independence and U. The geopolitics here are different: Nato does not impinge on Russia's eastern borders. When his predecessor. reaching an oil pipeline deal with Kazakhstan and negotiating a gas agreement with Turkmenistan. China does more than eight times as much business with the United States ." said Alexander Konovalov. Part of this jockeying for strategic influence is the very practical issue of access to the region's rich energy and other natural resources. but still accounts for only 2 percent of China's global trade. Russian President Medvedev said that Russia should have a privileged sphere of influence in Asia. but could apply in a similar way to its eastern periphery. China and Russia have made highly symbolic political overtures to one another.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/23/china.ap/index. However. the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. its soft power diplomacy. Shortly after the Georgian incident. Future tension in Central Asia may not be limited to the part that borders Europe. and it tolerated the US's post-9/11 presence in central Asia. then this implicitly at least encroaches on an area that Moscow has traditionally seen as within its sphere of influence. nor what the Chinese response to that statement has been. "China has been actively seeking to secure energy supplies from Central Asia and they have gone quite far. but China doesn't share this view. went abroad for the first time as president in 2000. http://edition.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – China/Russia Russia and China won’t balance the US – they’ll balance each other out of fear Summers 08 Former British Diplomat.especially over oil and gas -." China already has won a cut of the region's riches.html) China and Russia have built a relationship intended to serve as a counterweight to U. In recent years.

Oxford University Press. indeed.html) Sino-Russian hostility to American predominance has not yet produced a concerted effort at balancing. In addition. and the rise of China inspires at least as much nervousness in Russia as it does in the United States. They have created at least one institution. Russia ’s efforts to increase its influence over what it regards as its “near abroad. is author. India has also drawn closer to the United States and is clearly engaged in balancing against China. and China is the only power in the world. Senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. India. who fear threats from the east. Overall. They are traditional rivals. or at least some of the other advanced. and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. the Bush administration. Now that theeu has expanded to include the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. eds. But those powerful players are not joining the effort.” meanwhile. Japan. Policy Review. September.hoover. democratic nations. Leffler and Jeffrey W. Germany. In any case. As for Russia and China. traditional allies of the United States in East Asia and in Europe. Russia and China certainly share a common and openly expressed goal of checking American hegemony. ’08 Xue 84/311 (Robert Kagan. Legro. and even South Korea and the nations of Southeast Asia have all engaged in “hedging” against a rising China. October. To Lead the World: American Strategy After the Bush Doctrine.. Because these nations are now members of the European Union. Its dependence on the American market and foreign investment and its perception that the United States remains a potentially formidable adversary mitigate against an openly confrontational approach. 2008.org/publications/policyreview/8552512. while their publics may be more anti-American than in the past. nevertheless pursue policies that reflect more concern about the powerful states in their midst than about the United States. Australia. But Sino-Russian hostility to American predominance has not yet produced a concerted and cooperative effort at balancing. Italy. This has led them to seek closer relations with Washington. Russian military power remains in decline. other than the United States. the most notable balancing over the past decade has been aimed not at the American superpower but at the two large powers: China and Russia. China ’s buildup is driven at least as much by its own long-term ambitions as by a desire to balance the United States. the clear trend in recent years has been toward closer strategic cooperation with the United States. Russia has been using its vast reserves of oil and natural gas as a lever to compensate for the lack of military power. aimed at resisting American influence in Central Asia. where neither France. China is less abrasively confrontational with the United States. most recently. http://www. despite a public opinion hostile to the Bush administration. As for Japan and India. especially in the case of Japan and Australia. Europe has rejected the option of making itself a counterweight to American power. this has also complicated eu-Russian relations. the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. but it either cannot or does not want to increase its military capability sufficiently to begin counterbalancing the United States. the two powers do not trust one another. 12 This has provided a cushion against hostile public opinion and offers a foundation on which to strengthen American relations with these countries after the departure of Bush. the prospect of a unified Europe counterbalancing the United States is practically nil. In Asia and the Pacific.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – China/Russia Russia and China Counterbalancing fails – not strong enough and Russia is scared of China Kagan. . of Dangerous Nation: America’s Place in the World from Its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century He is senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The anticipated global balancing has for the most part not occurred. China and Russia cannot balance the United States without at least some help from Europe. nor Spain proposes such counterbalancing. If anything. On balance. This is true even among the older members of the European Union. engaged in a long-term military buildup. have produced tensions and negative reactions in the Baltics and other parts of Eastern Europe. not from the west. A version of this essay will appear in Melvyn P. Japan. moreover. At the moment. their hostility to the United States predates the Iraq War and.

is just how tenuous the shift was even before it was thrown off track. Former British Diplomat. . the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. ’04 (Zbigniew Brzezinski. given Russia's relative weakness vis-a-vis China.' an imaginary line that recedes as one walks toward it. and Russia has sponsored an alternative central Asian organisation which does not include China. ’08 (“Are ChinaRussia ties cooling off?” 10-25) There is evidence too of Russian concerns both over the balance within the SCO and that Russia's resource-rich east is being left too close to a rising China. But as a practical matter. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. China's opposition to Russia's action in Georgia should therefore be seen against this backdrop. Researcher at the Centre for East Asian Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. the Europeans. much less stop. 2004. its soft power diplomacy.S.S. resent it. The Chinese and the Russians flirted with a strategic partnership to promote global "multipolarity.foreignaffairs. At no point did the partnership entail any costly commitment or policy coordination against Washington that might have risked a genuine confrontation. More telling. No Risk of a Russia-China Axis Brooks & Wohlforth. Most of the arms in question are legacies of the R&D efforts of the Soviet military-industrial complex. may distrust it. China's economic interests.html) Consider the Sino-Russian "strategic partnership. “THE CHOICE: GLOBAL DOMINATION OR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP”. Neither of these would be forthcoming if China's relations with the United States were antagonistic. Brooks and William C. most of all. as well as China's pragmatic recognition that right now. or NATO analogues. though it is not clear exactly where. The sales partially offset China's backward military technology while helping to slow the decline of Russia's defense industries. ’02 (Stephen G. it needs foreign capital and technology. and especially the French. and it tolerated the US's post-9/11 presence in central Asia. then this implicitly at least encroaches on an area that Moscow has traditionally seen as within its sphere of influence. there is no evidence that Moscow is currently concerned by a military threat from China (or Japan for that matter) in the east. Brzezinski.Russia's arms sales to China -reflects a symmetry of weaknesses. Former Diplomat.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – China/Russia Xue 85/311 Russia and China won’t balance the US – they’ll balance each other out of fear Summers. John’s Hopkins & CSIS. The geopolitics here are different: Nato does not impinge on Russia's eastern borders. Future tension in Central Asia may not be limited to the part that borders Europe. Wohlforth. If one of the purposes of the SCO for Beijing is to enhance its strategic influence in central Asia. In the last year of the twentieth century. few of these systems will long remain competitive with their U. however." a term easily decoded as "anti-hegemony:' Not much came of that. it cannot oppose it directly. Part of this jockeying for strategic influence is the very practical issue of access to the region's rich energy and other natural resources. grandly announced that Europe would shortly acquire "an autonomous global security capability:' The war in Afghanistan quickly revealed this commitment to be reminiscent of the once famous Soviet assertion that the historical victory of Communism "is on the horizon. The last decade has seen occasional attempts at such opposition. Shortly after the Georgian incident. The easy retort to overheated rhetoric about a Moscow-Beijing "axis" would involve pointing out how it failed to slow. famous geostrategist. and given Moscow's paltry R&D budget today. nor what the Chinese response to that statement has been. No Risk of a Russia-China Alliance or Global Alliances Directed To The U. even at times others conspire against it. Russian President Medvedev said that Russia should have a privileged sphere of influence in Asia. rather than the potential of combined strengths. former diplomat. but could apply in a similar way to its eastern periphery. Associate Professor at Dartmouth and Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale." the most prominent instance of apparent balancing to date. 149) The contemporary world may not like American preeminence. and its posited long-term eyeing up of the strategic vacuum in central Asia left by the USSR's demise may at some point in the future prompt some pushback from a Russian government which appears to be looking to grow back into its role as a major global power. but to no avail. http://www. The keystone of the partnership -.org/articles/brooks0702. President Vladimir Putin's geopolitical sprint toward Washington in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. July-August. So any signs of a change in Russian policy towards its periphery do not only have the potential to affect states on its European borders.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 86/311 .

Moreover. with one-time billionaire oligarchs scurrying to the Kremlin begging for relief. However. The ruble has lost two year’s worth of appreciation as anxious citizens. trade and cooperation. but more funds will have to be plowed into business investment and social programs. but Moscow’s problems are systematic and fundamental. Russia’s long-term prospects remain bleak. demographic and health trends can change. Russia has suffered not just a birth dearth. what Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute calls a “great leap backwards. concluding: “Improvements in command. were its abilities limited. too. Last year. Russia’s present financial difficulties are likely to force Moscow to accelerate economic integration with the West. Heretofore abundant foreign exchange reserves have dissipated as oil prices have fallen by more than half and the government has attempted to prop up the ruble. The United Nations figures that Russia’s population is going to drop another 10 million by 2020. Russia could ill afford to use nuclear weapons as a substitute for inadequate conventional forces against any of the countries lining its border. for instance—should its demands not be met. including a substantial number of tactical the dissolution of the Soviet Union.” A declining population will have serious geopolitical consequences as well. Jane’s Strategic Advisory Services recently pointed to weaknesses exposed by the August war. Not only will there be less money available overall. Obviously. As its economy weakens. For instance. Western Europe and the United States never reflected reality. training levels and the employment of flexible. Moscow’s ambitions always were much more limited—ensuring border security and international respect. Economic uncertainty and falling energy prices have combined to deflate Russia’s pretensions of being a great power again. Russia is less able to threaten its neighbors and the West—by cutting off energy shipments. Moscow has a deterrent that would turn any Western response into a dangerous game of geopolitical chicken. Yet relying on nuclear weapons to counter conventional intervention by other nations would be as dangerous for Moscow as for the United States or European states. modern weapons systems are required before the Russian military can face any opponents larger or better equipped than the Georgian military.” Russia’s population was 145 million in 2002. their population is declining. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union. . but the warheads. even before the ongoing economic crunch. adjoining far more populous China. but a sharp rise in mortality rates and drop in life expectancy. He will be loath to risk popular displeasure by allowing the economy to continue sinking.” Moscow’s nuclear force. Economic growth has been the foundation of Vladimir Putin’s popularity. The stock market is down 70 percent from May. Any turnaround likely will take years. despite the nationalistic adrenaline rush following Moscow’s triumph. so recently celebrating their new prosperity. Those are challenging goals under any circumstances. could leave Russia’s expansive eastern territory at risk. then–President Putin issued an updated economic development strategy for 2020. As Eberstadt puts it. Investment rating services are threatening to downgrade Russian debt.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – Russia Russia can’t balance – military sucks. change their savings into dollars and euros. So. which will force the Kremlin to moderate its foreign policy. but fell to 142 million this year. declining revenues will crimp the Kremlin’s plans to sharply enhance its military. is its principal power tool. which envisioned Russia as sporting one of the globe’s five largest economies and acting as an international financial center and technological leader. Its conventional forces have improved over their nadir following Russian military remains no match for that of the United States and only at great cost could Moscow defeat a state with reasonably modern armed forces. Rather. Indeed. and others balance Bandow 08 Robert A. Moreover. not reestablishing the Soviet empire. The image of a new Russian colossus threatening neighbors. but almost certainly will be impossible to achieve without abundant Western investment. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance (“The Russian Hangover” The National Interest Online 10-27) Even then it was obvious that Russia’s Xue 87/311 offensive power was limited. But we need not wait until 2020 for evidence of Russian weakness. “this is not the portrait of a successfully and rapidly developing economy—much less an emerging economic superpower. the relative depopulation of Siberia.

whose economy remains roughly the size of France’s. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development provides the kinds of loans that help build an alternative. and you’ll find. and U. while appearing to be bullied by Russia’s oil-dependent diplomacy. The forced Siberian migrations of the Soviet era are being voluntarily reversed as children move west to more tolerable and modern climes. literally gobbling up. allowing the likes of Boris Berezovsky to openly campaign against Putin. In the coming decades. Xue 88/311 Khanna 8 (Parag.U.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) In exploring just a small sample of the second world. Russia lost its western satellites almost two decades ago. Russia will have to decide whether it wishes to exist peacefully as an asset to Europe or the alternative — becoming a petro-vassal of China. Travel across Russia today. all the while holding the lever of being by far Russia’s largest investor. outright buying and more or less annexing Russia’s Far East for its timber and other natural resources.S. we should start perhaps with the hardest case: Russia. less corrupt private sector from below. also finance and train a pugnacious second-world block of Baltic and Balkan nations. fellow. Its population decline is a staggering half million citizens per year or more. Russia is also disappearing. Privately. far from restoring its Soviet-era might. p. while London and Berlin welcome Russia’s billionaires. http://www. America Strategy Program sr. why is Russia not a superpower but rather the ultimate second-world swing state? For all its muscle flexing. it’s just a matter of time. The E.U. . 1. is staging a long-term buyout of Russia. Apparently stabilized and resurgent under the Kremlin-Gazprom oligarchy. Already during the cold war it was joked that there were “no disturbances on the Sino-Finnish border. plundering. meaning it will be not much larger than Turkey by 2025 or so — spread across a land so vast that it no longer even makes sense as a country. whose activists agitate from Belarus to Uzbekistan. heatless apartment blocks and neglected elderly citizens whose value to the state diminishes with distance from Moscow. city after city of crumbling.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – Russia Russia can’t balance – its headed for disappearance. and Europe.” a prophecy that seems ever closer to fulfillment. 1/27. The more Europe gets its gas from North Africa and oil from Azerbaijan. some E. Filling the vacuum they have left behind are hundreds of thousands of Chinese. the less it will rely on Russia. as during Soviet times.nytimes. officials say that annexing Russia is perfectly doable.

25 a barrel. wrested control of oil and gas pipelines and pushed back against Western encroachment in the former Soviet empire. Russia. But such ambitions are harder to finance when oil is at $74. Iran. For all three nations. Iran and Russia muscled their way onto the world stage. its price as recently as three months ago. Now. Russia Oil prices are dominating oil exporters NYT 08 (“3 Oil-Rich Countries Face a Reckoning” 10-21) Xue 89/311 As the price of oil roared to ever higher levels in recent years. using checkbook diplomacy and. its closing price Monday in New York. plummeting oil prices are raising questions about whether the countries can sustain their spending — and their bids to challenge United States hegemony. oil money was a means to an ideological end. Iran extended its influence across the Middle East. intimidation. on occasion. the leaders of Venezuela. It began rebuilding its military. promoted itself as the leader of the Islamic world and used its petrodollars to help defy the West’s efforts to block its nuclear program. than when it is at $147. which suffered a humiliating economic collapse in the 1990s after the fall of communism. .ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – Venezuela. recaptured some of its former standing in the world. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela used it to jump-start a socialist-inspired revolution in his country and to back a cadre of likeminded leaders in Latin America who were intent on eroding once-dominant American influence.

According to Wohlforth. thus reducing the odds of counterbalancing. including Stephen Walt. Indeed. For Risse. other great powers will soon begin to balance against the United States.6 According to Ikenberry. 2004. as do a number of the other authors.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – Benign Heg Xue 90/311 Other governments don’t counterbalance the US . America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power is a collection of essays. overall. a major theme that recurs in this volume— especially in Ikenberry's own essays—is that the liberal nature of U. In spite of their diverse theoretical perspectives. the realists reach radically different conclusions from one another. Certainly within the Western world. the answer is essentially the same as it was ten years ago: Unipolarity is untenable. These institutions have bound not only America's allies.S. and on the relevance (or irrelevance) of balance of power theory in explaining that order.5 The essays fall into two broad schools of thought. And the postwar. agree that the United States can and generally has prevented counterbalancing from occurring by behaving in a nonthreatening way toward other countries. American-led order has been highly institutionalized. look to international conditions rather than America's domestic norms or institutions for clues as to the future of American hegemony.edu/journals/international_security/v028/28.we’re viewed as benign Colin Dueck. because the United States is simply too powerful to be balanced. At the same time. The result is that it is simply too costly to balance against the United States. The sense of the book. especially when it poses no immediate threat. and even beyond it. uninterested in playing the role of empire.8 Where these elites hold office. have created a security community in which war has become quite literally unthinkable. But he suggests that insofar as America has avoided the fate of other hegemons. is that American hegemony has persisted—at least until now—because of the distinctly restrained and institutionalized nature of American diplomacy.11 Other realist authors in the volume. the authors of these essays are actually in remarkable agreement over the policy implications of their arguments. . the roots of great power peace go even deeper. and Ikenberry introduces and concludes the volume with a lucid pair of essays on the issue of unipolarity. but the United States itself. governments see no reason to counterbalance American hegemony. and Michael Mastanduno. it has been because of the multilateral and self-binding nature of its foreign policy. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Colorado. “New Perspectives on American Grand Strategy: A Review Essay” http://muse.4dueck. America's geographical location also puts it in a uniquely favorable position. The global institutions created by Americans in the 1940s helped to [End Page 199] encourage cooperation and overcome the fear of exploitation on the part of other countries. nor does it attempt to do so. But Ikenberry clearly believes. most of the authors—liberal and realist alike—agree that if the United States acts in an aggressive. Only in China is there a clear case of a major power in which the forces of political liberalism are weak. Boulder. if it follows a more aggressive grand strategy.10 A very different and more convincing realist perspective comes from the essay by William Wohlforth. thus. America Unrivaled is an excellent primer on the sources of today's seemingly unipolar international order. other nations have had less reason to fear American power. unlikely to be too threatening to major European or Asian powers. and it is only amatter of time. They also agree that the United [End Page 200] States will provoke greater resistance and even counterbalancing overseas. although there are important differences within each camp. together with a profound sense of shared values. offering other nations a direct voice in the formation of foreign policy. as articulated by Ikenberry himself. Ikenberry fears that the Bush administration has departed from this tradition of self-restraint. The volume does not explain precise patterns of change and continuity in American grand strategy. According to Owen. Josef Joffe. grand strategy has made American power less provocative or threatening to other nations. transnational liberal elites worldwide identify with the United States and view it as essentially benign.jhu.html#authbio The structural realist post-Cold War prediction was that other major powers would arise and form counterbalancing coalitions against the United States. conditions of deep interdependence. that America's liberal democratic system of government has had a profound impact on the broad contours of American grand strategy. on the subject of how and why this prediction has failed to come true.7 Similar arguments are laid out in essays by John Owen and Thomas Risse. is that the United States should remain engaged overseas. The authors embody a broad range of perspectives. Its political system is open and transparent. for the better. it is precisely international conditions that prevent any balance of power from forming against the United States. unilateralist manner (as the Bush administration supposedly has in Iraq). But interestingly.9 The realist authors in America Unrivaled. the United States has traditionally been a reluctant hegemon. it will undermine the sources of its own success. as in Western Europe and Japan. For Kenneth Waltz. providing a stabilizing role in critical regions and playing the part of benevolent hegemon. The liberal view. predictably. edited by John Ikenberry. Other nations realize the futility of attempting to do so and instead jump on the bandwagon of American hegemony. liberal and realist.

but this has tended to lead more to denunciations (and an absence of cooperation) than outright resistance.. CFR pres. But it has not. for the most part. it surely has.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – Benign Heg No counterbalancing – benign hegemony means other nations don’t perceive a threat. http://www. .org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity. which has not stimulated such a response. Haas 08 (Richard. Doubts about the wisdom and legitimacy of U.S. May/June. foreign policy are pervasive. acted in a manner that has led other states to conclude that the United States constitutes a threat to their vital national interests. Bush has not alienated other nations.foreignaffairs.html) The fact that classic Xue 91/311 great-power rivalry has not come to pass and is unlikely to arise anytime soon is also partly a result of the United States' behavior. This is not to say that the United States under the leadership of George W.

no great-power rival or set of rivals has emerged to challenge the United States.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity. countries such as China may come to possess GDPs comparable to that of the United States. has a shrinking and aging population and lacks the political culture to play the role of a great power. Russia may be more inclined.html) But this has not happened. Japan. http://www. Over time. Although Xue 92/311 anti-Americanism is widespread.foreignaffairs. May/June. . Maintaining political stability during a period of such dynamic but uneven growth will be no easy feat. CFR pres. The EU's GDP is now greater than that of the United States. this is because the disparity between the power of the United States and that of any potential rivals is too great. much of that wealth will necessarily be absorbed by providing for the country's enormous population (much of which remains poor) and will not be available to fund military development or external undertakings.. But in the case of China. Haas 8 (Richard. In part. nor is it able or inclined to act in the assertive fashion of historic great powers. but it still has a largely cash-crop economy and is saddled by a declining population and internal challenges to its cohesion. India faces many of the same demographic challenges and is further hampered by too much bureaucracy and too little infrastructure.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – Capabilities Gap No balancing – disparities in power between the US and other states are too great. for its part. but the EU does not act in the unified fashion of a nation-state.

accordingly. May/June.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – Interdependence No balancing – interdependence makes the cost of disrupting geopolitical order too great. Those interests are closely tied to crossborder flows of goods. investment.. and technology -.html) A further constraint on the emergence of great-power rivals is that many Xue 93/311 of the other major powers are dependent on the international system for their economic welfare and political stability. Integration into the modern world dampens great-power competition and conflict. energy. .flows in which the United States plays a critical role. CFR pres. people. They do not.foreignaffairs. want to disrupt an order that serves their national interests. services. http://www. Haas 8 (Richard.

Sarkozy wants to be able to deploy 30. Sarkozy proposed a complete restructuring and unification of Europe's defense industries." says Tomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform. But unlike his predecessors. Newsweek 8 (6/30. he hopes to be able to finance better intelligence gathering that anticipates threats. The clearest outline of Sarkozy's foreign-policy and defense ambitions came in the speech he delivered to the French military elite last week. http://www. As part of his plan for greater EU defense cooperation both inside and outside NATO. nuclear proliferators. France will prepare for action in what Defense Minister Hervé Morin has called "an arc of crisis going from Mauritania to Afghanistan. Sarkozy has put a lot of new pieces on the board. a vast exchange program for officer training. Instead. which is nonnegotiable. relations with Jerusalem have looked like a love-in. ." Sarkozy wrote in 2006. "The French are realizing that not even they are able to go it alone." Israeli President Shimon Peres told him on a visit in March. lighter military. he's moving them all at once.newsweek.Sarkozy has also made it clear that next year France will rejoin NATO's integrated command structure for the first time since President Charles De Gaulle pulled out of it in 1966. Sarkozy promised that France would remain "a great military power." By slashing the number of soldiers to 225. unlike previous French presidents who tended to worry about the sensibilities of rich Arab tyrants.000 combat forces quickly and efficiently to the far corners of the world while dealing effectively with catastrophic events at home. speaking the week after the Irish voted down the Treaty of Lisbon. He has praised the United States unabashedly. perhaps even a European military college and unified headquarters. and since he took office. "You are a great and positive gush of wind in French politics.com/id/142565) Xue 94/311 The spectacle of Sarkozy's grandstanding as he gets ready for the big parade may be reminiscent of many a French president who struggled to show that he and his country were still relevant players. What they are witnessing may not be a revolution on a par with the storming of the Bastille. and he's breaking precedents the French thought were immutable. and emphasized flexibility in an uncertain world where dangers have become "diverse and ever-changing." and presented collective defense as the key to greater unity. whether from terrorists. cyberwarriors or climate change. and embraced Israel enthusiastically. Rather than manning garrisons left over from colonial days in Francophone Africa. Gone is the geopolitical posturing of French presidents who wanted to act as a counterbalance to American power. Sarkozy telegraphed his contempt for geopolitical game-playing in the style of his predecessors well before his election last year." And with more modern equipment. failed states.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – EU The EU won’t counterbalance the US – France proves. and he is putting the French military back in the business of dealing with threats that really matter.000 over the next halfdozen years and focusing on a smaller. but it is about as radical a change in foreign-policy and national-security doctrine as they've seen in decades. which ceased to be a threat 15 years ago. "All democracies are accountable for Israel's security. in which he shifted priorities away from resisting invasion.

which should facilitate this process of urbanization is simply not there. The first is the deplorable elementary school system in India. The reality is that India cannot find jobs to its rapid growing masses and the majority of these masses is – and will remain – low-skilled and to a large degree illiterates. which means that India is a very “jobless” economy.weblogs. http://kaalhauge. and the lack of a sufficient elementary school-system has make sure that there is no end to the supply of this misery. The much talk about India’s becoming urbanization ignores the fact that the jobs. In other words the job-pattern of the current boom has nothing or little to offer the majority of Indian workers. which is most devastating. when its factories are “more heavily populated by robots than human workers. In other words. the number of women in the workforce in India is record low.. which is in question but the issue regarding its institutional and structural functions). It is true that the new financial budget is allocating more money to the elementary school level but the problem of the elementary school system is entangled in cultural attitudes. the current boom in India is “real” in the sense that a few Indian states and some segments of the population experience real growth. India is increasingly squeezed between its growing masses of unemployed (and underemployed) and its inability to produce the necessary low-skilled labour intensive industries. then it is clear that the solution to the problem hardly comes from the established industry. which really indicates that India seriously is trying to deal with these two cardinal problems. where approximately 13 million is added to the workforce every year. Especially. Xue 95/311 Nielsen 8 (Jens. (It is not the growth. However. this is a problem of the highest cardinal importance. which are created during the current boom. wondered how India would create jobs. The problem is that there is nothing.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – India India can’t balance the US – socio-economic problems prevent it’s ascendence. there are two. it is a play on empty rhetoric. which are strongly needed if the huge unskilled masses in India shall find appropriate employment.asb. which have little other than the noun “India” in common. But the function of this growth will not be an answer for India as a whole and will increasing split India into two radically separated worlds. The second is that the boom has not triggered any major grow of a low-skilled labour intensive industry in India. including the wave of the coming generation of low-skilled workers. Stephen Roach of the Morgan Stanley. So before India begin to dream of racing with China. Naturally. teacher-privileges and fundamental institutional weaknesses and its solutions is not simply a matter of financing. Indeed. in a country. . The relative few jobs. which multiply every year in alarming numbers.D. India is characterized by low labour-elasticity vis-a-vis its growth rate. Generally. India will not be able to establish any sustainable growth before it has solved these fundamental problems. the fraction of Indians in the actual workforce is supposed to have fallen from approximately 34 to 30% (so much for the “demographic dividend”). caste-habits. The current appearance of progress is misleading. poli-sci Ph. it will be well advised to start solving those basic structural problems. once. Jobless India is also a tale of an increased gender-bias. Since more and more Indian factories are increasingly automating. Do not believe in the hype of India’s as the next economic superpower.” Indeed. India is marching down the path of major social conflicts. 2/18.dk/2008/02/18/india-will-rise-%E2%80%93-but-how-far-can-one-rise-on-clay-feet/) The basic problem is that the current boom doesn’t touch on the basic structural fallacies in India. are generally job for higher educated professionals or higher skilled workers. Of these fallacies. The number of main workers out of the total Indian population is constantly falling although the Indian population become younger and younger. which again is reflected in the relative few women who take a higher education in India. which India so far have ignored for the last 60 years. from 1991-2001.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good

Xue 96/311

AT: Counterbalancing – Asia Generic Asia is not countering US leadership Twining 7 (Transatlantic Fellow based in Oxford and New Delhi and concurrently the Fulbright/Oxford Scholar at the University of Oxford. The
Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Washington Quarterly. “America’s Grand Design in Asia”)

U.S. policy seeks to build and bind together friendly centers of power in Asia to help maintain a regional balance that preserves U.S. interests and values as China rises. “We want to encourage the rise of friendly, independent Asian powers, but we also want to bind their interests to ours,” says former National Security Council official Michael Green. The United States is trying to build strength in its Asian partners, not subordinate or contain them in Cold War– type alliance structures in which the United States institutionalizes its own dominance. This policy is attractive to Asian leaders who want to build national capabilities and increase their respective country’s room to maneuver in the emerging Asian order and who recognize that cooperation with the United States to strengthen their economic and military capabilities will accelerate this process, enhance their autonomy, and countervail growing Chinese influence. Yet, U.S. policy rekindles traditional wariness
in India, Indonesia, and Vietnam about perceived U.S. hegemonic designs. Ironically, although U.S. leaders welcome these countries’ determination to protect their autonomy as China rises, thereby helping to preserve a pluralistic Asian security order, their very independence also means that they are wary of U.S. dominance. Nonetheless, the United States values its key Asian partners for their growing strength. As former Indian foreign secretary Shyam Saran notes, “If there is a greater focus today on India in the [United States], it is not because India is weak but because India is strong. We are being recognized as a country which has [an] array of capabilities and has the potential to emerge as a very important power in the future.” Former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi controversially maintained that building Japanese strength within the U.S. alliance would actually improve Tokyo’s relations with Beijing. Washington’s

policy of building new centers of power in Asia is premised on a congruence of interests with states such as India and Japan in strengthening their national capabilities and expanding their security horizons to shape the emerging order of the new century. The United States is not pursuing this design to contain China but to shape its geopolitical options as a country at a “strategic crossroads.” Washington is limiting China’s potential strategic choices by strengthening and cultivating friendly Asian powers along
its periphery that will constrain and constructively channel Beijing’s regional and international ambitions. “It is very useful to remind China,” says one U.S. official, “that there are other emerging powerful countries, such as India, who are setting standards we agree with. This is very different from containment; it is more about encouraging or shaping China’s view of the international system in a constructive way.”

Rising Asian influence doesn’t constrain the US Twining 7 (Transatlantic Fellow based in Oxford and New Delhi and concurrently the Fulbright/Oxford Scholar at the University of Oxford. The
Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Washington Quarterly. “America’s Grand Design in Asia”)

Accelerating the rise of friendly, independent centers of power in Asia may allow the United States to maintain its privileged position within an “asymmetrically multipolar” Asian security order characterized by multiple power centers—China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and ASEAN—that makes it naturally resistant to Chinese domination. Nonetheless, the implications for the United States of trends in Asia are inescapable. Relative U.S. power will wane as China and India rise. “It’s not possible to pretend that [China] is just another player,” said Singapore’s former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, in 1993. “This is the biggest player in the history of man. … The size of China’s displacement of the world balance is such that the world must find a new balance” within a few decades. The United States is pursuing a grand design to shape that new balance in ways that preserve its interests in a pluralistic security order that is dominated by no one regional power and that aligns it increasingly closely with democratic and like-minded centers of strength is a rising Asia.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing – Too Costly

Xue 97/311

Countries won’t balance – no economic capabilities Nye, 08 – Professor at Harvard and Former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government (Joseph “Recovering American Leadership,” Survival, March
2008)

A number of realists have expressed concern about America’s staying power as well. Throughout history,
coalitions of countries have arisen to balance dominant powers, and the search for new state actors that might challenge the United States and shift the balance of power is well underway. Some

see China as the new enemy; others envisage a Russia–China–India coalition. But even if China maintains its high growth rate of 9%, while the United States achieves only 2–3%, China will not equal the United States in per capita income (a measure of the sophistication of an economy) until near the end of the century. In contrast, Germany’s industrial production had surpassed the United Kingdom’s well before open conflict between the two erupted in 1914. Others see India becoming a major challenger to the United States, but despite recent impressive growth, economically India lags behind China, and will have incentives to cooperate with the United States to balance rising Chinese power. Russia is sometimes cited as a great power, but its recent resurgence is based on a single commodity, energy, and it faces serious health and demographic problems. Others see a uniting Europe as a potential federation that will challenge the United States for primacy, but this forecast depends on a high degree of European political unity, a willingness of European populations to spend heavily on defence, and poor conditions in transatlantic relations. While realists raise an important point about the economic rise of new powers in the international arena, their quest to identify traditional challengers who will surpass the United States or form coalitions to balance American military power misses a larger point by ignoring the deeper changes that are occurring in the distribution and nature of power in this century. No counter balancing – countries find it too costly Brooks and Wohlforth, 08 – Associate professor of government at Dartmouth, Professor of government at Dartmouth (Stephen G., William
C., “World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy” Princeton University Press, 22-24) In this chapter, we show that the theory does not predict and historical

experience does not imply there will be efforts to counterbalance the United States today. Balance-of-power theory predicts that states try to prevent the rise of a hegemon. While scholars debate the historical evidence for this proposition, they fail to register a point important for constraints on U.S. power today: Even if a potential hegemon must be concerned about counterbalancing, the theory yields no such implication for one that has already established its material primacy. We argue that once a country achieves such a position, it has passed a threshold, and the effect of increasing power is reversed: the stronger the leading state and the more entrenched its dominance, the more unlikely and thus less constraining are counterbalancing dynamics. Our explanation for the absence of counterbalancing against the United States emphasizes a simple point: counterbalancing is and will long remain prohibitively costly for other major powers. Because no country comes close to matching the comprehensice nature of U.S. power, an attempt to counterbalance would be far more expensive than a similar effort in any previous international system. Matching U.S. capabilities could become even more formidably costly, moreover, if the United States decided to increase its defense
expenditures (currently around 4 percent of GDP) to Cold War levels (which averaged 7.5 percent of GDP). General patterns of evidence since the advent of unipolarity are consistent with our argument and inexplicable in traditional balance-of-power terms. The principal change in alliances since the demise of the Soviet Union had been the expansion of NATO, and the biggest increases in defense spending have been on behalf of the Pentagon. The other great powers have not attempted to constrain the United States by allying together: No

counterhegemonic coalition has taken shape, and none is on the horizon. Nor have they balanced increases in U.S. military power through internal spending. Notwithstanding increased expenditures by a few great powers (notably China), in aggregate their commitments to defense have declined compared to the United States: the U.S. share of total defense spending by the major powers grew from 47 percent in 1991 to 66 percent in 2006. No major power has exhibited any propensity to use military capabilities directly to contain U.S. power. This is not the

ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 98/311 pattern of evidence balance-of-power theory predicts. Were the theory not already popular with scholars and pundits, nothing
about the behavior of the major powers since 1991 would have called it to mind.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Offshore balancing

Xue 99/311

U.S. primacy must continue- Offshore Balancing uniquely fails. Thayer 2006 (Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest, November-December,
“In Defense of Primacy”)

A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power--the diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of primacy and called for retrenchment. (1) Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military, economic and soft power capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. The United States has overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. So the debate revolves around the desirability of maintaining American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action--but they fail to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are reported in newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world, that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a

ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 100/311 physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased. (2) This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Offshore balancing

Xue 101/311

Balancing results in economic collapse and nuclear war. Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War”, Spring
Washington Quarterly) It is possible that in a balance of power system the United States would be in a relatively privileged position as compared to the other great powers. Given the relative distance of the

United States from other power centers, it might be able to mimic the former British role of an offshore balancer. As in the nineteenth century, the United States and other great powers would compete and cooperate to avoid hegemony and
global wars. Each great power would protect its own specific interests and protect common interests cooperatively. If necessary, the United States would intervene militarily to prevent the emergence of a preponderant power. But

there are also several serious problems with this approach. First, there is a real question whether the major powers will behave as they should under the logic of a balance of power framework. For example, would the West European powers respond appropriately to a resurgent
Russian threat, or would they behave as the European democracies did in the 1930s? The logic of a balance of power system might well require the United States to support a non-democratic state against a democratic one, or to work with one undesirable state against another. For example, to contain the power of an increasingly powerful Iran, the United States would have to strengthen Iraq. The United States may, however, be politically unable to behave in this fashion. For example, after the Iraqi victory against Iran in 1988, balance of power logic indicated that the United States should strengthen Iran. However, because of ongoing animosity in U.S.Iranian relations, the nature of Iran's regime, and moral concerns, the United States could not implement such a strategy. There are many other examples. To

expect such action is therefore probably unrealistic. Second, this system implies that the major industrial democracies will no longer see themselves as allies. Instead, political, and possibly even military, struggle among them will become not only thinkable but legitimate. n5 Each will pursue its own economic interest much more vigorously, thereby weakening such multilateral economic institutions as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the liberal world trading order in general. This would increase the likelihood of major economic depressions and dislocations. Third, the United States is likely to face more competition from other
major powers in areas of interest to it. For example, other powers might not be willing to grant the United States a sphere of influence in the Americas, but might seek, as Germany did in World War I, to reach anti-U.S. alliances with Latin American nations. Similarly, as noted above, another great power might decide to support a potential hegemon in the Persian Gulf. Finally, and most important, there

is no guarantee that the system will succeed in its own terms. Its operation requires subtle calculations and indications of intentions in
order to maintain the balance while avoiding war; nations must know how to signal their depth of commitment on a given issue without taking irrevocable steps toward war. This

balancing act proved impossible even for the culturally similar and aristocratically governed states of the nineteenth-century European balance of power systems. It will be infinitely more difficult when the system is global, the participants differ culturally, and the governments of many of the states, influenced by public opinion, are unable to be as flexible (or cynical) as the rules of the system require. Thus, miscalculations might be made about the state of the balance that could lead to wars that the United States might be unable to stay out of. The balance of power system failed in the past, producing World War I and other major conflicts. It might not work any better in the future -- and war among major powers in the nuclear age is likely to be more devastating.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Offshore Balancing Ground presence is key to reassure our allies, sustain global coalitions, and deter potential adversaries. Crane 02 Research Fellow @ Strategic Studies Institute and Former Prof of History @ US Military Academy

Xue 102/311

Conrad C. Crane, FACING THE HYDRA: MAINTAINING STRATEGIC BALANCE WHILE PURSUING A GLOBAL WAR AGAINST TERRORISM, SSI, May Future Army missions like those in Bosnia and Kosovo should not be accepted lightly. However, there will be times even in the midst of the war against terrorism when national interests will require humanitarian assistance, nation-building, and secure peace operations that only American military forces can provide. Effective

and efficient peace-building efforts must remain an important element of any national security strategy. The current situation in Afghanistan highlights again that post-conflict societies can become breeding grounds for
crime and terrorism if some sort of order is not imposed. Influential members of Congress have already called for American peacekeepers there, and major newspapers irrespective of their political inclinations are advocating a significant U.S. role in nation-building. One project they have proposed is the reconstruction of Afghanistan’s ring road, which is so vital to the restoration of trade. This task, especially in such a precarious security environment, is perfectly suited to the capabilities of the U.S. Army and its engineers.27 To prevent peacekeeping assignments from dragging on and tying up scarce assets, the Army and supporting agencies must become better at nation-building. Though the Bush administration, as well as the Army leadership, remain reluctant to accept such a mission, long-term

solutions to create a more stable world will require the United States to perform it. Only the Army not the Air Force, Navy, or Marines can really do it in an environment of questionable security. Success in stabilization operations and strategic success in the war against terrorism will be closely linked because of the
cause-effect relationship that exists between them. The Army should be daunted by and prepare for the responsibilities it might assume to help stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan and other countries after bin Laden and his supporters are rooted out. This effort should be accompanied by the development of appropriate doctrine for such peace-building missions. Though the U.S. burden in these operations can be lessened by relying as much as possible on allied participation, there

is no substitute for the presence of ground forces from the most powerful nation in the world to reassure friends, sustain coalitions, and deter potential adversaries. If stability in a region such
as the Balkans is determined to be a vital American interest, then it cannot be allowed to return to chaos because of the distractions of the war on terrorism. Months before September 11, the Center for Army Analysis predicted the United States would face a future of 25 to 30 ongoing SSCs each month.28 Though it discusses SSCs only briefly, the QDR Report does state DoD will ensure that it has sufficient numbers of specialized forces and capabilities to ensure that it does not overstress elements of the force when it is involved in smaller-scale contingencies. Achieving this goal will require modifying the AC Army force structure, and will almost certainly involve increasing its size. In a recent speech, Rumsfeld admitted that the existence of low-density, highdemand assets that have been so overworked by SSCs signified that our priorities were wrong, and we didn’t buy enough of what we need. He advocated adding them as part of his transformation efforts.29 There is no reason still to have such force shortfalls, and they must be addressed. Major Combat Operations. The

Army must also retain its ability to deter and fight other wars besides the global war on terrorism. Cross-border wars of aggression are not the most likely type of conflict predicted for the future, but they are certainly not impossible and clearly require forces ready to fight them. In fact, it is precisely because U.S. forces are so ready to fight them that they are so unlikely. Even in the war on terrorism, where major ground forces have initially had only limited utility, they will still be essential if operations expand to take on other states that support terrorism and are more robust than Afghanistan. The most powerful military force on the planet remains a joint force based around a heavy corps, and these units must not be allowed to atrophy. Cross border incursions remain a threat in Asia and the Middle East. The Bush administration’s stern warning to Iraq not to take advantage of America’s concentration on terrorism would not be an effective deterrent without the joint force, including landpower, to back it up. The primary focus of the
QDR Report is on dissuading and deterring potential adversaries from threatening the interests of America and its allies, and on winning wars if deterrence fails. The document’s new force-sizing paradigm still envisions swiftly defeating attacks in two theaters of operation in overlapping timeframes, but only one of those campaigns will involve a decisive defeat including the occupation of territory or a possible regime change.30 Combined with the perception of some Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) officials that the campaign in Afghanistan was won by airpower and allies, this new force-sizing construct has the potential to bring calls for a reduction of heavy land combat forces.31 Critics may accept the need to keep such forces for the decisive defeat, but will argue for Army force structure cuts in the allocation for the second conflict. However, the larger Army that fought and won Operation DESERT STORM is already long gone. The current active force is probably too small to fight a major land war against a state like Iraq without even more coalition landpower augmentation than was received in the Gulf War. Additionally, adequate funding must be found to modernize the legacy forces which will have to fight near and mid-term wars.32 And the

paradox of deterrence is that the weaker a nation’s armed forces are perceived to be, the more likely it is to have to employ them. In the long-run, taking risk in this mission area has the most
significant impact on the ability of the United States to protect its interests and achieve the goals outlined in the QDR Report

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Offshore Balancing Fails

Xue 103/311

Troops are key to deter rogue state aggression that will cause conflict and collapse hegemony Kagan 06 Military historian @ West Point, Resident scholar @ American Enterprise Institute
The new approaches that the administration has pursued in the traditional area of nuclear nonproliferation are also leading to disaster. North Korea

has

openly avowed its possession of nuclear weapons--violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty it signed--and is now testing missiles of increasing range on which to place those weapons. The United States has been apathetic and helpless in the face of this growing threat, now made even worse with Pyongyang's recent claim to have
conducted an underground nuclear test. Iran has violated international norms and agreements repeatedly in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. This is a particularly interesting case to test the virtues of new-think against the old. In traditional realpolitik terms, the United States should be in a good position to pressure the Iranians to abandon their program. We have allies on both sides of Iran and hundreds of thousands of troops near both Iranian borders. We should have an enormous advantage. But

the Bush administration does not think in terms of traditional power politics. Instead, we have declared our determination to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible, which, combined with internal collapses in both countries resulting in part from our flawed strategies, have given the Iranians leverage over us. Tehran holds Washington hostage by
threatening to destabilize Iraq further, and the United States responds with fear and appeasement. Past as Future The result of all of this new-think is impending disaster on many fronts. Iraq and Afghanistan are in danger of failing. North

Korea already has nuclear weapons and will soon be able to deploy them against the continental United States. Iran is well on its way to nuclear capability. Somalia is falling into the hands of militant Islamists, and the situation there may well destabilize the entire region. Why are we doing so
badly in the world? The answer is that the world did not change as much in 2001--or in 1991, for that matter--as many observers thought. Our enemies did not, in fact, abandon traditional power politics. Misconceived though it might have been, Saddam Hussein fought a conventional war in 2003. Even Osama bin Laden rallied his terrorists to fight as conventional soldiers in 2001, digging trenches and setting up machine guns as the Taliban lost a lopsided conventional campaign. Iran maintains

a large conventional army, which it has been modernizing as rapidly as possible. So does North Korea. Both are pursuing nuclear weapons in the most conventional way possible--not as terrorist-style suitcase bombs, but as Soviet-style missile-mounted warheads. Far from being impressed by our adoption of novel
strategies--withdrawal from South Korea on the one hand and a small footprint in Iraq and Afghanistan on the other--the Iranians have seized the advantage in a very traditional way. They

have seen that we are bogged down and distracted, that our conventional forces are overstretched, and that the danger of a U.S. attack is therefore very small. Iranian president
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is seizing the moment with traditional diplomatic delaying tactics while his scientists race to give him the weapons he desires. There is absolutely nothing novel in any of this. It is time to wake up from the dream world of the 1990s. If history ended with the end of the Cold War, it has since started up again with a vengeance. Beyond

al Qaeda, the United States today faces a host of traditional challenges. Large conventional militaries in Iran and North Korea support regimes seeking to develop nuclear arsenals. These threats can be deterred or defeated for certain only through the use or convincing threat of using conventional forces, because these regimes recognize no restraints on their behavior other than those imposed by superior power. The seizure of territory in Somalia by
groups ideologically tied to our primary foe is reminiscent of Communist insurgencies in the Third World, which we fought during the Cold War with varying degrees of success. The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan are unusual in some ways, but share common features with many other past insurgencies. Basic lessons from past counterinsurgencies should inform our approach to these challenges. Above all, America's

conventional

military strength remains critical, traditional power politics continue to control the world, and the lessons of thousands of years of human history still apply. In counterinsurgencies, the first requirement of success is the establishment of security throughout the country or region. This task is manpower-intensive and incompatible with a small footprint approach.
Political, economic, and reconciliation tracks are not sustainable without security, as countless historical examples show. Success in Iraq--and Afghanistan--

Military strength and the visible will to use it is also essential to persuading regimes like those in Tehran and Pyongyang to abandon programs they wish to pursue. We have been trying the diplomatic approach, unsupported by meaningful military threat, for nearly fifteen years with North Korea, and the result has been utter failure. A similar approach in Iran will not be more successful. It may not be necessary to attack those two states to force them to give up their weapons of mass destruction programs, but there is no hope of convincing them to do so if they do not believe that we can and will defeat them. Nor is there any likelihood that a "small footprint" (almost a "no footprint") approach in the Horn of Africa will
requires a heavier deployment of U.S. forces with orders not just to train indigenous soldiers, but also to bring peace to those troubled lands. contain the Islamist threat there. The United States is at war, and the enemy is the same one we have been fighting for sixty years. A totalitarian regime controls North Korea. Totalitarian ideologues hold power in Iran, have just seized power in southern Somalia, and seek power throughout the Middle East. Their goals are subtly different, but they share several key features: the destruction of democracy, which they hate; the elimination of liberalism and

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good
religious toleration; and the destruction of the United States.

Xue 104/311 Victory will require a mobilization of America's military

might and the willingness to use it. Adaptive and unpredictable enemies like al Qaeda will require us to change part of our approach and
some of our forces constantly. Winning throughout the Muslim world will require economic, political, and cultural initiatives alongside the use of military power. But nothing

will be possible without adequate military force, which the United States is currently lacking. If we do not begin the necessary mobilization of our resources now, then our military power will become irrelevant, our strategies will fail, and our security will falter

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Internals – Human Rights Leadership Restoring U.S. Human Right’s Credibility is key to sustaining U.S. Leadership Powell, Associate Law Prof., ’08
(Catherine, American Constitutional Society, October) http://www.acslaw.org/files/C%20Powell%20Blueprint.pdf [Abhik])

Xue 105/311

First, human rights principles are at the core of America’s founding values, and Americans (as well as others within our borders or in U.S. custody), no less than others around the world, are entitled to the full benefit of these basic guarantees. That can hardly be open to debate. The second reason is perhaps less obvious, but equally compelling. When the United States fails to practice at home what it preaches to others, it loses credibility and undermines its ability to play an effective leadership role in the world. Leading through the power of our example rather than through the example of our power3 is particularly critical now, at a juncture when the United States needs to cultivate international cooperation to address pressing issues – such as the current economic downturn – that have global dimensions. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, an overwhelming majority of Americans strongly embrace the notion of human rights:

S.S. Just as important.The Bert G. January. the United States needs a two-way flow of goods. “America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century. the United States' edge in this new world is more potential than actual. Foreign Affairs. capabilities Slaughter. attitudes toward immigration must include a recognition that because of their ties to their home countries. 94) At the moment. Part of changing U. regularize the status of the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the United States. services. as part of overhauling its educational system. immigrants are potential engines of economic growth. where such programs have traditionally been lacking. The country will face a vast amount of work in digging itself out of the many holes it has gotten itself into. and increase the number of visas for the world's most talented individuals. Spanish.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Internals – Immigration reform Immigration reform is key to sustaining U. Instead of a one-way. and other foreign languages as . and people. Second. assuming they keep their U. passports. Government programs and private initiatives should encourage them to study abroad in the countries of their parents or grandparents and. Hindi.” p. Indeed. huge assets. the United States must adopt comprehensive immigration reform that will make it easier for immigrants and guest workers to move across borders. New economic policies could offer subsidies or tax incentives to immigrants who create businesses based on connections they have cultivated to markets and talent in their home countries. outgoing flow of remittances. Kerstetter '66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. organizations such as the BrownBell Foundation promote opportunities to study abroad for students at historically black colleges and universities. Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. the United States must see the children of immigrants who grow up learning Arabic. A networked world requires a genuinely networked society. Mandarin. Princeton.S. the United States must come to see overseas study as an essential asset for all Americans. In the process. which means fostering economic and social equality. ’09 Xue 106/311 (Anne-Marie Slaughter. the United States must adopt five policies and postures that will seize on its edge and sharpen it.February 2009. First. to gain dual citizenship. Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton. both at home and abroad.

and we used to be . And I want to add . 390-1) But there is another reason why it is important that we do something about poverty in America. A world where everyone says. Senator. And we react. But you cannot lead simply by being powerful. and that we patriotically about something other than war. We can demonstrate who we are at home by not turning our backs on millions of our own people who live in poverty. It is right in front of us. and they want to know: "What are you going to do about it? Are you actually going to do something about it?" I saw a publication overseas right after the hurricane hit. Race & Justice. we see Russia going from a democracy to an autocracy. what our priorities are. This is not a feel-good thing. “Restoring the American Dream: Fighting Poverty and Strengthening the Middle Class p.it is not specifically on topic. We are the preeminent power in the world today. Journal of Gender. the Lord's Resistance Army . We did not use to be the country of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.the entire world saw it. And you do not have to take my word for this . You have to have the moral authority to lead. except us. the resistance army. It is not enough. You look at what is happening in the world today. It is no secret. We are the only superpower. but you have to be something else. Between one and two million people are housed in less-thanhumane camps in northern Uganda." When an earthquake hits. Over the last five or six years. it is the last six years. in the richest nation on the planet. then people in other countries will not rally around us. in a safe world. Here is their reaction: "How can it be. If you want your children to grow up in a safe America. shining example. A world where we are the place everyone looks to. that those conditions existed in New Orleans? What are you going to do about it?" If we actually want to be the model for the rest of the world. like the Hezbollah fighting the Israelis that I mentioned a few minutes ago or Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon. because the world knows about it now.a great name and forced to kill their parents and their brothers and sisters.and you know it. The same man is doing everything in his power to get a nuclear weapon. All of this is happening right in front of us.it is clear. The United States declares it a genocide and does nothing.S. This genocide continues to go on in Darfur and western Sudan. What is so important for us to understand as a nation is that we are the most powerful nation on this planet. They will not.S. There will be lots of children born in Africa with AIDS because . We have so many opportunities to show who we really are. Leadership Edwards." If we want to be the country that represents the model for the rest of the world . What do we do about the millions of Americans who are living in poverty? What do we do about the forty-six. You have to be the nation that the rest of the world looks up to.they are the ones that come to the rescue of the downtrodden.then we have to demonstrate what we care about. If anything demonstrates this. We were the country that everybody looked up to and respected. There has been a civil war for twenty years. The President of Iran. ’07 Xue 107/311 (Senator John Edwards. They know about it. We go to the United Nations Security Council. as the most powerful nation on the planet. There is no natural leader in the world. going before the United Nations to denounce the United States. the most powerful nation on the planet. But we have lots of chances around the world to show what the character of the United States is.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Internals – Poverty Eliminating Poverty is crucial to and sustaining effective U. We need to be willing to act patriotically about what is good for our country and not just out of selfinterest. I do a lot of traveling these days. and everybody knows what happened on the Gulf Coast all around the world. The Hezbollah fighting the Israelis and Hamas launching missiles out of Gaza into Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.look at what is happening on your television screens today. The North Koreans are testing nuclear weapons and testing missiles. which I just came back from. but people do not rally around the United States of America. U. here comes the United States. You have to be powerful. The headline read "The Shaming of America. then we have to do something about poverty in America. You look at every single crisis. care about humanity.if we want to be the light . That is who we are at our best. there is no leadership. then you want to live in a world where America is the great. They wanted to be like the United States of America. They wanted to be like the American people. And when they do not. "The United States of America . You have to be moral and just. and it had pictures of victims of the hurricane from the Lower Ninth Ward. the picture coming out of New Orleans? You are not the only ones who saw it . to try to get consensus.and we used to be the light . America is better than this . has an extraordinary humanitarian crisis. Spring 2007. Kids are being abducted and forced into the military. but it fits into the bigger context of how all these things are connected . nearly forty-seven million people who do not have health care coverage? Our actions demonstrate to the world what we care about. Uganda. That picture that you saw on your television screens. And when we do not show that we care not only about ourselves but that we actually.

The world needs to see our better side. It is not hyperbole to say that the future of the world is at stake. There are dangerous human beings. In a very selfish way. will the rest of the world rally around the United States of America?" Because they believe in us. when crises occur. and we turn our backs. We are better than this. and there are dangerous nation-states. You do not need me to say it. it matters to us. And you know it. The question is: "When bad things happen. we know what is going on. Will Xue 108/311 their mothers cannot afford a four dollar dose of medicine. because they believe in what we represent . How can we let that happen? How can we call ourselves moral and just and allow that to happen? Right in front of us. There are extremists in the world. . because it is. there always be people who denounce us? Of course. It is not right.both what we do at home and what we do in the rest of the world? There is an awful lot at stake. and it matters to us.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good You know it. That is not the question.

S. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor.S. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies. however. as the United States is learning. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world. hegemony and the economy – Asia is catching up now Segal. this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping. For the last five decades.html) The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U. the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. aerospace. and advanced materials used in semiconductors.S. and the Internet. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. lead. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers. Through competitive tax policies. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. South Korea.S. Today. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U. Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.org/20041101facomment83601/adamsegal/is-america-losing-its-edge. the personal computer. biotechnology. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Internals – Competitiveness Xue 109/311 Competitiveness key to sustaining U. But this won't be easy. and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel. and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. supplying. other countries merely followed the U. to keep its privileged position in the world. increased investment in research and development (R&D). http://www. developing. U. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. . and many other types of manufacturing. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China. Singapore. Indeed.foreignaffairs. “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004. ’04 (Adam.S. and Taiwan is rising. Foreign Affairs.

S. The ability to deploy . reorganized its overseas equipment prepositioned. When the system was approved --. Army cited the system as being critical to the success of the 1990-1991 "Desert Shield-Desert Storm operation (the U. The capacity of the U. Air Force. A Strong Infrastructure system is crucial to rapid troop deployment and hegemony FHA. The military has reduced its size. and Marine Corps. As a consequence. The range of size and scope for deployments is discussed. This illustrates the fact that the interstate highway system continues to play an important role in national defense.htm) The U. Within a State with major military installations. even in the post-Cold War era. the role of advisory systems and implications for military deployment are presented. which provided rapid and effective movements of a military division when difficulties with a rail line precluded the planned transport by rail.[1] Strategic mobility and readiness are keys to the military’s ability to project power worldwide. no constituent nation of the late Soviet Union has begun to develop such a comprehensive surface transportation system. and more deployable. In the post-communist world. more versatile.publicpurpose. and Jean Love editor of comprehensive public policy manual June 1996 http://www. ports of embarkation was key to successful deployment. and Love editor of comprehensive public policy manual. America's strategic advantage in effective surface transportation was unchallenged. The interstate highway system effectively performs that function. and the capabilities required for full-spectrum dominance have guided the military's transformation from a forward-deployed Cold War force to a capabilities-based. power-projection force located largely in the United States.A.S. http://ops. 3-27 (Federal Highway Administration.A. which may regularly affect the planning and operations for State Departments of Transportation (SDOT).dot. such as those with power projection platforms (PPP). “Introduction to Current Military Deployment Concepts”.fhwa. but perhaps more importantly. This chapter provides a broad overview of current military doctrine and policies relevant to military deployments on public roads. Each of the military services—Army. Throughout the Cold War (and even to today). L. with greater definition of roles and responsibilities to be examined in chapter 2.S. An understanding of the evolving international environment. led operation to free Kuwait from Iraq): Much of the success of the operation was due to our logistical ability to rapidly move troops to the theater.S. The U.S.com/freeway1. including preferred travel modes and recent lessons learned. Navy. The Army also noted the "modal redundancy" of the highway system. redistributed its forces. The U. Finally. County Transportation Commission member and chair of national committees on energy conservation and urban transit planning. all States are experiencing increased cross-State movements of military assets with destinations beyond State borders.gov/publications/fhwahop05029/chapter_1. But the interstate highway system continues to play a critical role. ’96 Wendell Cox L. which represents 75 percent of network mileage. National Guard. and Coast Guard counterparts—has made great strides in implementing the specific recommendations of the congressionally mandated 2001 Mobility Requirements Study and more recent findings from Operations Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Iraqi Freedom (OIF) as well as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). the national security strategy. closed and realigned bases. military has changed significantly to meet the challenges of our uncertain world.htm#intro One of the principal reasons for building the interstate highway system was to support national defense. it may be tempting to underestimate the role of the interstate highway system in national defense. current deployment strategies may require 24x7 operations with enhanced security for increased equipment and personnel movements. highway system to support the mobilization of troops and to move equipment and forces to U. its availability provides the nation with a potential resource that could have been reliably called upon if greater military conflict had arisen. Even today. national security dictated development of an efficient national highway system that could move large numbers of military personnel and huge quantities of military equipment and supplies. County Transportation Commission member and chair of national committees on energy conservation and urban transit planning.during one of the most instable periods of the Cold War.S. The major agencies and organizations are introduced.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Internals – Highways Xue 110/311 Transportation Infrastructure key to effective mobilization of troops – independently key to Heg Cox. Increased deployment activity has become the normal operational standard within the continental United States. military's Strategic Highway Corridor Network (STAHNET) relies primarily on the interstate highway network. March 27th 2009. and improved active and reserve component integration to become leaner. as well as their component Reserve.

Appendix B provides detailed information about the military's organization of convoys and standard highway procedures for convoys.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 111/311 equipment and personnel rapidly is an imperative of the national military strategy. and aerial ports of embarkation or to designated locations within the United States. either driven by military personnel or consigned to commercial carriers. Figure 1 illustrates a typical use of DoD X-cars. creating additional shortfalls in rail capacity. That strategy expects the military to defend the homeland. the special rail cars used for transporting military assets ("X-cars") were not always available in convenient locations. it organizes the equipment into convoys for control and protection. operational and capacity shortfalls required truck carriers to complete the deployment mission. some States with PPPs became concerned about regional and local roadway congestion and extended hours of operation involving greater than average volumes. the Department of Defense has established an objective of being able to deploy to a theater within 10 days sufficient combat power to defeat an enemy during the next 30 days and be ready for the next fight within another 30 days. To assist the military services in their planning and better prepare for future operations. shipment volumes of military assets from military installations through the nation to strategic seaports increased 29 percent. some military installations did not have rail accessibility but needed to move assets. Also. Military units use various methods to move equipment and personnel to seaports. and conduct a limited number of small operations. some equipment must be deployed on public roads. Key to meeting these deployment goals is the capability of units to move rapidly from their installations to land. logistical and operational issues in selected regions of the country prevented certain equipment from moving by rail. Implied in these missions is the requirement to deploy forces within the United States and from the United States to anywhere in the world. During the spring of 2003. . Heavy equipment usually will be shipped by rail. the increase in truck volume was greater than 15 percent because vehicles were traveling from multiple States to a designated port within a State. however. While rail operations were generally successful. resulting in the addition of commercial carriers on the public roadways. While most rail carriers accommodated the increased demand for their services between military installations (with rail connections) and ports. Consequently. sea. When the military uses public roads. For example. This increase created a 15 percent increase in required truck capacity just for military needs. to arrive at the seaport on specific dates and times for loading onto ships. deter aggression in four regions of the world. Rail carriers experienced similar volume increases. Insights from OIF highlight the dynamic and changing nature of military deployment needs.[2] For certain States with destination ports. swiftly defeat adversaries in two other conflicts.

During the Cold War.dll/article?AID=/20071216/NEWS08/712160370/1025/NEWS) The world is dissatisfied with American leadership. the United States deterred Soviet aggression through investments in hard power. defense spending is actually well below Cold War levels.In fact. Shocked and frightened after 9/11.S. we demean our character and moral standing. U. not diminishing it. but it is not too late to change. too many people have confused sharing the burden with relinquishing power.. By complementing U. when we let others help. This is a deliberately set trap. They hope we will blunder.. as well as our ability to use economic and military might.S. leadership.More broadly. overreact and turn world opinion against us. But the United States cannot stay on top without strong and willing allies and partners. Since 9/11. and it will probably remain so for years to come. This fearful approach has hurt the United States' ability to bring allies to its cause. The Tennessean. ’07 Xue 112/311 (Richard L. But an extra dollar spent on hard power will not necessarily bring an extra dollar's worth of security. It is about developing a strategy that balances our hard (coercive) power with our soft (attractive) power. The nation should embrace a smarter strategy that blends our "hard" and "soft" power — our ability to attract and persuade.The United States has long been the big kid on the block. U." So the United States used its soft power to rebuild Europe and Japan and to establish the norms and institutions that became the core of the international order for the past half-century.S. We cannot allow Cuba's Guantanamo Bay or Iraq's Abu Ghraib to become the symbols of American power. engagement with the world. security threats are no longer simply military threats.-developed technology can make Chinese coal cleaner. even after having been worn down from years of war. Smart power is not about getting the world to like us. no matter how individually tragic and collectively painful. groups such as al-Qaeda pose no existential threat to the United States — unlike our old foes Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. but neither can we remain stuck in a narrow post-9/11 mindset that alienates much of the world. We call this smart power.com/apps/pbcs. In a changing world. former assistant secretary of defense. The U. U. deterring Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Whether it is ending the crisis in Pakistan. those who alienate potential friends stand at greater risk. http://tennessean. not one that reflected the more traditional American values of hope and optimism. we put forward an angry face to the globe. States and nonstate actors can better address today's challenges when they can draw in allies. but U. The Cold War ended under a barrage of hammers on the Berlin Wall rather than a barrage of artillery across the Fulda Gap . Washington can build the framework to tackle tough global challenges. But its staying power has a great deal to do with whether it is perceived as a bully or a friend. China is building two coal-fired power plants each week. the United States needs a broader. military and economic strength with greater investments in soft power.S. when our words do not match our actions. and one whose grave strategic consequences extend far beyond the costs this nation would suffer from any small-scale terrorist attack. becoming the central focus of U. 26 "to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use `soft' power and for better integrating it with 'hard' power. remember that Defense Secretary Robert Gates used a major speech on Nov. The past six years have demonstrated that hard power alone cannot secure the nation's long-term goals. leaders also realized that "the nature of the conflict required us to develop key capabilities and institutions — many of them non-military. Lest anyone think this approach is weak or naive. tolerance and opportunity. we are extending U. more balanced approach. the war on terrorism has shaped this isolating outlook. Deputy Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005 and Joseph S.S. But unless they have weapons of mass destruction.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Internals – Soft Power Soft power is key to sustaining Heg Armitage & Nye. as a percentage of gross domestic product. military remains the best in the world.S. We will have to invest in people and materiel to maintain current levels of readiness. one Democrat — have devoted our lives to promoting American pre-eminence as a force for good in the world. “Time for Smart Power”.S. teaches political science at Harvard.S. Over the past six years. al-Qaida and its ilk hope to defeat us by using our own strength against us.After all. influence. managing China's rise or improving the lives of those left behind by globalization. the United States should become a smarter power by once again investing in the global good — by providing things that people and governments want but cannot attain without U. But as Gates noted late last month. winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.S. hard power will do little to curb this trend. The threat from terrorists with global reach is likely to be with us for decades. We cannot lecture others about democracy while we back dictators. We cannot denounce torture and waterboarding in other countries and condone it at home." We — one Republican. We cannot return to a nearsighted pre-9/11 mindset that underestimated the al-Qaida threat. which helps the environment and opens new markets for American industry. In fact. they cochaired the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Commission on Smart Power.

Xue 113/311 .ICWest 09-10 Heg Good precisely because of this integrated approach.

So long as Americans elect leaders who believe it is the role of the United States to improve the world and bring about the “ultimate good.” 4 They have been impatient with the status quo. They spring from the nation ’s historical experience and are a characteristic American response to international circumstances. absent some dramatic — indeed. American presidents of both parties have pursued a fairly consistent approach to the world. on the other hand.” there is not a single administration in the past half-century that has not attempted to engineer changes of regime in various parts of the world. by the oas.”10 and so long as American power in all its forms is sufficient to shape the behavior of others. Leffler to John Lewis Gaddis have shown.html#n10)] The first illusion. and they have employed the strategies and tactics of “maximalism. by some of the nato allies. regardless of party. 7 And as policymakers and philosophers from Henry Kissinger to Michael Walzer have agreed. it is impossible in the present era to renounce such actions a priori. They have operated on the ideological conviction that liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government and that other forms of government are not only illegitimate but transitory. or by any other international body. is that Bush really changed anything. which John F.8 As for “regime change. the promotion of democracy and “regime change”. They have regarded the United States as the “indispensable nation”2 and the “locomotive at the head of mankind.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Bad Inevitable Xue 114/311 Their heg-bad arguments are irrelevant when we control the uniqueness debate – history proves that the United States has and will always trigger the link to their heg bad arguments by being neocons Kagan 07 Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [Robert “End of Dreams. by old beliefs and ambitions and.”3 They have amassed power and influence and deployed them in everwidening arcs around the globe on behalf of interests. a “preponderance of power” in the world rather than a balance of power with other nations. by power. however. to seek “democratic enlargement” in the world. the idea of preemptive or preventive action is hardly a novel concept in American foreign policy. They are underpinned. the effort by a future administration. Therefore. Historians will long debate the decision to go to war in Iraq. and ambitions. 6 It is worth asking not only whether past administrations acted differently but also which of these any future administration. ideals.” seeking revolutionary rather than gradual solutions to problems. would promise to abjure in its conduct of foreign policy. genuinely revolutionary — . And if by unilateralism we mean an unwillingness to be constrained by the disapproval of the un Security Council. bear any burden” to defend freedom.org/publications/p. Since the end of World War ii at least. but what they are least likely to conclude is that the intervention was wildly out of character for the United States. both tangible and intangible. They have declared their readiness to “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation” by forces of oppression. Kennedy attempted to carry out.. which presidents of the past allowed themselves to be so constrained? These qualities of American foreign policy reflect not one man or one party or one circle of thinkers. Since 1945 Americans have insisted on acquiring and maintaining military supremacy.hoover. As scholars from Melvyn P. Return of History” Policy Review (http://www. from Eisenhower ’s cia-inspired coups in Iran and Guatemala and his planned overthrow of Fidel Castro. to George Herbert Walker Bush ’s invasion of Panama to Bill Clinton’s actions in Haiti and Bosnia. and a diplomacy tending toward “unilateralism. broad direction of American foreign policy is unlikely to change. they generally refer to three sets of principles — the idea of preemptive or preventive military action. They have seen America as a catalyst for change in human affairs.” a willingness to act without the sanction of international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council or the unanimous approval of its allies.. they have often been at odds with the more cautious approaches of their allies. to “pay any price. on the one hand. 5 When people talk about a Bush Doctrine.512. and to work for the “end of tyranny.

"We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom. Personally." We must build societies with "a strong legislature. from Djibouti to Kandahar. everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States. ." Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort." not only "to protect ourselves . I like it. you say. He wants the American military to "stay on the offense." In Moscow and Beijing it will confirm suspicions about America's inherent hegemonism. who even in the 1990s complained about the bullying "hyperpower. and an honest police force. is ta ught to build and not to destroy. he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -unilaterally if necessary. It had a deliberate New Frontier feel. without a trace of John Mearsheimer. All right." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." Make every effort? Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.. halt the proliferation of deadly weapons" and fight disease. . Surely he understands there is no military answer to terrorism. . Rather. you're thinking. the rule of law." We must "begin the world anew. ." We must build up "the capacity of the world's weakest states" and provide them "what they need to reduce poverty. build healthy and educated communities. to $50 billion. develop markets. "We cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child. Surely he intends to cut or at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500 billion a year. Obama proposes to double annual expenditures on these efforts. by 2012." The "security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people. if only we restore our worthiness to lead. .." Realists. a more limited and modest view of American interests. . Barack Obama Xue 115/311 put an end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism. He wants to add 65. we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others. It's not just international do-goodism.washingtonpost." and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." "hostile dictators.com/wp-dyn. There is more to building democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box. "I agree.000 troops to the Army and recruit 27. a vibrant civil society. everywhere.042702027. Obama talks about "rogue nations. Okay. To Obama. best-equipped military in the world. generate wealth . fight terrorism . but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power." No one speaks of the "free world" these days." you probably expected him to distance himself from this allegedly discredited idealism. Obama's speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week was pure John Kennedy. but at least he wants us to lead by example. an independent judiciary. Obama wants to increase defense spending. capabilities and responsibilities." but also to protect "our vital ia It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened. When he said. Actually. a free press.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Bad Inevitable Obama will continue to intervene as a hegemon Kagan 7 Robert Kagan Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace “Obama the Interventionist” (http://www. when we are attacked. ." Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense. Instead." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest. But Obama believes the world yearns to follow us." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy? .html) America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.000 more Marines. including some Kennedy-era references ("we were Berliners") and even the Cold War-era notion that the United States is the "leader of the free world. ." With those words. . not by meddling everywhere and trying to transform the world in America's image. Why? To fight terrorism. call your doctors. he said." His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough." "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent. and Obama's insistence that we not "cede our claim of leadership in world affairs" will sound like an anachronistic conceit to many Europeans.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 116/311 .

Knowing that American hegemony will end someday does not mean that we should welcome or facilitate its demise. ISBN 0415952034. The issue is how much participation is right. perversely. rather than to remain passive. This argument is based on its prodigious economic. Associate Professor of Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. thus far the United States recognizes it is much better to be involved so that it may shape events." American Empire: A Debate. Offshore balancing incurs the risks of primacy without its benefits. You strive to live as long as possible although you realize that it is inevitable that you will die. International politics is a dangerous environment in which countries have no choice but to participate. Offshore balancing increases the probability of conflict for the United States. Americans and most of the world should welcome American primacy and work to preserve it as long as possible. Like good health. Thayer. Associate Professor of Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. threaten the security and safety of the American people. the United States is able to defeat its enemies the world over. Due to this power. and it must strive to maintain its advantages in international politics as long as possible. That is simply a fact of life in international politics. . "The Case For The American Empire. what it will defend. and that it will be involved in disputes. The fact that hegemony will one day end is not a reason to accelerate its decline – Layne is wrong about the sustainability and desirability of primacy.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good A/T: Off Shore Balancing Xue 117/311 Primacy is comparatively superior to off-shore balancing—Layne's grand strategy would prompt global conflict. In contrast to Layne’s argument. no matter how grudging it may be at times. and its allies secure. and military power. It raises the danger that the interests of the United States will be challenged not only from foes like China and Iran. which weakens our credibility and invites challenges to the interests of the United States. 104) Each country knows it will never be perfectly secure. p. ISBN 0415952034. However. Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. but. it is also the best because every other grand strategic “alternative” is a chimera and can only weaken the United States. Accordingly. Published by Routledge. and introduce great peril for the United States and for other countries. Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. It pledges that the United States will defend its interests with air power and sea power. and to dissuade states from challenging it. maximizing the power of the United States aids its ability to defend itself from attacks and to advance its interests. ideological. Thankfully. its interests. p. The United States should labor to maintain hegemony as long as possible—just as knowing that you will die someday does not keep you from planning your future and living today. having events shaped by other countries. but that does not detract from the necessity of seeking security. Thayer. but not land power. That is curious because we could defend our interests with land power but choose not to. From this power also comes respect and admiration. ’07 (Bradley A. to reassure its allies. 2007. also from countries now allied with the United States like Japan and Turkey. These advantages keep the United States. rather the reverse. other countries have to respect the interests of the United States or face the consequences. Any involvement—from the extensive involvement of the United States to the narrow activity of Switzerland—in this dangerous realm runs the risk of a backlash. 116-117) There is no viable alternative grand strategy for the United States than primacy. Published by Routledge. suggesting our threat to defend is not serious. both great and small. and then adjusting to what they desire. Thayer. A large part of what makes primacy such a success is that other countries know where the United States stands. "The Case For The American Empire. Thayer. ’07 (Bradley A." American Empire: A Debate. 2007. Primacy is the best and most effective means to maintain the security and safety of the United States for the reasons I argued in chapter 1.

and probably could never be powerful enough. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to predominance. In the Middle East there is Iran. this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. postmodern view that power is passé. as an emerging great power on the world scene. the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev. but it is clearly engaged in competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself. conducting themselves wisely. and because of its size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations.org/publications/policyreview/8552512. correctly. from a liberal perspective. http://www. hence their with the superpower for global influence. they believe power. is moved by more traditional great-power considerations. too. Nevertheless. As Aaron Friedberg commented. Russian foreign policy. The choice is not between an American-dominated order and a world that looks like the European Union. Compared to the ideal Kantian international order. it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great powers. 17 Its nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian territory from attack by the United States. the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia. blend of national resentment and ambition. But it also looks like Asia's past. also shared by Americans. and this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political component. It is being driven by a typical. like all other nations. 16 Russia's complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. however. is a good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less. The return of great powers and great games If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world.with its pacifist constitution and low defense spending -. prudently. American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world. the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. that status and honor. including military power. The United States is not immune to error. The leaders of a post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing. It inspires fears and jealousies.now appears embarked on a more traditional national course. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign international configuration of power.hoover. Japan. “End of Dreams. Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world. During the Cold War. the United States has not been powerful enough.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good 1AC – Heg Good U. and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world. would not insist on predominant influence over its "near abroad. would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception. Since the end of the Cold War.S hegemony solves extinction --. Moscow. for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others value. and Washington. the East Asian future looks more like Europe's past than its present. Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about North Korea’s nuclear weapons. both with the United States and with each other. which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power -. Senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. 9-07.” Stanford University Policy Review. and in strict obeisance to international law. and typically Russian. indeed. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity. therefore. to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. It stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous world. ‘07 Xue 118/311 (Robert Kagan. Return of History. it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. They do not share a European." and would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia’s international status in [is] an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the Great.multiple scenarios Kagan. It is also comparatively benevolent. in which all the world 's powers would be peace-loving equals. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration into the new European order. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from NATO and the United States. looks more like something from the nineteenth century. National ambition drives China's foreign policy today. senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult. India 's regional ambitions are more muted. and not just wealth and security. meanwhile. the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national identity than with plausible external military threats. One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea. But Russia. Like the Americans. since none of the large powers is in range of competing several large powers are now competing for regional predominance. are important for a nation. now two-decades-long military buildup and modernization. is once again worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. or are focused most intently on Pakistan. like China and Japan. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise. which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. Even the . including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect.html) This is a good thing. with a long unhappy history as a pawn between the two powers.

including al Qaeda. Nationalism in all its forms is back. until recently. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. to wield political and economic influence as an antidote to militarism. that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide swath of the Middle East and beyond. and a desire for honor. Democratic and Republican. it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. Central Asia. That could make wars between them less likely. French. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger and often oppressive outside powers. too. they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. Armed embargos. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere. that great geopolitical miracle. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union. whether for practical or idealistic reasons. This was its goal after the Second World War. Europe. however distant and one hopes unnecessary. would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism. such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 119/311 European Union. a humiliation of which Israel has become the living symbol. however. and the leaders of radical Islam. China had its "century of humiliation. and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a safe supranational direction." Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on. and particularly on a dominant America which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst. Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia. Once having entered a region. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. Islamists have a yearning for respect. and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it. and the Caucasus. but even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee. owes its founding to American power. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying -. the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East. which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the dominant liberal West. and since the end of the Cold War. In a genuinely multipolar world. influence. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power. is more of a traditional than a postmodern power. Like national movements elsewhere. and the Caucasus. they generally prefer their global place as "No. The United States. For instance. In a more genuinely multipolar world. Islam is not a nation. and status. and so is international competition for power. Central Asia. to be the keeper of the global conscience. of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. if it ever went away. Most Europeans recoil at the thought. including self-respect. Even when the United States engages in a war. or it could simply make them more catastrophic. and destructiveness. there is the United States itself. Europeans seek honor and respect. Central Asia. the Western Hemisphere. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. the Middle East. with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia. and it has become the vehicle for channeling German. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations. but of a postmodern variety. expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the world. it would not. They believe the order the world . The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world. Finally. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers.its regional as well as its global predominance. to exercise moral authority. honor. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia. beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years. in its way. and now. and to be recognized and admired by others for playing this role. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. increasingly. intensity. of the kind used in World War I and other major conflicts. that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. liberal and conservative. the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope. too. and with Russia in Eastern Europe.

even if it remained the world's most powerful nation -. and Europe. China. with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity. But that’s not the way it works. practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region. It is shaped by configurations of power. If the United States withdrew from Europe -. could draw in other great powers. "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. The current order. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions.this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors. a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. nationalist Japan. as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. and especially since the end of the Cold War. But even China. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious. would produce its own kind of order. paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. India. This is especially true in East Asia. and comity in the Middle East. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. too. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. independent. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive. They imagine Xue 120/311 that in a world where American power was diminished. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region. That is certainly the view of most of China 's neighbors. and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe. obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. both on the seas and on the ground. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War II. which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace. of course. . Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible.could be destabilizing. In Europe. These. the United States. is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world 's great powers. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West. which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. stability. the departure of the United States from the scene -. That commitment. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia.if it adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore balancing" -. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. too.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good enjoys today exists independently of American power. including the United States. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel. A different configuration of power.

Iranian expansionism and subsequent Middle East conflict. This is why all their hackish alternatives and inevitability arguments are wrong Even if the alternative to hegemony is better Kagan indicates that the withdraw of the U.S. by increasing U.S. from the international order would create a global power vacuum and transition wars that will result in extinction And in the event that Heg does collapse. hegemony will lead to Wars in Asia due to competition by Japan and China. Russian expansionism and subsequent European war.’s naval superiority is critical to keep trade root opens and this in turn is key to the economy. by maintaining both soft power and hard power we ensure that we can quell violent conflicts efficiently and diplomatically – That’s Armitage and Nye in ’07 . soft power we solve for all their offense because the root cause of all their turns are other countries disliking the U. interventionism is inevitable because as one of the world’s largest nations we need resources – This is empirically proven by the gulf war. [Soft Power Only] Their indicts of our heg advantage isn’t specific to our type of heg.S. and Proliferation due to a lack of U. A collapse of trade because the U. for being a bully. guaranteeing extinction Kagan indicates that a lack of U. the U.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good 2AC Heg Outweighs Overview Xue 121/311 Hegemony has existed for the past FIFTY years – means all of your impacts are empirically denied U. Indian expansionism and South Asia War.S. presence in the international order. will latch onto its hegemonic power and lash out during the transition to any alternatives to the status quo.S.S.S.S.

Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic development in the early . the fledgling Caspian republics are plagued with pervasive corruption. lexis) Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U. and narcotics -. these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. they will remain vulnerable to Russia's hegemonic impulses. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services. political. PhD.are in fact many times greater than those of the North Sea and should increase significantly with continuing exploration.S. in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult. which is now valued at more than $10 billion. Iran to the south. a former adversary in Russia. Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. terrorists. It would endanger not only Russia’s neighbors. but for peace. and its allies.from infrastructure to telecommunications to transportation and other services -. it should encourage the construction of multiple pipelines to ensure diverse and reliable transportation of Caspian energy to regional and international markets. Heritage Foundation. Iran. With few exceptions. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. and the virtual absence of the rule of law. Russian imperialists. U. Moreover. companies and their shareholders. and security. political repression. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region. a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. The proven and possible energy reserves in or adjacent to the Caspian region -. and Afganistan will increase. Over time.S. but also the surest way to provide for the Caspian nations' own security and prosperity.independent of their huge neighbors to the north and the south -. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south. firms in other industries -. And until they build close. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $6 billion to date (equal to Russia’s IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). as resources from the North Sea have done in the past. Cohen 96 (Ariel. and stabilize world energy supplies in the future. oil and gas development in the Caspian basin could help diversify. Ukraine. Sept/Oct. if successful.S. Located at the crossroads of western Europe. the United States has important political and strategic stakes in the Caspian region -. substantive relations with the West. it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society.hold some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world. and strategic interests for the United States. eastern Asia. Foreign Affairs. Moreover. spark nuclear wars and put a stranglehold on the west. Georgia. such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky. the Caspian serves as a trafficking area for weapons of mass destruction. “Caspian Energy at the Cross-Roads”. they represent important economic. no.could also benefit.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 122/311 Heg Good – Caspian Stability First. Turkey. p. “The New Great Game: Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia”.S. p. Even if they can muster the political will to attempt reform themselves. American firms have already acquired 75 percent of Kazakhstan's mammoth Tengiz oil field. Washington should strengthen its policy toward the Caspian by giving the highest level of support to the cooperative development of regional energy reserves and pipelines. The cooperative development of regional energy reserves and pipelines -. and the Middle East. American leadership in the Caspian key to stability: boosts American hegemony.including a NATO ally in Turkey.15 Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans. of course. and Azerbaijan to the west -. secure. and Uzbekistan. In addition to these energy-related and commercial interests. as the capital generated from Caspian energy development spreads to other sectors. And together with neighboring Armenia. a currently turbulent regime in Iran.Although the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will continue to dominate the global energy market for decades to come. a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf. 1065. and the Middle East. and several fragile new states. the attempt will fail so long as they lack the resources to build strong economic and political institutions. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS. To advance those interests. have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Such plentiful resources could generate huge returns for U. the Mediterranean Sea. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to the east. but also the U. And.thus represents not only a boon for the United States and the world at large. world stability. Second Failure to contain Russian would destabilize all of Eurasia. lexis) The countries surrounding the Caspian Sea -.including at least 115 billion barrels of oil -. Backgrounder. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russia’s transition to a democracy and free-market economy. In particular. the threat to Ukraine. Turkey.a role enhanced by the weakness of the region's governments. contains Russia and is key to checking terrorism and smuggling Kalicki 1 (Jan.Russia to the north.

S. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable. tens of thousands of U.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 123/311 21st century. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modern market economies and free societies. or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the area. The U.S. should ensure free access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies. and Western jobs would be created. Moreover. if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed. . Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern NIS.

commercial interests in China would be damaged and any intervention could lead to a new Sino-Russian alliance.S. fostering a Japanese-Russian rapprochement. military but believe there are weaknesses that could be exploited while preventing the United States from bringing its full power to bear in case of a conflict over Taiwan.S. Such an approach by China would be extremely risky and could lead to a major war. Chicago Tribune 96 (staff. encouraging increased political. lexis) While a peaceful solution remains a priority. cities to being held hostage. the U. p.” The Washington Quarterly.S. weaknesses include vulnerability of U. According to the emerging Chinese doctrine. military posture in general should take this possibility into account. Washington could only retard--but not reverse--the defeat of Taiwan. Ensuring access to key facilities in countries such as the Philippines. Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay.S. No. bases to missile attacks. response. force-mix must emphasize longer-range systems and stand-off weapons.S.The document. intervened. Feb.S. forcing the United States to risk major escalation and high levels of violence to reinstate the status quo ante. and a Sino-U. strong American capabilities and the containment of China is critical to prevent aggression and war over Taiwan. New formal alliance relationships--which would be the central element of a containment strategy--are neither necessary nor practical at this time. They would signal to China that any attempt on their part to seek regional hegemony would be costly. 2. US Ambassador to the United Nations. The large distances of the East Asian region also suggest that a future U. would not intervene because U. Vol. Second.S.S. Burden-sharing and enhanced ties with states in East and Southeast Asia will be important. 6. In a possible Taiwan conflict China would seek to create a fait accompli. the local balance of power in the region will be decisive because in this new era wars are short and intense. concludes that even if the U.S. and America's sensitivity to casualties. Dealing with such possible challenges from China both in the near and long term requires many steps. pg. U. America's need to rapidly reinforce the region in times of conflict. failure to deter an invasion sparks a global nuclear war. The steps we should take now in the region must include enhancing military-to-military relations between Japan and South Korea. 18. susceptibility of U.S. China might gamble that these risks would constrain the U. They recognize the overall superiority of the U. . the U. potentially hostile China.A PLA analysis--leaked to Western media--suggests that in the event of war with Taiwan. but it would be prudent to take some preparatory steps to facilitate the formation of a new alliance or the establishment of new military bases should that become necessary. Measures should be taken to correct the Chinese belief that they can confront the world with a fait accompli in Taiwan. forces in the region against possible missile attacks.S." and enhancing military-to-military cooperation between the United States and the ASEAN states. reliance on space. These steps are important in themselves for deterrence and regional stability but they can also assist in shifting to a much tougher policy toward China should that become necessary. Because of the potential for conflict between the United States and China over issues such as Taiwan.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 124/311 Heg Good – Chinese Containment First. China's military leaders are considering the possibility of a conflict with the United States. circulated among officers. According to the Chinese. heavy U. including a settlement of the dispute over the "northern territories. “China Prepares New Show of Strength”. and increasing Taiwan's ability to defend itself would also be prudent. The United States needs expanded joint exercises with states in the region. 84 Spring 1995) Third. both the politburo and the Peoples Liberation Army have pledged to use force if necessary to regain the island on which the Nationalists settled after losing the civil war to Mao Tse-tung in 1949.military cooperation among the ASEAN states and resolving overlapping claims to the Spratly Islands and the South China Sea. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War. prepositioning stocks in the region.S. The United States must develop increased capabilities to protect friendly countries and U. the United States should seek to strengthen its own relative capabilities and those of its friends in East Asia to deter possible Chinese aggression and deal effectively with a more powerful. conflict might lead to a global nuclear holocaust.S.

appears increasingly endangered. Precisely because. democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. accountability. p. and openness. the strength of our military. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy. civil liberties.and this lesson must continue to guide us if we are to safeguard our interests as we enter the twenty-first. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations. and enduring trading partnerships. open. DC. and biological weapons continue to proliferate. Xue 125/311 Albright 97 (Madeleine. The very source of life on Earth. “Building a framework for American leadership in the 21st Century . chemical. property rights. Would the American people be as secure if weapons of mass destruction.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Democracy First. they are the concrete real.S. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens. Think about it. Secretary of State. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. That is the central lesson of the twentieth century -. Democratic countries form more reliable. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. leadership is critical to democratization effects. Across the globe. Today. who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. Second. our economy vibrant. the freezing of North Korea's. ties of our daily lives.co m/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n2_v8/ai_19538680/pg_9) Mr. CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON PREVENTING DEADLY CONFLICT 95 (staff. within their own borders. popular sovereignty. fell into the wrong hands? That is precisely what would have happened if the Administration and Congress had not acted to ensure the dismantling of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. more than seven years have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and five years since the demise of the Soviet Union. the global ecosystem. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. with its provisions for legality. America is secure. Washington. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous. and the rule of law. Chairman. http://findarticles. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. instead of being controlled. Democracy's triumph is neither accidental nor irreversible. online: http://www. “Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s”. and the securing of Russia's. democratic consolidation is key to preventing nuclear war.html lexis) This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. or the constancy and creativity of our diplomacy. democratic ones. and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.org/sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. it is the result of sustained American leadership. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. . the movement towards open societies and open markets is wider and deeper than ever before.U. Secretary of State” Statement before the House International Relations Committee. and our ideals ascendant. they respect competition. Make no mistake: the interests served by American foreign policy are not the abstract inventions of State Department planners. Oct. It would not have been possible without the power of our example.carnegie. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. Nuclear.

or the world will go down the same path as it did in the 1930s. or. No weapons of mass destruction menace surrounding peoples or allies. Thus. and military pressure. living in a world without law and order is not an auspicious prospect. 20 greatest danger to the United States today is the possibility that some rogue state will develop nuclear weapons and then share them with terrorist groups. Failure to deter Rogues sparks a nuclear crises and war Boot 4 lexis) True. Angola. Political turmoil in Cambodia is largely a domestic problem. undermine regional order. The Iranian and North Korean peoples want to be free. Iran and North Korea are the two likeliest culprits. namely." The other key goal is "impeding the emergence of a power rival. Endless negotiating with these governments--the preferred strategy of self-described pragmatists and moderates--is likely to bring about the very crisis it is meant to avert.S. Zbigniew Brzezinski. Most incidents of civil turmoil need not engage U. In the case of the decades-long slaughter in southern Sudan. the doctrine articulated in response to Soviet global ambitions.S. Neither would be willing to negotiate away its nuclear arsenal. Rogue states push the world toward anarchy and away from stability. offered a realistic guideline for policymakers.stanford. drawing in the neighboring countries of Greece. security is to topple the tyrannical regimes in Pyongyang and Tehran. Regime change may seem like a radical policy but it is actually the best way to prevent a nuclear crisis that could lead to war.” FOREIGN POLICY. The (Max Boot. diplomatic. Even the civil war in the Congo. Terrorist rogue states. p. for the ethnic conflict between the secessionist Tamil minority and the Sinhalese majority is largely an internal affair."(4) Second. there is no compelling reason for U. or mountains is quite another. economic. short of actual war. dispatching armed forces to far-flung deserts.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Deter Rogue States First. must be confronted with robust measures. it must be emphasized that the United States ought not intervene militarily in every conflict or humanitarian crisis. is a Central African affair. however. realistically. Slobodan Milosevic. and to intimidate the democracies into appeasement. n. Sr. and Russia. This said. Political inaction creates vacuums. to bring down these dictators--the same strategy the United States followed with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But in dealing with rogue states deterrence and containment may not be enough. and it may afford the only realistic option available. events on one side of the planet can influence actions on the other side. A similar response to rogue states cannot be easily cloned for each contingency but may require the United States to corral allies or partners into a unified policy. Although the United States does not want to be the world's sheriff. Neocons think the only way to ensure U. Indeed. do not endanger U. call for direct humanitarian intervention. which has drawn in small military forces from Uganda. Containment. But their preferred solution is to use political. which can suck in states to fill the void. January/February 2004. cited preventing global anarchy as one of the two goals of "America's global engagement. to take one example. when Europe and the United States allowed Nazi Germany to propagate its ideology across half a dozen states. that of forging an enduring framework of global geopolitical cooperation. HENRIKSON 99 (Thomas. Rwanda. as witnessed by the cold war.S. the ethno-nationalist conflict raised the specter of a wider war. “Using Power and Diplomacy to Deal with Rogue States”. 140 p. while doing nothing to provide support for their oppressors. that neocons are agitating for preemptive war. A global doctrine setting forth all-inclusive guidelines is difficult to cast in stone. it should pick its interventions with great care. Turkey. in his campaign to extirpate Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina in pursuit of a greater Serbia.hoover. as circumstances dictate. They do not rule out force if necessary. Senior Fellow for National Security Studies. “Neocons. Offering Washington's good offices to mediate disputes in distant corners is one thing. meaning that how Xue 126/311 the United States responds to a regional rogue has worldwide implications. the United States should help them by every means possible. That Iraq's president. But watching rogue behavior with complacency or relying on the United Nations courts disaster in the age of weapons of mass destruction.edu/publications/epp/94/94a. Before NATO intervened in the Bosnia imbroglio in 1995. Strong Hegemony and force projection is the only way to deal with rogue states. military deployment. and Zimbabwe.html //wyo-tjc) In today's globally interconnected world. (Think Again). strategic interests. .S. the United States can serve a humanitarian cause by calling international attention to Khartoum's genocide of Christian and animist peoples. however. Aside from international prodding. These types of conflicts. threaten global commercial relationships. it demands no American intervention. This objective does not mean. to rearm for a war of conquest. military forces. Regrettable as the bloody civil war in Sri Lanka is. Fellow at Hoover Institute. Rogue leaders draw conclusions from weak responses to aggression. the simmering Congolese fighting is better left to Africans to resolve than to outsiders. no treaty would be any trustworthier than the 1994 Agreed Framework that North Korea violated. in contrast. Deterring security threats is a valuable mechanism to maintain peace. jungles. online: http://www. escaped unpunished for his invasion of Kuwait no doubt emboldened the Yugoslav president. Saddam Hussein. the former national security adviser to President Carter.

which could then have an impact on the defense policies of Taiwan. He faced resistance from the South Korean government. In Japan the prevailing “nuclear allergy” could lead first to delays in acquiring deterrent forces and then to a desperate and dangerous scramble for nuclear weapons. Withdrawing forces in Korea would reverberate powerfully in Tokyo. Friedburg 94 (Aaron. Brzezinski took part in the last major debate over reducing American forces in Korea. from India to China to Japan to Korea). Pakistan) and Russia (which would also be affected by events in Japan and Korea). he contends. lexis) Assuming. increasing Asian nuclearization runs the risk of wild-fire proliferation and arms-racing. p. The arguments against withdrawal then still apply today." In the 1970's. motivated by post-Vietnam doubts about American power. both together) could lead to a similar development in Japan. multifaceted expansion in nuclear capabilities could increase the dangers of misperception. l lexis) Deciding if now is the time depends on how well the United States is able to project power across the Pacific. Taipei and beyond. he argues. As in other regions. In Asia. the ultimate beneficiary of this would be China in the long term. Winter. India (and through it. p. the national security adviser to Jimmy Carter. nascent nuclear forces will be especially vulnerable to preemption. Similar shockwaves could also travel through the system in different directions (for example. proposed withdrawing ground forces from the peninsula. The nuclearization of Korea (North." "Mind-sets in Asia are profoundly traditional." Second. And that could drive anxious Japanese leaders into a military buildup that could include nuclear weapons. attack on Taiwan and North Korean proliferation. Mr. backing down in the face of irresponsible North Korean behavior. miscalculation. "In the present mood. as well as on its responsibilities as the globe's presumptive supercop. North Korea could feel emboldened to continue its efforts to build nuclear arms.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 127/311 Heg Good – East Asian Stability First." he said. "They calculate political will by the numbers of soldiers. Jan. China might take the opportunity to flex its military muscle in the Taiwan Straits and South China Sea. it's hard to say how the Chinese might respond. Beijing. . the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency. And frankly. "And under those circumstances. which might cause China to accelerate and expand its nuclear programs. ships and airplanes that they see in the region. "Any movement of American forces would almost certainly involve countries and individuals taking the wrong message. a deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration. Other Asian leaders would be likely to interpret a troop withdrawal as a reduction of American power. An American withdrawal from Korea could raise questions about the United States' commitment to the 40. there would still be serious difficulties involved in negotiating the transition to such a world." said Zbigniew Brzezinski. no matter how much the United States asserts its commitment to the region. the prospects for a peaceful transition may be further complicated by the fact that the present and potential nuclear powers are both numerous and strategically intertwined. The New York Times. raising questions in an already jittery region about Washington's willingness to maintain stability in Asia." said Kurt Campbell. whether through reunification or competitive arms programs. All of this would influence the behavior of the United States. and war. Professor of International Relations at Princeton University International Security. Dao 3 (James. "If we did it. staff . small. Brzezinski says. "The main one would be this: receding American commitment. leading to miscalculation and nuclear war. 8. we would stampede the Japanese into going nuclear. when President Carter. the Japanese reaction could be quite strong." he said. “Why Keep US Troops?”. South or.000 troops it has in Japan. A rapid. p. A secure Korea makes Japan more confident. for the moment that an Asia with more nuclear powers would be more stable than one with fewer. Mr. US withdrawal from Asia sparks Japan into rapid nuclear armament. 5.

once a few nukes are launched. As an example.” Second. In particular. “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis”. June 24. at least for many decades. Investors are more willing to send money abroad when the danger of war is remote. and U. are almost certain to be released. Economic interdependence is often said to be a cause of world peace. As the studies showed. Prior to the final economic collapse.navy. When states are relatively secure. they will also be less fixated on how the gains from cooperation are distributed. they are less likely to worry that extensive cooperation will benefit others more and thereby place them at a relative disadvantage over time. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that. American primacy also fosters global prosperity. Hegemony is key to trade and interdependence—stability opens conditions necessary for growth. As Thomas Friedman puts it. www. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. there will be no America Online.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 128/311 Heg Good – Global Economy First.nwc. the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate fullbore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. U. they could safely ignore the balance of power within Western Europe and concentrate on expanding their overall level of economic integration. lexis) History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. in a spasmodic suicidal response. and states worry less about being dependent on others when they are not concerned that these connections might be severed. and perhaps most of the biosphere.htm) By facilitating the development of a more open and liberal world economy.mil/press/Review/2002/spring/art1-sp2. but it is more accurate to say that peace encourages interdependence-by making it easier for states to accept the potential vulnerabilities of extensive international intercourse. By providing a tranquil international environment. In addition to immediate responses. As a number of commentators have noted. suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea. including U. Spring. the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict.S. The expansion of world trade has been a major source of increased global prosperity. primacy is one of the central pillars upon which that system rests. the current era of “globalization” is itself partly an artifact of American power. are already on site within the United States itself. Today. forces there. adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. JFKSchool of Government Professor at Harvard Univiversity Naval War College Review. Because the United States was there to protect the Europeans from the Soviet Union and from each other. a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed. . The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense.S.S. Walt 2 (Stephen. rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. “Without America on duty. in short. which is often touted as a triumph of economic self-interest over historical rivalries. The United States also played a leading role in establishing the various institutions that regulate and manage the world economy. Indeed. primacy has created political conditions that are conducive to expanding global trade and investment. the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts. under such extreme stress conditions. American primacy was a prerequisite for the creation and gradual expansion of the European Union. Free Republic. to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations. A global economic collapse would escalate to full scale conflict and rapid extinction Bearden 2k (Thomas. escalating it significantly.

Given the recent history of both the Middle East and Islam. Once that happens. 2007) Xue 129/311 For a while now. There is little question that. ultranationalists in the US. the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat of Algeria. . In addition to the destruction of countless lives. revolutionary period? The stakes are too high to wait and find out. In short. The consequences of an enormous “Shiastan” right in the heart of the Middle East could prove to be disastrous. and the Tamil Tigers were all born of civil wars. terrorism in the future may threaten the very foundations of modern civilizations. unleashing retaliatory action which in turn can lead to conflagrations perhaps on a world scale. Iraqi instablity spills over and causes terrorism. civil wars just as often breed new terrorist groups-Hizballah. secularity is a precious asset. But is this even possible? Can this be achieved without a violent.amazon. http://www. Outright Shia domination of Iraq should never be allowed. I see no reason why Moqtada al-Sadr and other Shiite strongmen would seek any kind of compromise with Sunni leaders in a pluralist government. Many such groups start by focusing on local targets but then shift to international attacks-starting with those they believe are aiding their enemies in the civil war. rootless fanatics are not difficult to imagine. panic can grip any targeted society. neighboring states or transformed domestic strife into regional war.com/NewTerrorism-Fanaticism-Arms-Destruction/dp/product-description/0195118162) Today two things have changed that together transform terrorism from a ``nuisance'' to ``one of the gravest dangers facing mankind. Which is the latter and how to avoid it? The worst outcome for Iraq would be a full-scale civil war that ends in the country’s partition. especially given the aggressive expansionist theocracy next door. America (and the world) should make sure that Iraq remains a diverse multicultural federation rather than become three isolated and weak enclaves. once the American forces leave.com/postglobal/leon_krauze/2007/04/keep_foot_on_or_chaos_and_shia. Saddam’s pragmatic view of religion was perhaps the man’s only virtue. The consequences of such weapons in the hands of ruthless. May-June 2007) THE COLLAPSE of Iraq into all-out civil war would mean more than just a humanitarian tragedy that could easily claim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and produce millions of refugees. literally. the country will become a far bloodier and more lawless battleground than it is now. In other similar cases of all-out civil war the resulting spillover has fostered terrorism. Such a conflict is unlikely to contain itself. The National Interest 7 (“Keeping the Lid On”. as Al-Qaeda did in Afghanistan. Terrorism risks extinction Kirkus Reviews. April 30. there have been only two possible outcomes in Iraq: the bad and the worse. In fact. So the bad but not the worst is a state more like India than the former Yugoslavia. http://newsweek. around the corner. It wasn’t an insignificant attribute. Regional conflict would be. these unhinged collectivities now have ready access to weapons of mass destruction. radicalized the populations of surrounding states and even sparked civil wars in other. However. Saudi Arabia.html. the Palestine Liberation Organization. Regional War and ‘Shiastan’”. Israel and Syria would stretch out their own claws soon enough. or biological weapons where and when they wish. Second. created refugee flows that can destabilize the entire neighborhood.washingtonpost.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Iraq Stability US hegemony in Iraq prevents Iraqi collapse Washington Post 7 (“IF Leave. Terrorists frequently find a home in states in civil war. who and how many they are willing to kill. 99 (Book Review on “The New Terrorism: Fanatiscism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”. There are no longer any moral limitations on what terrorists are willing to do. states may come to rely more and more on dictatorial and authoritarian measures. To combat such terrorist activities. Lexisnexis. chemical. The technological skills are not that complex and the resources needed not too rare for terrorists to employ nuclear.'' First terroristsbe they Islamic extremists in the Middle East. or any number of other possible permutationsseem to have changed from organized groups with clear ideological motives to small clusters of the paranoid and hateful bent on vengeance and destruction for their own sake.

as do most Americans. 55. Iss. power still matters. Even in a world with nuclear weapons. 9 (20 pages) Spring 2002. Proquest) Thus. and it would discover that other states were setting the agenda of world politics if its own power were to decline. "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. Xue 130/311 Walt 2 (Stephen. or pursue any other positive political goal should recognize that the nation's ability to do so rests primarily upon its power. "Peace must be built upon power. promote human rights. Vol. anyone who thinks that the United States should try to discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction. promote human rights. They understand. 2. advance the cause of democracy. and other such novel features. pg.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Laundry List Heg is necessary to prevent WMD prolif. as well as upon good will and good deeds. . The United States would accomplish far less if it were weaker. Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. and primacy is still preferable." Naval War College Review. that being number one is a luxury they should try very hard to keep. and promote democracy. As Harry Truman put it over fifty years ago. People running for president do not declare that their main goal as commander in chief would be to move the United States into the number-two position. rapid communications. extensive economic ties."17 The bottom line is clear. an increasingly vocal chorus of nongovernmental organizations.

to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations. Now the party of the donkey is being joined by some Republicans who are prepared to ignore reality in favor of mythical rhetoric. http://www.to believe that a reliance on international cooperation and foreign aid will soothe the ire of Iran. With respect to Iraq. in a spasmodic suicidal response. the Democrats have always preferred to plow the easy field of political expediency instead of laboring in the difficult field of policy. If those surge forces go away that capability goes away and the Iraqi security forces aren’t ready yet to do that (mission). Second. and Iraqi forces are making “significant progress” in destroying insurgent sanctuaries. it becomes clear that any instability in the Middle East would threaten the global oil trade. and we can deny the enemy sanctuaries.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Middle East Stability US leadership is key to Middle Eastern stability and prevent escalation. “You’d find the enemy regaining ground. Or suppose a desperate China . forces there. escalating it significantly.com/group/Big-Medicine/message/642) (PDAF0842) Bluntly. “As evidence mounts that the ‘surge’ is failing to make Iraq more secure. http://www.html. including U. leadership Iraq will become a long-term failed state and a terrorist sanctuary.and others { } not covered . On July 6. http://groups. President Bush and the Iraqis must move now to finally accept a measure of accountability for this war … transition the mission for our combat troops and start bringing them home from an intractable civil war.” Lynch explained. we cannot wait until the Administration’s September report before we change course. are almost certain to be released. there is no “evidence” that the surge is failing. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. At worst. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that. 2006) Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy. The Middle East has about 65% of the world’s total oil resources.Net 6 (“Frequently Asked Questions About Iraq”.com/guestcontributors/jbell_20070709.S.S. However one defines the conflict it is a key battleground and the aftermath of the fighting will dictate what forces sink their roots deep into the Middle East’s future. Army. Reid and his political brethren have spent far too much time trying to make the case that what is transpiring in Iraq is a civil war. causing economic collapse.shtml.opinioneditorials. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote.indeed. once a few nukes are launched. under such extreme stress conditions.S. Skyrocketing oil prices hamper global economic growth and threaten the world’s economies. we foresee these factors . With this in mind. it would cause a shortage in supply which would cause oil prices to skyrocket.S. As an example. “We can conduct detailed kinetic strikes. the day after Reid’s misguided missive. and the violence would escalate. it Xue 131/311 is delusional . 7/9/07) It not only seems contradictory. U. we can do cordon and searches. Frontiers of Freedom 7 (“Democrats and Some Republicans Ignore Reality in Iraq”. If the global oil trade were disrupted. 2000.S. Absent active and engaged U. Bearden 2k (Lieutenant Colonel in the U. commander of Multinational Division Center and the 3rd Army Division said U. it is contradictory . the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts. commanders on the ground report the opposite. it could cause a recession in many of the world’s oil dependent countries. despite Reid’s hyperventilating.converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/topic_15. In addition to immediate responses.islamonline. Economic collapse causes global nuclear war and extinction.” Middle Eastern instability sky rockets oil prices.” The general said if U. In fact. The enemy only responds to force and we now have that force. al Qaeda in Iraq and their ideological supporters and pave the way for political and social progress. 2000. Army Major General Rick Lynch. General Lynch said the “surge forces are giving us the capability we have now to take the fight to the enemy. forces begin an untimely departure. March 21. On July 5.S. building more IEDs (and) carrying those IEDs to Baghdad. reestablishing sanctuaries. adversaries and .” First. the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict. As the collapse of the Western economies nears.whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States .attacks Taiwan. The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It. one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders.yahoo. Prior to the final economic collapse. suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea. Islam Online.

with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 132/311 potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. . the only chance a nation has to survive at all. at least for many decades. Without effective defense. rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it. and perhaps most of the biosphere. As the studies showed.

Bush is unlikely to call for a revival of the idea of a strategic partnership with China. reassurances that research and development on the TMD will continue only leaves China with the option of proceeding with military modernization to build up its deterrence capabilities. a structure of deterrence appears to be in the making. China declares war on the US and a full-scale war breaks out with both sides resorting to nuclear weapons. On the contrary. network of military co-operation agreements are Singapore. Clashes occur between the Chinese navy and the US Navy. the power-projection capabilities of the various states are constrained by a mutual display of force between the United States and the Southeast Asian states on the one hand. Thus. the consolidation of a structure of deterrence in the South China Sea may provide Southeast Asia with the level of military security and reassurance necessary to allow for the development of stronger co-operative ties with China. permitting the United States to be seen to be engaged in Southeast Asia as a flexible regional balancer. troops have resumed joint exercises with the Philippines from 2000. U. exercises. Although the United States looks at China's Spratly policy as an indication of its possible bid for regional hegemony. The Pacific Fleet begins to patrol the South China Sea. Denmark. As a consequence. At the same time. In substitution of the permanent base arrangements In general. This geostrategic picture suggests that cooperation on managing the regional balance of power is not on the cards. The Administration of George W. It might start with clashes between Asian countries over the Spratly Islands because of China's insistence that the South China Sea belonged to it along with all the islands. it is not prepared to play an active part in the Spratly dispute unless freedom of navigation through Southeast Asian waters is threatened. China is a power of second rank compared with the United States. [4] In line with this hardening of U. Second. Thus. the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. of Political Science. Odgaard 1 (Liselotte. A structure of deterrence does not operate on the basis of cooperation between opposing powers.S. However. lexis) The South China Sea constitutes a first line of defence for the littoral states of Southeast Asia. reefs and seabed minerals. Aug 1. in particular with the United States. Nor can deterrence be equated with violence and volatility. proquest) In his speech. during the Cold War. In this scenario. the U. In the first -the worst possible scenario -Asian countries would go to war against each other. is no immediate threat to the latter. The United States shares the widespread perception within Southeast Asia that China's moves in the South China Sea indicate that it might have expansionist intentions. they cannot afford to ignore the worst-case scenario of conflict involving China. Bush describes China as a strategic competitor. Thailand. interests.S.S. the United States maintains its support for the ASEAN position on the non-use of force concerning dispute settlement in the South China Sea. forward military presence in the pacific deters China and leads to stabilization allowing a political solution to be brokered.S. Instead. “Choose Your Own Style of Democracy”. Dr Mahathir also painted three scenarios for Asia. May 21. Asst Prof. and accusations of Chinese military espionage in the United States. The majority of the Southeast Asian states have embarked on a modernization of their naval capabilities. the United States would offer to help and would be welcomed by Asean. Contemporary Southeast Asia. the relationship between the two powers has suffered a downturn because of Chinese opposition to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air strikes in Yugoslavia. making the Southeast Asian states more reliant on bilateral defence arrangements. South Korea. and the Philippines. On the contrary. p. policy on the Spratlys may be characterized as guarded non-involvement. the opponent will refrain from attack. Strait Times 95 (staff.S. Therefore. American reservations about direct involvement in the Spratly dispute do not imply that cordial relations between the United States and China are on the agenda. Thus. policy towards China. Deterrence is directed at the intentions of opponents: if the existence of deterrent forces are seen to prevent the opponent from achieving gains through aggression. and interoperability. Technological constraints are likely to force Bush to moderate his position on such defence plans.S. he said. However. and Taiwan. and as such. Bush has voiced strong support for a theatre missile defence (TMD) system covering Japan. The main countries in the U. . aimed at developing a deterrent force as well as a force capable of engaging in military operations at sea. However. the military agreements facilitate training. the United States has maintained its strategy of forward deployment. he said. the financial crisis of the late 1990s delayed some of these efforts.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 133/311 Heg Good – South China Sea First. conflict in the SCS culminated into a global nuclear war. University of Aarhus. U. and China on the other. “Deterrence and Co-operation in the South China Sea”. Washington prefers that the regional states settle their disputes without its involvement as long as these do not pose a threat to U. since 1999.

such as placing emphasis on early warning radars. there is no risk for potential peer competitors to try. therefore. developing the “hotline” and pledging to non-interference with national technical means of verification under arms control treaties. This dithering approach blatantly ignores the current real world situation. For the US to refrain from weaponizing until another state proves the capacity to challenge it allows for potential enemies to catch up to American capabilities. At present. given the inherent offensedominant nature of space warfare. "Strategy Lost: Taking the Middle Road to Nowhere.cdi. Editor of Defense News.” This should not be surprising to anyone – the United States and the Soviet Union found this out very early in the Cold War. Second. Director of Center for Defense Information. Vol. C. Unfortunately. On the other hand. .cfm?documentID=1745) The negative consequences of a space arms race are hard to exaggerate. as the only plausible response by the US would be to at least match the opposing capabilities. should the US reject the hedging strategy and unilaterally deploy weapons in space. the fear of an arms race in space. 1 Winter. I have no choice but to hit everything. The cost of entry will simply be too great. In other words. like anything else on orbit. “Space Assurance or Space Dominance. October 2. the US has no peer competitors in space. best exploited as first-strike weapons. are inherently vulnerable and. any conflict involving ASAT use is likely to highly escalatory. No. communications and targeting.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Space Dominance First. using everything I have. as the objective of an attacker would be to eliminate the other side’s capabilities to respond either in kind or on the ground by taking out satellites providing surveillance. At a minimum. and thus took measures to ensure transparency. Hitchens 3 (Theresa. the most powerful argument in favor of the hedging plan. the probability of failure palpable. http://www. Air Force officials participating in space wargames have discovered that war in space rapidly deteriorates into all-out nuclear war. Former director of British American Security Information Council -think tank based in Washington and London. 3.S. precisely because it quickly becomes impossible to know if the other side has gone nuclear. Thus. Indeed. Aviation Week and Space Technology quoted one gamer as saying simply: “[If] I don’t know what’s going on. 2K5) Xue 134/311 Common to all hedging strategy proponents is the fear that placing weapons in space will spur a new arms race. in particular among nuclear weapons states. is most likely if the US follows its counsel. U. it is crucial that the United States maintain leadership in Space to deter conflicts and prevent other count Everett 5(Dolman. other states may rationally decide not to compete. such a strategy increases the likelihood of a space arms race if and when space weapons are ultimately deployed.org/friendlyversion/printversion.” the hair-trigger postures of the nuclear competition between the United States and Russia during the Cold War would be elevated to the “ultimate high ground” of space. Furthermore. Space weapons. this leads to global nuclear war." High Frontier Journal. as Michael Krepon and Chris Clary argue in their monograph.

prosperity. Maybee 8 (Sean C.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49. by addressing environmental security. and informational power will be the drivers of GCC responses as they provide the needed resources ideas and technology. the United States may foster trust and cooperation while beginning to anticipate some GCC effects. The U. http://www. the US military has a long history of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. US leadership is key to solve warming. p. 98. http://www. US Navy commander.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49.S. The Nation has the economic and informational power to develop and resource effective methods and the international status to foster global cooperation and implementation.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Warming US military power and leadership is key to solve climate change. In addition. but the potential impacts of GCC should lead national security policymakers to consider how environmental security will play a role in the future.htm) Xue 135/311 For the purpose of this essay.htm) The national security implications of GCC pose unique challenges for the United States in part because it is best suited to lead counter-GCC efforts. economic. and survival of the nation-state through the use of instruments of national power: diplomatic. Maybee 8 (Sean C.ndu.ndu. 98. military already has a robust capacity to respond and could continue to develop and use it to help other nations to build that capacity. In addition to fighting and winning the nation’s wars. . national security is defined as the need to maintain the safety. military. US Navy commander. It will be through invoking military and diplomatic power that resources are used and new ideas are implemented to overcome any GCC challenges. p.

Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. U. great-power wars killed over eighty million people.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – War US primacy prevents the outbreak of global hegemonic war. "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. Xue 136/311 Walt 2 (Stephen. but a more exciting world is not necessarily a better one. World politics might be more interesting if the United States were weaker and if other states were forced to compete with each other more actively. for at least two reasons. Not only is there no possibility of a "hegemonic war" (because there is no potential hegemon to mount a challenge). This tranquilizing effect is not lost on America's allies in Europe and Asia. often punctuated by major wars and occasionally by allout struggles for hegemony. the leading state does not need to go to war and weaker states dare not try. because it dampens the overall level of international insecurity. Ironically.S. those who argue that primacy is no longer important. One reason is that because the United States is currently so far ahead. They resent U.9 Thus.S.S. however. for example. however.S. Proquest) A second consequence of U. Miscalculation is more likely to lead to war when the balance of power is fairly even. other major powers are not inclined to challenge its dominant position. states within these regions do not worry as much about each other. . but the risk of war via miscalculation is reduced by the overwhelming gap between the United States and the other major powers.S." Naval War College Review. overlook the fact that the extent of American primacy is one of the main reasons why the risk of great-power war is as low as it is. So long as U.8 The second reason is that the continued deployment of roughly two hundred thousand troops in Europe and in Asia provides a further barrier to conflict in each region. 2. but it is probably a good deal more pleasant to live in than "interesting" decades like the 1930s or 1940s. Iss. For most of the past four centuries. presence effectively prevents regional conflicts from breaking out. and to other countries as well. dominance and dislike playing host to American troops. Vol. but they also do not want "Uncle Sam" to leave. regional powers know that launching a war is likely to lead to a confrontation with the United States. because in this situation both sides can convince themselves that they might be able to win. because the U. When the balance of power is heavily skewed. Today. because the danger of war is slight. Thus. 55. troops are committed abroad. 9 (20 pages) Spring 2002. In the first half of the twentieth century. but it is an important one. pg. What Joseph Joffe has termed the "American pacifier" is not the only barrier to conflict in Europe and Asia. A comparatively boring era may provide few opportunities for genuine heroism. primacy is of benefit to the United States. relations among the major powers have been intensely competitive. the dominant position of the United States places significant limits on the possibility of great-power competition. primacy is a decreased danger of great-power rivalry and a higher level of overall international tranquility.

It does not solve all the world's problems.41 Partly as a result. Each is controversial. The clearer the underlying distribution of power is. they face incentives to keep their military budgets under control until they observe fundamental changes in the capability of the United States to fulfill its role. Summer 19 99. consider the two periods already discussed in which leading states of power were not unipolar. The Crimean War is a case in point. This argument is based on two well-known realist theories: hegemonic theory and balance-of-power theory. The problem is that even those who agree that the war arose from a threat to the European balance of power cannot agree on whether the threat emanated from France. however. . it minimizes two major problemssecurity and prestige competition-that confronted the great powers of the past.rium-or indeed whether any of them did-is less important than the fact that the power gap among them was small enough to make all three threats seem plausible at the time and in retrospect. by design. As a result. and it reduces the salience and stakes of balance-of-power politics among the major states. The war unfolded in a system in which two states shared leadership and three states were plausibly capable of bidding for hegemony. Unipolarity can be made to seem expensive and dangerous if it is equated with a global empire demanding U. and the relationship between the two is complex. unipolarity is a distribution of capabilities among the world's great powers. International Security. Summer 19 99. Determining which state really did threaten the equilib. As long as that is the expectation. both periods witnessed security competition and hegemonic rivalry. the less likely it is that states will need to test it in arms races or crises. avoids conflict Wohlforth 99 (William. Unipolarity. Because those concentrations century and a half have been able to settle the debate over the origins of the conflict. states are likely to share the expectation that counterbalancing would be a costly and probably doomed venture.S. Unipolarity solves the roots of the worlds issues. Rather. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. International Security. Summer 19 99. neither the statesmen of the time nor historians over the last scored very highly on aggregate measures of power: the Pax Britannica and the Cold War. Maintaining unipolarity does not require limitless commitments.") To appreciate the sources of conflict that unipolarity avoids. "The Stability of a Unipolar World. involvement in all issues everywhere. the key point is that both theories predict that a unipolar system will be peaceful. "The Stability of a Unipolar World.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Unipolarity Good – War Unipolarity prevents power balancing wars Xue 137/311 Wohlforth 99 (William. In reality. and the system can be maintained at little extra cost. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. Because the current concentration of power in the United States is unprecedentedly clear and comprehensive. security and competition Wohlforth 99 (William. or Britain. It involves managing the central security regimes in Europe and Asia.35 For the purposes of this analysis. and maintaining the expectation on the part of other states that any geopolitical challenge to the United States is futile. "The Stability of a Unipolar World. Russia.") Third. The whole system can thus be run at comparatively low costs to both the sole pole and the other major powers. International Security. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. we should not exaggerate the costs. states will likely refrain from trying.") Unipolarity favors the absence of war among the great powers and comparatively low levels of competition for prestige or security for two reasons: the leading state's power advantage removes the problem of hegemonic rivalry from world politics. No such uncertainty-and hence no such conflict-is remotely possible in a unipolar system.

ain used indirect rule through local potentates. On the other hand. compared to other countries. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”.^"* The United States has more power resources. The Ameri. absent formal political control. 386. p. and American culture serves as a mag.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Heg Bad – Imperialism The US is not an empire. Americans are concerned that the army has been stretched to breaking point. Vol. America has overstrained its army while leaving the home front vulnerable. The United States is certainly not an em." but this simply obscures important differences in degrees of control suggested by comparisons with real historical empires. The bookshops are full of titles cautioning against the folly of empire (Cullen Murphey's "Are We Rome?". in fighting them over there. 255-256) Xue 138/311 In many ways. like Latin. 119. The American military has a global reach. but in 2003. as in Uganda. Issue 8573) What a difference a bungled war makes. than Britain had at its imperial peak. Others try to rescue the meta.phor by referring to "informal empire" or the "imperialism of free trade. the term "imperial" can be misleading. the metaphor of empire is seductive. 00130613. Kenya's schools. Power and Peril. but blowing things up is not the same as establishing an "imperium". taxes. The British empire did not have that kind of problem with Kenya or India. If George Bush wanted to "fight them over there" so that Americans do not have to "fight them over here". and elections—not to men. with bases around the world. laws. his successor will have to face the possibility that. Its acceptance would be a disastrous guide for American foreign policy because it fails to take into account how the world has changed. than Britain did when it ruled a quarter of the globe. For example. in the sense of control over the behavior that occurs inside other countries. Nye 4 (Joseph S. vol. US Military too overstretched for empire Economist 8 (3/29. 3/29/2008. Although unequal relationships certainly exist between the United States and weaker powers and can be conducive to exploitation. the United States has less power. Even where Brit. But it is a mistake to confuse the politics of primacy with the politics of empire.tion external relations—were controlled by British officials. Harvard IR prof.pire in the way we think of the European overseas empires of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries because the core feature of such imperialism was direct political control. 2. Yes.can economy is the largest in the world. and its regional commanders sometimes act like proconsuls. the United States could not even get Mexico and Chile to vote for a second resolution on Iraq in the UN Security Council..net. Nobody doubts America's unparalleled ability to project its military power into every corner of the world. the Americans have widespread influence. Amy Chua's "Day of Empire"). . it exercised far more control than the United States does today. These days the word "imperial" is usually followed by "overstretch". English is a lingua franca. and that their country remains a terrorist target. no. Enthusiasm for empire has been replaced by worries about exhaustion and vulnerability.

away from American soil. but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes—their own protection. and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the U. then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats.” National Interest. Indeed. primacy is secured because America. action—but they fail to realize what is good about American primacy. even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. And when enemies must be confronted. at present. who want U.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Thayer 1/3 Heg is sustainable and critical to international stability Thayer 06 – Professor of Defense and Strategic Studies @ Missouri State University [Thayer. Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN. while denying those common avenues to its enemies. the world's airspace and outer space—allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. commands the "global commons"— the oceans. a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. Q. homeland and American global interests. thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies. The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. selective engagers. where it can be stymied by opponents. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom. who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. and it cannot hide from threats. North Korea and Venezuela.S. that will remain the case for the foreseeable future. imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. Such influence comes in many forms. Nov/Dec2006 Issue 86. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly. and offshore balancers. So the debate revolves around the desirability of maintaining American primacy. Indeed. They are the "Gang of Five": China. does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1. Washington cannot call a "time out". Cuba. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five). must be avoided. There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military. Never before in its history has this country. Of 192 countries. in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. In contrast. or to gain greater influence. They include isolationists. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. Of course.S. A remarkable fact about international politics today—in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display—is that countries want to align themselves with the United States. one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo. it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. U. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U. Of course. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. rogue states or rising powers. the benefits that stem from it are not. had so many allies. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. military commitments to centers of economic might. Thus. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home". a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. this is not out of any sense of altruism. primacy—and the bandwagoning effect—has also given us extensive influence in international politics. a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. With few exceptions. If the United States adopted such a strategy. . The price and risks of primacy are reported in newspapers every day. on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing.S. (2) This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. in most cases. American-led wars in Kosovo. retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. Iran. stabilize Afghanistan. it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world. history shows that threats must be confronted. The United States has overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential alliances. Allies are a great asset to the United States. the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced. 84 are allied with America—their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements—and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. in any of its guises. Indeed. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world. As a consequence. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics.. Whether they are terrorists. who want no foreign military commitments. as Barry Posen has noted. or any country. U.S. economic and soft power capabilities. “In Defense of Primacy.. This requires a physical. p32-37]edlee Xue 139/311 Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. But retrenchment. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation.S. Bradley A.

democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. The other states are far weaker than China. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Rather. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because. if necessary. and mobility of capital and labor markets. Lebanon.S. Cuba—it is an anti-U. spreading democracy helps maintain U. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war.S. (3) So. including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. respect for international property rights. but democratic progress has been made in Algeria. peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power—Rome. U. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe. once states are governed democratically.5 million Afghans. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists. along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest. Indonesia and Australia. And so. power behind it. a robust monetary regime. South Korea and Japan. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it). American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned—between Greece and Turkey. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive. primacy. for example. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel. who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India.S.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Washington. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. it is important to note what those good things are. as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue. their people would be better off. and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits. where 8. Asia and the Caucasus. . such as toward Iran. American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. the march of democracy has been impressive. Without U." Consequently. it is because they are more open. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U. primacy creates. resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U. leadership. labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. growing democratization is directly linked to U. one gathers from the argument. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. most notably France and West Germany. should not even be attempted. During the Cold War. such as in Darfur. In addition. Latin America. particularly the poorest states in the Third World. in general. increasing respect for human rights. 40 percent of them women. India and Pakistan.S. the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. Britain or the United States today. Israel and Egypt. a change of regime in Caracas. the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce. But China may not be confident those strategies would work. Third. liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. Indeed. voted in a critical October 2004 election. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit. China proclaims that it will. With its allies. regime that is the source of the problem. but nonetheless. particularly war's worst form: great power wars. maximizes efficiencies and growth. from the international order U. THROUGHOUT HISTORY. Abandoning the positions of his youth. the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. China important of these states because it is a Xue 140/311 countries like India. Iraq. and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. The first has been a more peaceful world. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America.S. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases—Venezuela. do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. power. Indeed they do. helping to ensure military prowess. Kuwait. and. but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood. whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. but New Delhi is friendly to is clearly the most rising great power.S. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order—free trade. as we shall see. By all accounts. Morocco.S. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened. the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. power. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology.S. Of course. Second. more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse.S. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. power. Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. Today. even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal. Iran.

To help those in need. (4) As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems.S. The U. Let's face it: for the time being. polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War—and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. but they do not have the capabilities. a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra.S. American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. earthquake.S. sailors. after it. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U. an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir. soldiers. In October 2005. UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. The United States was the first to respond with aid.000 people. airmen and marines responded by providing water. American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Whenever there is a natural disaster. the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters. 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States. which are facilitated through American primacy. military conducting a humanitarian mission.S. the U. . there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. typhoon or tsunami. None even comes close. the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan. the United States assists the countries in need. the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U. The U. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action.S. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities? They may have the desire. On the day after Christmas in 2004. in seeking primacy. de facto.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 141/311 Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization. disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Before the tsunami.000 U. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. food. Only the U. the United States. for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. Indeed. military. killing about 74.S. flood. For the first time since 9/11.S. diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. volcanic eruption. while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. it left a lasting impression about America. In fact. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. and in poll after poll. drought.S. Two years after the disaster.000 people and leaving three million homeless. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. killing some 300. military is the earth's "911 force"—it serves. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. About 20. but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. military responded immediately. as the world's police. Fourth and finally. THERE IS no other state. medical aid. and. Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. The EU has similar problems. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir. When people in the Muslim world witness the U. as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States.

policy toward various regions and states. such as nuclear proliferation. No. US Ambassador to UN.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Khalilzad Hegemony prevents global nuclear war. including a global nuclear exchange. U. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision.democracy. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. 1995 Xue 142/311 Zalmay Khalilzad. Khalilzad. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems.S. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. 2. pg. Precluding the rise of a hostile global rival is a good guide for defining what interests the United States should regard as vital and for which of them it should be ready to use force and put American lives at risk. . “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. Second. free markets. US Ambassador to the United Nations. and low-level conflicts.S. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -. setting priorities for U. and assessing needs for military capabilities and modernization. 18. and the rule of law. First. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. Vol.” The Washington Quarterly. It is a good prism for identifying threats. U. Finally. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. On balance. 84 Spring 1995 Under the third option.S.

such a power might seek global hegemony and the United States would face another global Cold War and the risk of a world war even more catastrophic than the last. the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. Without U. and world economies. U. This could result in arms races. But it would be a mistake to assume that U. 18. Korea. the Saudis might seek to acquire. U. China. protection.” The Washington Quarterly. withdrawal from the world. and eventually undermine U. and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war.especially since unification -. the United States was but one of several major powers.S. 1995 Zalmay Khalilzad. European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War. Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. perhaps by purchase. Russia.an unlikely prospect -. The same is also true of Japan. isolationism had disastrous consequences for world peace. Khalilzad. rather than cooperating with each other. the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East.S. Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. Similarly. stabilizing the region.S. in the long run. with the domination of Europe or East Asia. To preclude this development.to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly. In Western and Central Europe. Now that the United States is the world's preponderant power. In the Persian Gulf. it could gain a significant capability to damage the U. US Ambassador to the United Nations. a neo-isolationist approach might well increase the danger of major conflict. including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. 2. and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. US Ambassador to UN. if it should so decide. result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. With the shifting balance of power among Japan. In the 1920s and 1930s. prosperity. pg. and lead to widespread WMD proliferation. protection. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum.Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile power.would be the natural leading power. interests. 84 Spring 1995 Realistically and over the longer term. threaten world peace. their own nuclear weapons. withdrawal could be even greater. Given a U. to say nothing of the plutonium stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry. destroy US economic viability. and potential new regional powers such as India. in the past.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 143/311 Heg Good–Long Khalilzad A withdrawal of US hegemony would cause multiple scenarios for war that could become global. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. At that time. Iran and Iraq have. Without U. Such a development would threaten U. however.S. Indonesia.S. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. By withdrawing from Europe and Asia. withdrawal could not. Vol. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally . A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany. require a greater U. European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated. both sought regional hegemony.in the region.S. Given Japanese technological prowess. the United States would deliberately risk weakening the institutions and solidarity of the world's community of democratic powers and so establishing favorable conditions for the spread of disorder and a possible return to conditions similar to those of the first half of the twentieth century.S. defense effort.S. China. What might happen to the world if the United States turned inward? Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). If the United States stayed out of such a war -.S. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oil importing nations. Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -. Britain and France fear such a development. the shock of a U. Germany -.S.S. and precluding its domination by rival powers. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia. Besides. No. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil.

That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. Europe. The Xue 144/311 Heg Good-Long Khalilzad extension of instability. If this happened. including the United States. the cost of necessary adjustments might be high.S. the security of every nation in the world. and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U. gross domestic product. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U. increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means for their delivery. exports and imports and jeopardizing U. standard of living. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly.S. conflict. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities.S. would be harmed. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States. .ICWest 09-10 Heg Good undermined. investments in these regions. and hostile hegemony in East Asia. perhaps reducing U.S.

sought to protect itself after a second 9/11 devastated Houston. unleashing the centrifugal forces that have undermined previous Chinese empires. Deglobalization--which is what a new Dark Age would amount to--would lead to economic depression.S. so that friction between the world's "tribes" is bound to be greater.opinionjournal. Western investors would lose out. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might find itself reliving. the Viking raiders of our time. of course. All the empires claimed to rule the world. say. but to obliterate it. It is.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 145/311 Ferguson Multipolarity is unlikely – the alternative to the unipolar system is apolarity – Heg solves the economy. The defining characteristic of our age is not a shift of power upward to supranational institutions. Meanwhile. unaware of the existence of other civilizations. If free flows of information and factors of production have empowered multinational corporations and NGOs (to say nothing of evangelistic cults of all denominations). is to retreat from the role of global hegemon--its fragile self-belief dented by minor reversals--its critics must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony. that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the one of the ninth century. in fact. Meanwhile. And as Europe's Muslim enclaves grow. By contrast. Incipient anarchy. It may be a global vacuum of power. the writ of the international community is not global. it would inevitably become a less open society. Ferguson 04 Niall Ferguson 04 Laurence A. however. was political fragmentation. too: Now it is possible not just to sack a city. http://www. The trouble is. The alternative to unpolarity may not be multipolarity at all. With ease. limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions. For the world is roughly 25 times more populous. And that remains true today. PRC collapse. The reality. an economic crisis in China could plunge the Communist system into crisis.S. beginning in Korea and Kashmir. The prospect of an apolar world should frighten us a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. infiltration of the EU by Islamist extremists could become irreversible. the free flow of destructive technology has empowered criminal organizations and terrorist cells. Be careful what you wish . maybe even believed that they did. and nuke war. increasingly confined to a few strategic cities such as Kabul and Sarajevo.html?id=110005244) Yet universal claims were an integral part of the rhetoric of that era. the terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas. The worst effects of the Dark Age would be felt on the margins of the waning great powers. Religious revivals. and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. For more than two decades. perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. Waning empires. from Hamburg to Gaza.com/editorial/feature. Technology has changed destruction. increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to breaking point. If the U. now societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of mineral oil that are known to be finite. globalization has been raising living standards. Technology has transformed production. terrorism. A coming retreat into fortified cities. Tisch Professor of History @ Harvard University. As the U. These can operate wherever they choose. but downward. Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution (When Empires Wane. some. targeting oil tankers and cruise liners while we concentrate our efforts on making airports secure. except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war.

Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. and biological weapons continue to proliferate.carnegie. p. Nuclear. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous.html lexis This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. Oct. democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. online: http://www. democratic ones. property rights. 405-413. and openness. 1996 In the past. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. has been a factor in the diffusion of democracy around the world. they respect competition. appears increasingly endangered. and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. popular sovereignty. . legitimate democratic forces deter armed threats to their overthrow. Orbis. Democratic countries form more reliable. The global power of the United States. Extinction is only possible absent a world with proliferating democracy Larry Diamond 1995. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy. and human rights-as well as the recent finding of Professor Adam Przeworski (New York University) that democracy is more likely to survive in a country when it is more widely present in the region-we should not surrender our capacity to diffuse and defend democracy. or to return to power (as in Haiti) when they have been overthrown. and enduring trading partnerships. Given the linkages among democracy. The very source of life on Earth. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. global power has been an important reason why certain countries have become models for emulation by others. It is not only intrinsic to our ideals but important to our national security that we remain globally powerful and engaged-and that a dictatorship does not rise to hegemonic power within any major region. open. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. chemical. peace. who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. civil liberties. Senior researcher fellow at Hoover Institution. within their own borders. the global ecosystem. and of its Western democratic allies. p. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. “Beyond the Unipolar Moment: Why the United States Must Remain Engaged”. and the rule of law. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. “Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s”. Precisely because.org/sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Democracy US hegemony is essential democracies Xue 146/311 Larry Diamond. and certainly is crucial to our ability to help popular. staff. with its provisions for legality. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. accountability.

” http://nationaljournal. 2/4/09. even though their owners contribute nothing to the costs of the guards. Economic collapse causes World War Three Mead. Bad economic times can breed wars. expensive.com/politics/story. yet.tnr. Karachi." perhaps yielding "a repetition of the great global economic failure and the bloody international conflicts the world experienced in the 1930s and 1940s. Beijing. we may still have to fight. decline. “Only Makes You Stronger. what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow. he writes in the book's last sentence. 9 – Henry A. He offers this analogy: "The owner of a large. “Beyond Hegemony." The most important such good is security. so has war.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2) History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other. in following its own global interests.htm.he is saying that America. but as a world government for the society of nations. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U. . less reassuring messages as well. the two World Wars. except to say. if we can't get the world economy back on track. bullying lesser subjects purely for its own selfish ends. and their presence will serve to protect the neighboring houses as well. but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power.) Xue 147/311 National Journal. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers. is benefiting everyone. providing necessary "public goods. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928. 12/1/06. the Napoleonic Wars. If the current crisis turns into a depression. the American Revolution.S. ChaosIn his 2005 book "The Case for Goliath.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/1201nj1." Whatever the "life span" of America's role as the world's government." Mandelbaum's core thesis is that America acts not as a kind of empire. more dangerous. but. Mandelbaum is not arguing that America is motivated by altruism -. other countries "will miss it when it is gone. http://www. the Seven Years War. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (Walter Russell. lavishly furnished mansion surrounded by moremodest homes may pay to have security guards patrolling his street." Mandelbaum does not dwell on what an American withdrawal from this role would mean for the world. the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. That is what the United States does in the world of the 21st century.” The New Republic. or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Economy Heg prevents global economic collapse Starobin – writer at national journal – 2006 (Paul Starobin. "The world would become a messier. and less prosperous place.

Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped. Nov/Dec2006 Issue 86.. Deputy Director of Strategy.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Prolif Heg solves prolif – international organizations Xue 148/311 Thayer 06 – Professor of Defense and Strategic Studies @ Missouri State University [Thayer.87-90 In sum. or any country. and that such shoot outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand.” National Interest. where it can be stymied by opponents. and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis. Q. Proliferation leads to extinction. Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN. p.. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. had so many allies. Summer 2002. p32-37] Never before in its history has this country. “In Defense of Primacy. U. Victor A Utgoff. invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). we are headed towards a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. if not all. With most. Forces.S. the world may even be a more polite place than it is today. Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. stabilize Afghanistan. American-led wars in Kosovo. primacy—and the bandwagoning effect—has also given us extensive influence in international politics. Bradley A. Survival. Such influence comes in many forms. allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. . nations wearing nuclear “six shooters” on their hips. widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons. one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. but every once in a while we will all gather together on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

Thayer.from its immense influence in East Asia. in one opening salvo.strategically and economically -. Washington will need to devise methods and strategies to meet increased Chinese regional influence. it seems a natural development that Taiwan will soon be engulfed by the mainland. In order to stunt this possibility. Associate Professor of Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. in light of the U. – China War Xue 149/311 U. While Washington retains a tremendous military advantage over other states in the world. Chen also announced that he would be revising the Taiwanese constitution. Similar to how the United States effectively prevented European powers from exploiting the markets in the Americas by establishing the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. which benefits tremendously -. Since China is becoming such a force to contend with in the region. 32-33) . involving land.S. that advantage is primarily technological. China last week conducted its eighth annual military exercises in the Taiwan Strait on an island only 174 miles from Taiwanese territory.com/report. it is uncertain how long China will continue to refrain from taking serious action against the island. forces are so embroiled in other areas of the world means that any such engagement would be risky for the United States. China won't challenge the U. Published by Routledge. Hegemony is necessary to prevent Chinese invasion of Taiwan that will lead to U. the fact that U. power since other states potentially hostile to U. Beijing quite bluntly announced that the purpose of the exercises was to simulate an invasion of Taiwan. the one issue it does not seem capable of negotiating on is the status of Taiwan. If Taiwan continues to flirt with independence. China War Marquardt. resolve. Chen's reelection and subsequent controversial actions explain why Beijing is flaunting its military might. Even more candidly. air and sea maneuvers. a move that could attempt to institutionalize Taiwan as a sovereign state. held as his central campaign theme the importance of an independent Taiwan. The exercises consisted of some 18. interests now believe that Washington will be less likely to directly challenge them.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good A/T: U.S. "The Case For The American Empire. permanently separated from the mainland. being overburdened in the Middle East. 2007.S.S. where Beijing is challenging American resolve in East Asia by intensifying its threats toward Taipei.S.S. ’07 (Bradley A. the chief of the Communist Party's Central Military Commission. Taiwan. One objective of this missile deployment is to increase Beijing's chances of executing a successful "decapitation strike" where. effectively forcing the island to comply with China's demands of reunificationTo highlight its seriousness.php? ac=view_report&report_id=189&language_id=1) Additionally. the failure of Washington to successfully pacify Iraq has demonstrated the limits of American power. through the use of force if necessary. Erich Marquardt. nevertheless. China will follow its own doctrine to prevent the United States from exploiting markets in East Asia. Beijing has continued to direct some 500 short-range missiles toward the island.S. which China considers a renegade province.000 Chinese troops.S. promised that China would recover Taiwan by 2020. p.S. ISBN 0415952034. ’04 (July 28. This belief is evident in China's recent posturing over Taiwan. the U. Certainly.pinr. the Taiwanese president who was recently reelected. China would be able to neuter Taipei's military and political structure. Chen Shui-bian. Beijing's recent posturing reflects Taipei's continued flirts with independence. and only extends to the point of when an occupation of a foreign country becomes necessary The perceived erosion of American power has led to a loss of U. Jiang Zemin. may become the location where China will conduct a test of U. Furthermore.S. to prevent China from gaining hegemony over the area. it is not clear how beneficial it would be for the United States to risk a military engagement to impede such efforts. and therefore less likely to occurBeijing no doubt recognizes this and is now testing to see how far Washington will go to protect the small Taiwanese island from invasion by a state as large and potentially powerful as China. Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. still retains the military ability to engage Chinese forces should they attempt to invade Taiwan. China now considers it the ideal time to test Washington's resolve in the region. Thayer. “Beijing Tests Washington’s Resolve in East Asia. http://www. It will be important for the United States. Senior Editor with the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point." American Empire: A Debate.

which stifle economic growth.S.S. U. Nearly 400 million Chinese will be over sixty-five years old by 2020. WORLD POLICY JOURNAL. and China lacks the pension and health care infrastructure characteristic of Western societies. something none of them wants to have to do. most Chinese parents will choose a son. Chinese political values are inferior to those of the United States because China is repressive. Younger generations will be pressed to care for the older population. its population was 600 million. China eventually will face other major economic and social problems as well. female infanticide. As a result of the “one child” policy. and female adoption out of China. ubiquitous environmental pollution.S. Van Ness. ’05 (Peter Van Ness is a visiting fellow in the Contemporary China Centre and lectures on security in . China will not engage in armed conflict with the U. and Vietnam. it challenges Washington to think and act in ways quite different from the policies prescribed by the Bush Doctrine when trying to resolve problems in international relations. the imbalance is even greater. including those related to the economic fragility of its financial system and state-owned enterprises. where the preference for sons is the strongest. When China took its first countrywide census in 1953. This has led to widespread abortion. For social and economic reasons. In addition.This situation is the direct result of the “one child” policy adopted in 1979 to halt explosive population growth. The Chinese do not respect human rights.-China cold war is inevitable. Lecturer of International Relations at Australian National University. unlike the United States. economic malaise brought on by widespread corruption. The declining birth rates that flow from this will hinder economic growth in the long run. The normal worldwide divergence between the number of boys to girls is about 103 males to 107 females. Simply put.26 Though it is not a design for what realists would call “balancing” against the United States.” There are an estimated 40 million more men than women in China’s population. The “one child” policy is believed to have resulted in 300 million fewer Chinese. and this constitutes a big danger in international politics. Russia. This could be a source of unrest and economic stagnation. As we see with Japan. Winter 2004/2005) Clearly. but what can we do to prevent it?” China’s strategic response to the Bush Doctrine is not confrontational toward the United States and does not require China’s Asian neighbors to choose between Beijing and Washington. HIV/AIDS and other epidemic diseases like SARS.8 children per woman in 1970 to fewer than 2 per woman in 2000. Many Chinese will have to work far into old age and will not be able to care for themselves should they fall sick or be too old to earn a wage.S. Japan. ’05 (Peter Van Ness is a visiting fellow in the Contemporary China Centre and lectures on security in the Department of International Relations at Australian National University. A second big problem stemming from the “one child” policy is the imbalance between the sexes. There is also the wildcard of potential conflict over Taiwan. There will be a great discrepancy between the numbers of young people and the elderly. China faces major problems that will hinder its ability to replace the United States as the world’s hegemon. there are too few females in China. In rural areas.-China confrontation is unlikely Van Ness. the Chinese birthrate has fallen from 5. and the high energy costs. China wants to avoid a conflict with the United States. Lecturer of International Relations at Australian National University. The rise of China is ripe for potential conflict with its neighbors. The first of these is a rapidly aging population beginning in 2020. The fact that China has so many territorial and other disputes with its major neighbors. it was approximately 800 million. China is not a model for other countries. By 1970. India. means that many countries see it as a threat and will want to ally with the United States against Chinese power. about 133 to 100. including religious and political freedom. economic productivity will peak. if only one child is permitted. A war with Taiwan would retard China’s economic progress and scare neighboring states. about [end page 32] 119 boys are born for every 100 girls. In China.-Soviet Cold War. The Japanese journalist Funabashi Yoichi quotes one Chinese think tank researcher as saying: “We are studying the origin of the U.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 150/311 Although its continued economic growth is impressive. Why did it happen? Was there no way to prevent it? Some see that a U.

Winter 2004/2005) China. they have established a variety of communication links in order to avoid misperception and miscommunication if tensions in the Taiwan Strait should reemerge. there appears to be little likelihood of direct confrontation between the United States and China. is concerned about Japanese participation in the U. Beijing and Washington understand each other much better today than they did in 1995–96 when China launched its “missile exercises” in a failed effort to influence the presidential elections in Taiwan. and since then. WORLD POLICY JOURNAL.S.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 151/311 the Department of International Relations at Australian National University. and the possible revision of Japan’s constitution to facilitate a more substantial military modernization but except for possible miscalculation over the issue of Taiwan. for its part. . missile defense system. new legislation to permit Japanese forces to play a larger supporting role in Bush initiatives.

Obama said he is prepared to offer 'carrots' in the form of generous economic incentives to persuade the Islamic Republic to wrap up its nuclear program. "It is not appropriate for Obama to use such words [similar to those of Bush]. Obama said on Sunday that he would exercise "direct but tough diplomacy" in a bid to dissuade Tehran from enriching uranium. He said.ir/detail." Rafsanjani said Tuesday addressing prayers of Eid Al-Adha in Tehran. ’08 (Press TV. His recent comments. Bush on Iran. He criticized the US President-elect Barack Obama for following the same policies adopted by the outgoing President George W.presstv.aspx?id=77906&sectionid=351020101) Xue 152/311 Chairman of Iran's Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani says that the Islamic Republic does not intend to engage in a war with the US. Rafsanjani recommended US leaders to confirm Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy and act rationally.or 'sticks'. “Iran will not engage in war with U.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good A/T: U. Iranian officials have repeatedly called on the Obama administration to live up to world expectations and forgo Washington's age-old carrot and stick policies. however." Obama's election as the next US president has opened prospects of Tehran-Washington rapprochement. suggest the former Illinois senator is already backtracking on campaign promises of 'a clean break from the Bush administration's policies'. – Iran War Iran will not go to war with the U.S. . In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press.S.S. December 9th 2008. Iran only intends to stand on its two feet and set a role model for regional countries to uphold their independence and freedom. http://www. He warned that Iran's refusal to halt its uranium enrichment program would subject the country to tougher sanctions .”. – Iranian leaders Press TV. "We have no intention to involve in a conflict with the US.

During the Cold War. and the guarantee of protection by the mighty nuclear arsenal of the United States that came with it. can confer a political advantage in dealing with countries lacking them. for example—might feel the need to off-set those stockpiles with nuclear forces of their own. . The American military presence was in both cases a confidence-building measure. unless somehow counterbalanced. They would. They wanted them there because the American presence offered the assurance that these regions would remain free of war and. The United States has made the prevention of nuclear proliferation one of its most important foreign policies. the countries in both regions would feel less confident that no threat to their security would appear. even if they did not always say so clearly or even explicitly. since the American forces serve as a hedge against uncertainty. and if that presence were with-drawn. 39-41) American forces remained in Europe and East Asia because the countries located in these two regions wanted them there. Those steps would surely not include war. p. the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that do not already have them is widely considered to be the single greatest threat to international tranquillity in the twenty-first century. the American military presence. several of their non-nuclear neighbors—Germany. at least not in the first instance. and with the end of the American military presence in their regions. Russia and China retain nuclear stock-piles in the wake of the Cold War. The Case for Goliath: How America Acts As the World’s Government in the Twenty-First Century. like reassurance. and Taiwan. ’05 (Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins. would occur smoothly. take steps to compensate for the absence of these forces. free of the costly preparations for war that had marked the twentieth century. in all likelihood. neutralized the nuclear weapons that the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China accumulated. some of the countries of East Asia and Europe might well seek to replace them with another source of hedging. with Europe and East Asia remaining peaceful throughout the transition. Instead. and its efforts to this end constitute. Poland. To the contrary.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good A/T: Heg  Prolif Xue 153/311 US forces check nuclear proliferation in Asia and the EU Mendalbaum. But this is not what most of the world believes. the one between a nuclear-weapon state and a non-nuclear-weapon state has inequality built into it.9 The possession of nuclear weapons equips their owner with a certain leverage. a geopolitical weight that. 2005. a service to the other members of the international system. in the case of Europe. Perhaps the process of replacing American nuclear armaments with those of other countries. Michael. Like the relationship between employer and employee. Japan. no matter how friendly that relationship may be. if this should take place. A leading candidate for that role would be nuclear weapons of their own. South Korea.

If the logic of American empire is unappealing. Spring) Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems. Malaysia. “An Empire. ’03 (Stephen. and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard. forces from the Middle East. or anyone else. The National Interest. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile. Taiwan. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans. Iraq and perhaps Algeria. now. without significant exception. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg checks the threat of nuclear proliferation Rosen. but they would not be small. Indonesia and others. or pretensions to it. It may be that all other peoples.S. Europe and mainland Asia. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect. it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive. . This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U. Iran. will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. If you can keep it”. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. in the most probable post-imperial world. Xue 154/311 the United States could give up the imperial mission. would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. Current friends would feel less secure and. Saudi Arabia. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. South Korea.

a slide back toward multipolarity would actually be the worst of all worlds for the United States. But terrorism has been a perennial problem in history. .Multipolarity Fails Brooks & Wohlforth.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good A/T: Heg  Terrorism Xue 155/311 Hegemony is critical to deterring terrorist attacks . In such a scenario it would continue to lead the pack and serve as a focal point for resentment and hatred by both state and nonstate actors. it bore the brunt of Osama bin Laden's anger. July. but it would have fewer carrots and sticks to use in dealing with the situation. Foreign Affairs. but the possibility of effective and coordinated action against them would be reduced. 2002 / August. and only after its collapse did he shift his focus to the United States (an indicator of the demise of bipolarity that was ignored at the time but looms larger in retrospect). 2002) Some might question the worth of being at the top of a unipolar system if that means serving as a lightning rod for the world's malcontents. When there was a Soviet Union. Associate Professor at Dartmouth and Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale. and multipolarity did not save the leaders of several great powers from assassination by anarchists around the turn of the twentieth century. The threats would remain. after all. Associate Professors in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. ’02 (Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth. In fact.

At the beginning of the Cold War. Being wealthier and stronger than other states does not guarantee that a state will survive. and to subsidize the emergence of an open international economic order.navy. U. Because the United States is so powerful. Few countries or nonstate groups want to invite the “focused enmity” of the United States (to use William Wohlforth’s apt phrase). Today.mil/press/review/2002/spring/art1-sp2. and it will be better equipped to resist the pressures that arise. it has ample resources to devote to whatever problems it may face in the future. to assist them in developing stable democratic orders. Professor of International Affairs at Harvard.S.nwc . It would have been much harder to do any of these things if the United States had been weaker. but anti-American elements are forced to rely on covert or indirect strategies (such as terrorist bombings) that do not seriously threaten America’s dominant position. groups opposed to U. of course. and it cannot insulate a state from all outside pressures. When the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf increased in the late 1970s.S. “American Primacy” http://www. . however. But the strongest state is more likely to escape serious harm than weaker ones are. Iraq. interests would probably be emboldened and overt challenges would be more likely. and countries and groups that have done so (such as Libya. primacy helps deter potential challenges to American interests in virtually every part of the world. for example. As discussed below.S. dominance does provoke opposition in a number of places. Were American power to decline significantly. and because its society is so wealthy. Serbia. ’02 (Stephen. in 1990–91 it used these capabilities to liberate Kuwait.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Primacy deters terrorism Walt. its power enabled the United States to help rebuild Europe and Japan. it had the wherewithal to oust the network’s Taliban hosts and to compel broad international support for its campaign to eradicate Al-Qaeda itself.htm) Xue 156/311 Perhaps the most obvious reason why states seek primacy—and why the United States benefits from its current position— is that international politics is a dangerous business. U. or the Taliban) have paid a considerable price.7 The United States was also able to deploy powerful armed forces in Europe and Asia as effective deterrents to Soviet expansion. Also. when the United States was attacked by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in September 2001. the United States created its Rapid Deployment Force in order to deter threats to the West’s oil supplies.

2003. War was the constant companion and crucial instrument of the multipolar balance of power. March/April 2009. 12-13) America's power-hard and soft-is only part of the story. It is one thing to agree that change is needed. In current circumstances. revamping the UN Security Council. THE PARADOX OF AMERICAN POWER. In the 1920s and 1930s. PhD in political science from Harvard. Richard Nixon argued that "the only time in the history of the world that we have had extended periods of peace is when there has been a balance of power. pp. Brooks & William Wohlforth. the League of Nations nurtured multilateral discussions. equally miscasts international policy in a world where circumstances may indeed warrant unilateral decisiveness. The United States. from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to financial instability and global warming. Rote adherence to the balance of power and multipolarity may prove to be a dangerous approach to global governance in a world where war could turn nuclear.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good A/T: Multipolarity Multipolarity can’t solve global conflict Nye. in the real world--the chances that those states will cooperate are best when a hegemon takes the lead. Italian aggression against Ethiopia or Nazi trial runs for Blitzkrieg and Holocaust. Chair of the National Intelligence Council. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. revitalizing the nuclear nonproliferation regime--proposals for revising international institutions are all the rage these days. Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard. European leaders endlessly consulted one another. and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance.S. Already in the 1970s. 09 (Stephen G. grasping for a common denominator that no consultation would ever achieve. producing only futility. as the superior power in the world. Multiateral action is too slow to prevent escalation Schuller & Grant. in which constantly shifting coalitions contained the ambitions of any especially aggressive power. The attacks of 11 September on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon count as an incident deserving of response regardless of the sentiments and sympathies of other nations. must assume the responsibility of deploying its might for the benefit and welfare of itself and the rest of the world. The existing architecture is a relic of the preoccupations and power relationships of the middle of the last century--out of sync with today's world of rising powers and new challenges. But whether such multipolarity would be good or bad for the United States and for the world is debatable. As soon as the conversation shifts to brass tacks. competing visions begin to clash. No. U. 2002. 79. Many realists extol the virtues of the classic nineteenth-century European balance of power. Professors of Political Science. but quite another to settle on its specifics. ’03 (Fran Schuller and Thomas Grant. p. Professors of Political Science. It is when one nation becomes infinitely more powerful in relation to its potential competitors that the danger of war arises. some unilateral actions override soothing diplomatic nattering.. I am skeptical. The classic European balance provided stability in the sense of maintaining the independence of most countries. ’02 Xue 157/311 (Joseph S. but there were wars among the great powers for 60 percent of the years since 1500. Rather than mounting individual effective actions against the provocations of Japanese empire-building in China. . Foreign Affairs. Dartmouth. Hegemony is critical to spur international cooperation Brooks & Wohlforth. government professors. They urge the United States to rediscover the virtues of a balance of power at the global level today. And for good reason: no one sitting down to design the perfect global framework for the twenty-first century would come up with anything like the current one. Associate Professor at Dartmouth and Olin Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale. In an anarchic world of self-interested states--that is to say. Nye. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. How others react to American power is equally important to the question of stability and governance in this global information age. p49-63) Creating a league of democracies. 39) The opposing principle that of multilateralism.

Bush. where 8. the first free elections in that country’s history. Natan Sharansky makes the argument that once Arabs are governed democratically. and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Spreading Our Form of Government) The American Empire gives the United States the ability to spread its form of government. Elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies. Iraq. voted in October 2004. there is a chance—small as it may be—that once states are governed democratically. Using American power to spread democracy can be a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as for the United States. . The march of democracy has been impressive. Asia. Democracy has spread to Latin America. This is because democracies are more likely to align themselves with the United States and be sympathetic to its worldview. and Egypt. democracy. Winston Churchill recognized this over half a century ago: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. "The Case For The American Empire. even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan. the Caucasus.5 million Afghans. their people would be better off. Associate Professor of Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. Lebanon. 40 percent of them women. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel. Whether democracy in the Middle East would have this impact is debatable. the likelihood of conflict will be reduced further. and now even the Middle East is becoming increasingly democratic.” The United States should do what it can to foster the spread of democracy throughout the world. democracy is the best form of government. In addition." American Empire: A Debate. Kuwait. ’07 Xue 158/311 (Bradley A. 2007. p. Thayer. 42-43. but democratic progress has been made in Morocco. the Palestinian Authority. simply put. Published by Routledge.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Hegemony  Democracy Heg is key to global democracy promotion Thayer. they will not wish to continue the conflict against Israel. Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. Europe. He has said that Sharansky’s woridview “is part of my presidential DNA. Although democracies have their flaws. ISBN 0415952034. This idea has had a big effect on President George W. The military power of the United States put Iraq on the path to democracy. but nonetheless.

which promote prosperity.” Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the American Empire comes from Deepak Lal. Published by Routledge.S. in the course of his journeys. and this led him to recognize that his faith in socialism was wrong. and now a professor who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India that strongly condemned empire. The American Empire has created this network not out of altruism but because it benefits the economic well-being of the United States. ISBN 0415952034. capital. p. mobility of capital and labor markets—to promote economic growth. . It has created a Liberal International Economic Order (LIEO)—a network of worldwide free trade and commerce. so that they too may enjoy economic prosperity. to use the LIEO to promote the well-being of all economies. soldiers create the conditions in which the American economy may thrive. Lal argues.”62 Globalization is the process of creating a common economic space. It is the responsibility of the United States. particularly states in the Third World. Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg K/T: Global Econ Xue 159/311 Extend Kagan from the 1AC. Empires provide order. and “we are able to shape the environment [of international politics] in ways that are advantageous to us and that are stabilizing to the areas where we are forward deployed. Navy is key to keeping global water wars open which are essential to International Trade Hegemony is key to the global economy – free trade and globalization. and labor. a former Indian foreign service diplomat. Kagan indicates that American Hegemony is key to our Navy and the U. Thayer. respect for intellectual property rights. ’07 (Bradley A. the Secretary of Defense William Cohen put this well when he acknowledged that “economists and soldiers share the same interest in stability”. He has abandoned the position of his youth and is now one of the strongest proponents of the American Empire.61 Lal submits that the only way to bring relief to the desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the American Empire. Associate Professor of Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. researcher at the World Bank. prolific author. business follows the flag. Just as a conservative famously is said to be a liberal who has been mugged by reality. and this order “has been essential for the working of the benign processes of globalization. Spreading Our Form of Government) Economic prosperity is also a product of the American Empire. the hard “evidence and experience” that stemmed from “working and traveling in most parts of the Third World during my professional career” caused this profound change. which leads to a growing integration of the world economy through the increasingly free movement of goods. but particularly those in the Third World. In 1998. 42-43. The stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit. Thayer. 2007.. Lal has traveled the world and. thereby helping to promote investment and prosperity.. He realized that free markets were necessary for the development of poor countries. has witnessed great poverty and misery due to a lack of economic development. "The Case For The American Empire." American Empire: A Debate.

diverting helicopters fighting the war on terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University.S. including bridges. It is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on small matters [end page 45] as well as great ones. or a militia called the Jingaweit. Again. and 2 million left homeless. there is no alternative to the leadership of the United States. the money was well spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters. the United States assists the countries in need. and Guatemala was destroyed. and the planet’s fire department. but also—only days after the tsunami struck—used its military to help those in need. $350 million.S. 80 percent of Indonesian opinion was opposed to the United States. The magnitude of the devastation was tremendous. Thayer. Thayer. as one might expect from those witnessing the generosity of the United States. Also in 1999. Spreading Our Form of Government) If someone were to ask “How many humanitarian missions has the United States undertaken since the end of the Cold War?”. In October 2005.S. the U. In fact. The U. military came to the aid of the people affected. with about 10.000 people and left 5 million homeless in Bangladesh. it does not possess the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U. . earthquake. Whenever there is a natural disaster.” In fact. flood. On the day after Christmas in 2004. the United States provided about $156 million in aid to Pakistan. water. forces are credited with saving over 200. The vast majority of these deaths were caused by violence. leadership solves. but it also had a real impact on the war on terror. It is estimated that 60 percent of the infrastructure in Honduras.S. typhoon.S.000 homeless.000 people. It is believed to have rescued about 700 people who otherwise would have died.000 people and left 140. Nicaragua. "The Case For The American Empire. p. Associate Professor of Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. most of the fifty actions were humanitarian in nature and received almost no media attention in the United States. and malnutrition associated with the conflict. 42-43. as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. military.000 people and leaving 3 million homeless. According to the State Department." American Empire: A Debate. Published by Routledge. The U. food. plus another $350 million provided by American citizens and corporations. sailors. military responded immediately. The generosity of the United States has done more to help the country fight the war on terror than almost any other measure. and it is important to keep in mind that its costs were separate from the $350 million provided by the U.S. disease. when flooding caused by cyclone Marian killed almost 140. hospitals. are struggling against Christian and animist black Africans who are fighting for independence. In 1991. the United States launched Operation Sea Angel to save stranded and starving people by supplying food.000 people killed. The United Nations certainly cannot because it lacks the military and economic power of the United States. In this conflict.000 to 181. UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. 98.S. food. Operation Strong Support aided Central Americans affected by Hurricane Mitch. and mobile shelters. or tsunami. it is the global paramedic. medical aid. The United States was the first to respond with aid. potable water.S. and while wars like the invasion of Panama or Iraq received considerable attention from the world’s media. That hurricane was the fourth-strongest ever recorded in the Atlantic and the worst natural disaster to strike Central America in the twentieth century. Moreover. torrential rains and flash flooding in Venezuela killed 30. In the next phase of Strong Support.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg K/T: Humanitarianism Xue 160/311 Hegemony is key to humanitarianism – only U. and schools. About 20. military is the earth’s “911 force”—it serves as the world’s police. Before the tsunami. 80 percent had a favorable opinion of the United States. killing about 74. When the United States does not intervene. and marines responded by providing water. it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on important issues and to act as a unified force once a decision has been reached. airmen. military engineers rebuilt much of the infrastructure of those countries. people die. disease treatment and prevention. most Americans probably have to think for a moment and then answer “three or four.000 people died between March 2003 and March 2005 as a result of this struggle. U.000 U. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War. blankets. There is no other state or international organization that can provide these benefits. a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra and killed 300. soldiers.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. as it has not in the Darfur region of Sudan and eastern Chad. The United States responded with Operation Fundamental Response. The U. which brought water purification and hygiene [end page 44] equipment saving thousands. and. government and other money given by American citizens and corporations to relief organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent. roads. it left a lasting impression about the United States. the number is much larger. Simply put.S. and medical assistance. after it. More importantly. Arab Muslims belonging to government forces. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir. Washington not only contributed a large amount of aid. ’07 (Bradley A. 13. while saving more from disease due to the timely arrival of medical supplies. Only the U. 2007. To help those in need. an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir. Thus.000 lives in that operation.000 missing. ISBN 0415952034. In 1999.

Posen acknowledges the importance of such governance mechanisms when he talks about the need for a revived Non-Proliferation Treaty and other security regimes. Indeed. Hence Posen’s third mistake is that he narrowly associates “restraint” with the retraction of America’s security commitments in Europe and Asia. December (http://www. and they establish constraints and obligations that at least partly inhibit American unilateralism. when it is likely to be relatively less powerful. Finally. Think of it as investing in the future. John “The Case for Restraint: Comments and Responses” The American Interest. while the United States finds itself intervening everywhere and getting into trouble. that America can best pursue its global interests with a functioning governance system that facilitates cooperation in world politics.the-american-interest. . not the wholesale scrapping of the postwar system. but to tie itself more tightly to its allies. Posen misses the same point that his neoconservative rivals miss—namely. These institutions provide mechanisms for other countries to engage Washington. But the solution is better collective decision-making. of a certain sort.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good No Balancing OR Interventionism Effective foreign policy solves balancing and interventionism Ikenberry.com/ai2/article. We should be working at this moment to shape the global system so that the institutional legacies of today’s actions put the United States in the best position possible to secure its interests when the wheel of power turns and other countries loom larger. The argument he makes is that these alliance partnerships create a moral hazard. Albert G. there are dangers that this extended security system will provide opportunities for strategic blunders and overextension. but it is precisely Washington’s commitment to rules and institutions of governance that reduces the incentives for these soft balancing moves. to pull back from a liberal internationalist grand strategy is to lose the opportunity to lay down the institutional foundations for a global order that serves American interests in future years. Yes. other countries shirk their responsibilities. Posen notes the troubling way in which the world has pushed back in the face of the unbridled exercise of American power. But these alliances—as well as America’s commitment to a wider array of multilateral institutions— are actually an essential tool for the establishment of American strategic restraint. The lesson of the Iraq war is not for America to “come home”. the world is thirsting today for a revived system of rules and tools for collective action. Relying on American commitments. ’07 Xue 161/311 (G. in conflating these alternatives. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. This requires activism.cfm? Id=337&MId=16)) Second.

Indeed. however. populations. American society. and its central challenge is to recover socioeconomically lest it lose its far eastern territories to China. the steadying effect of American power will be indispensable to global stability. Russia. Some leading states. It can also remind us. and energy needed to push both America off its pedestal and sustain global stability. in any case. Japan. or from America’s global misuse of its own power. probably later than some wish and earlier than many Americans take for granted. ’05 (Zbigniew “The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership”. etc. rendered all the more dangerous by the dissemination of weapons of mass destruction. The France––are former major European powers––Great Britain. however. military. France. a reminder that nothing endures indefinitely. and China. In any case the eventual end of American Hegemony will not involve a restoration of multipolarity among the familiar major powers that dominated world affairs for the last two centuries. even if it succeeds in maintaining high rates of economic growth and retains its internal political stability (both are far from certain). Russia is no longer an imperial power. Professor of Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University. Germany and too weak to step into the breach. which additionally faces uncertainties regarding its long-term national unity. It is noteworthy that since 1880. with supranational arrangements increasingly assuming some of the special security roles of traditional nation-states. National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration. technological. and sociocultural worldwide preeminence. military budgets and assets. muscle. too. the United Kingdom. and when they disappear. America’s role as the global stabilizer will also endure. The familiar powers of the last century are too fatigued or too weak to assume the role the United States now plays. in a comparative ranking of world powers (cumulatively based on their economic strength. The same is true of India. the conventional wisdom of the 1980s that Japan is destined to be the next “superstate” now has the ring of historical irony. Japan’s population is aging and its economy has slowed. steadily sustained a protracted worldwide engagement against the threat of totalitarian communism. and the gap in the year 200 between the top-ranked United States and the rest was vastly wider than ever before. even though rather parochial in its intellectual and cultural interests. the status quo ante does not reappear. and it is currently mobilized against the threat of totalitarian communism. and it is currently mobilized against international terrorism. or because . in which international anarchy would be punctuated by eruptions of truly massive destructiveness. Even a coalition among the above––a most unlikely prospect. any evident American decline might precipitate efforts to reinforce America’s leadership. given their historical conflicts and clashing territorial claims–would lack the cohesion. 2-4) History is a record of change.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Collapse Bad – No one CAN Counterbalance Transition away from hegemony will be worse .). Most important. The bottom line is twofold: For the next two decades. As long as that commitment endures.no one can counterbalance us Xue 162/311 Brzezinski. unambiguously earned inclusion among the top five in every one of the twenty-year intervals. will fade at some point. antiquated infrastructure. economic. The key question is: What will replace it? An abrupt termination of American hegemony would without doubt precipitate global chaos. the top five slots at sequential twenty-year intervals have been shared by just seven states: the United States. So it will be with the current American global preponderance. Only in the United States. it is quite unlikely that the European Union will become sufficiently united politically to muster the popular will to compete with the United States in the politico––military arena. An unguided progressive decline would have a similar effect. Should that commitment fade––because terrorism has faded. would side with America if push came to shove. It. China. Nor will it yield to another dominant hegemony that would displace the United States by assuming a similar political. while the principal challenge to American power can come only from within––either from the repudiation of power by the American democracy itself. That some things endure for a long time. But a gradual and controlled devolution of power could lead to an increasingly formalized global community of shared interest. the shared resentment of American hegemony would not dampen the clashes of interest among states. The more intense collisions––in the event of America’s decline––could spark a wildfire of regional violence. will at best be a regional power still constrained by an impoverished population. In the next two decades. p. Germany. spread out over a long time. and limited appeal worldwide.

power.S. ICWest 09-10 Heg Good . Conduct that is perceived worldwide as arbitrary could prompt America’s progressive isolations. undercutting not America’s power to defend itself as such. but rather its ability to use that power to enlist others in a common effort to shape a secure international environment.Xue 163/311 Americans tire or lose their sense of common purpose––America’s global role could rapidly terminate. That role could also be undermined and delegitimized by the misuse of U.

CREATING AND SUSTAINING THE UNIPoLAR WORLD How will the United States deal with such a world? Today there is much discussion of the so-called Bush Doctrine and what may follow it. Evidence to the contrary — the turn toward autocracy in Russia or the growing military ambitions of China — is either dismissed as a temporary aberration or denied entirely. Nations remain as strong as ever.” there is not a single administration in the past half-century that has not attempted to engineer changes of regime in various parts of the world. October.” 4 They have been impatient with the status quo. along ideological lines. and to work for the “end of tyranny. A version of this essay will appear in Melvyn P. it is impossible in the present era to renounce such actions a priori.” with the United States remaining the only superpower. China. but what they are least likely to conclude is that the intervention was wildly out of character for the United States. they have often been at odds with the more cautious approaches of their allies. India. is that Bush really changed anything. The competition between liberalism and absolutism has reemerged. Historians will long debate the decision to go to war in Iraq. with the United States. they generally refer to three sets of principles — the idea of preemptive or preventive military action. have penetrated and polluted their Islamic world. regardless of party.S. The world is still “unipolar. as in the past. Policy Review. the idea of preemptive or preventive action is hardly a novel concept in American foreign policy. would promise to abjure in its conduct of foreign policy.” 1 Today the nations of the West still cling to that vision. and the competition among nations that have shaped history. Since 1945 Americans have insisted on acquiring and maintaining military supremacy. and so too the nationalist ambitions. and a diplomacy tending toward “unilateralism. Offshore balancing and multipolarity EPICALLY FAIL Kagan.”3 They have amassed power and influence and deployed them in ever-widening arcs around the globe on behalf of interests. They have seen America as a catalyst for change in human affairs. it can return once again to the way it was. Hegemony Xue 164/311 U. eds. Legro. And if by unilateralism we mean an unwillingness to be constrained by the disapproval of the un Security Council. which presidents of . Therefore. Struggles for honor and status and influence in the world have once again become key features of the international scene. of Dangerous Nation: America’s Place in the World from Its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century He is senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. from Eisenhower ’s cia-inspired coups in Iran and Guatemala and his planned overthrow of Fidel Castro. it is a time not of convergence but of divergence. and they have employed the strategies and tactics of “maximalism. in their view. the hopeful anticipation of a liberal.org/publications/policyreview/8552512. September. Japan. 5 When people talk about a Bush Doctrine. 6 It is worth asking not only whether past administrations acted differently but also which of these any future administration. however. with nations growing together or disappearing altogether. 2008. with the nations of the world increasingly lining up. Oxford University Press. Since the end of World War ii at least. bear any burden” to defend freedom. And when Bush leaves. democratic world that wanted to believe the end of the Cold War did not end just one strategic and ideological conflict but all strategic and ideological conflict. Leffler to John Lewis Gaddis have shown. http://www. The years immediately following the end of the Cold War offered a tantalizing glimpse at a new kind of international order. The world has not been transformed. They have declared their readiness to “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation” by forces of oppression. the promotion of democracy and “regime change”. The first illusion.8 As for “regime change. ideological conflicts melting away. a “preponderance of power” in the world rather than a balance of power with other nations. to seek “democratic enlargement” in the world. Heg is necessary to avert global conflict – Counterbalancing is a lie. People and their leaders longed for “a world transformed. Senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. both tangible and intangible. As scholars from Melvyn P. which John F. by some of the nato allies. and others vying for regional predominance. and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund.” a willingness to act without the sanction of international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council or the unanimous approval of its allies. to “pay any price. Russia. Having glimpsed the mirage once. They have regarded the United States as the “indispensable nation”2and the “locomotive at the head of mankind. the passions.” seeking revolutionary rather than gradual solutions to problems. Leffler and Jeffrey W. But that was a mirage. there is the fault line between modernity and tradition. to George Herbert Walker Bush ’s invasion of Panama to Bill Clinton’s actions in Haiti and Bosnia. 7 And as policymakers and philosophers from Henry Kissinger to Michael Walzer have agreed. Europe.html) The world has become normal again. Finally. Ideologically. ideals. cultures intermingling through increasingly free commerce and communications. Kennedy attempted to carry out. and ambitions. But international competition among great powers has returned. the violent struggle of Islamic fundamentalists against the modern powers and the secular cultures that. They have operated on the ideological conviction that liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government and that other forms of government are not only illegitimate but transitory.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Kagan – There are no Alternatives to U. Iran.S. by the oas.hoover. American presidents of both parties have pursued a fairly consistent approach to the world. most recently. is author. however. Many prefer to believe the world is in turmoil not because it is in turmoil but because Bush made it so by destroying the new hopeful era. ’08 (Robert Kagan. To Lead the World: American Strategy After the Bush Doctrine. or by any other international body. people naturally want to see it and believe in it again..

not from the west. apparently at an all-time high. The enormous and productive American economy remains at the center of the international economic system. absent some dramatic — indeed. They are underpinned.Xue 165/311 the past allowed themselves to be so constrained? 9 These qualities of American foreign policy reflect not one man or one party or one circle of thinkers. other than the United States. the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. many great powers. Russia and China certainly share a common and openly expressed goal of checking American hegemony. by power. the two powers do not trust one another. and the rise of China inspires at least as much nervousness in Russia as it does in the United States.”10 and so long as American power in all its forms is sufficient to shape the behavior of others. American democratic principles are shared by over a hundred nations. Japan. Chinese strategists.” and this configuration seems likely to persist into the future absent either a catastrophic blow to American power or a decision by the United States to diminish its power and international influence voluntarily. China is less abrasively confrontational with the United States. especially in the case of Japan and Australia. the most notable balancing over the past decade has been aimed not at the American superpower but at the two large powers: China and Russia. democratic nations. nor Spain proposes such counterbalancing. who fear threats from the east. or at least some of the other advanced. despite a public opinion hostile to the Bush administration. India. of a world with only one superpower. In any case. by old beliefs and ambitions and. the clear trend in recent years has been toward closer strategic cooperation with the United States. Japan. China and Russia cannot balance the United States without at least some help from Europe. and China is the only power in the world. on the one hand. India has also drawn closer to the United States and is clearly engaged in balancing against China. Germany. genuinely revolutionary — effort by a future administration. Russia ’s efforts to increase its influence over what it regards as its “near abroad. In addition. So long as Americans elect leaders who believe it is the role of the United States to improve the world and bring about the “ultimate good.” meanwhile. In Asia and the Pacific. Japan. As for Japan and India. India. But those powerful players are not joining the effort. see the world not as multipolar but as characterized by “one superpower. Europe has rejected the option of making itself a counterweight to American power. aimed at resisting American influence in Central Asia. Finally. The anticipated global balancing has for the most part not occurred. Not only realist theorists but others both inside and outside the United States have long argued the theoretical and practical unsustainability. on the other hand. there has been much anticipation of the end of unipolarity and the rise of a multipolar world in which the United States is no longer the predominant power. the broad direction of American foreign policy is unlikely to change. as measured in public opinion polls. Yet ICWest 09-10 Heg Good American predominance in the main categories of power persists as a key feature of the international system. Realist theory has assumed that other powers must inevitably band together to balance against the superpower. These American traditions. But Sino-Russian hostility to American predominance has not yet produced a concerted and cooperative effort at balancing. but it either cannot or does not want to increase its military capability sufficiently to begin counterbalancing the United States. Others expected the post-Cold War era to be characterized by the primacy of geoeconomics over geopolitics and foresaw a multipolar world with the economic giants of Europe. Russia has been using its vast reserves of oil and natural gas as a lever to compensate for the lack of military power. there has been a widespread assumption that the American position in the world must finally be eroding. engaged in a long-term military buildup. in the wake of the Iraq War and with hostility to the United States. This has led them to seek closer relations with Washington. Australia. 11 Sino-Russian hostility to American predominance has not yet produced a concerted effort at balancing. the prospect of a unified Europe counterbalancing the United States is practically nil. If anything. Its dependence on the American market and foreign investment and its perception that the United States remains a potentially formidable adversary mitigate against an openly confrontational approach. Since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of this “unipolar” world. At the moment. They spring from the nation ’s historical experience and are a characteristic American response to international circumstances. and China rivaling the United States. where neither France. who spend a great deal of time thinking about these things. Mainstream realist theory has assumed that other powers must inevitably band together to balance against the superpower. and even South Korea and the nations of Southeast Asia have all engaged in “hedging” against a rising China. have catapulted the United States to a position of pre-eminence in the world. The American military is not only the largest but the only one capable of projecting force into distant theaters. Now that theeu has expanded to include the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Overall. together with historical events beyond Americans’ control. have produced tensions and negative reactions in the Baltics and other . They have created at least one institution. China ’s buildup is driven at least as much by its own long-term ambitions as by a desire to balance the United States. This is true even among the older members of the European Union. moreover. not to mention undesirability. Russian military power remains in decline. They are traditional rivals. Italy.

15 Predominance is not the same thing as omnipotence. if anything. conducting themselves wisely. nevertheless pursue policies that reflect more concern about the powerful states in their midst than about the United States. other than their reluctance to assist the United States in Iraq. both economically and politically. and the election of Lula in Brazil. American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world. therefore. Both were far more upset and angered by the American intervention in Kosovo than by the invasion of Iraq. hostility to the American military presence began forcing the United States out of the Philippines and seemed to be undermining support for American bases in Japan. forces. By the same token. In 2003 those who claimed the U. So long as the United States remains at the center of the international economy and the predominant military power. the United States has built or expanded bases in Afghanistan. while their publics may be more anti-American than in the past.” The world’s failure to balance against the superpower is the more striking because the United States. their hostility to the United States predates the Iraq War and. On balance.S. The Iraq War has not had the effect expected by many. The American defense budget has surpassed $500 billion per year. Canberra. American predominance in the early years after the Second World War did not prevent the North Korean invasion of the South. Tokyo. Although there are reasonable-sounding theories as to why America ’s position should be eroding as a result of global opposition to the war and the unpopularity of the current administration. Overall. not including supplemental spending totaling over $100 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan. This level of spending is sustainable. the Soviet acquisition of the hydrogen bomb. The choice .13 But if elections are the test. the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. It is also comparatively benevolent. it is American plans to reduce the U. Chinese rhetoric has been. As for Russia and China. 2001. It inspires fears and jealousies. But a superpower can lose a war — in Vietnam or in Iraq — without ceasing to be a superpower if the fundamental international conditions continue to support its predominance. Just because the United States has more power than everyone else does not mean it can impose its will on everyone else. Because these nations are now members of the European Union. however. The United States is not immune to error. and because of its size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. the Philippines is rethinking that decision. Two decades ago. This is a good thing. and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign international configuration of power. a communist victory in China. there is no shortage of other countries willing to host U. Georgia. so long as the American public continues to support American predominance as it has consistently for six decades. Paris. a good indication that much of the world continues to tolerate and even lend support to American geopolitical primacy if only as a protection against more worrying foes. not what one would expect if there was a widespread fear or hatred of overweening American power. Djibouti. Russia turned most sharply anti-American in the late 1990s partly as a consequence of nato enlargement. foreign policy failures do not necessarily undermine predominance. It stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous world. and Romania in Europe. Poland. and Ottawa. more tempered during the Bush years. and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. the Bush administration. like all other nations. their hostility to the United States predates the Iraq War and. or the consolidation of the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe — all far greater strategic setbacks than anything the United States has yet suffered or is likely to suffer in Iraq and Afghanistan. the defeat of Aznar’s party in Spain. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. 12 This has provided a cushion against hostile public opinion and offers a foundation on which to strengthen American relations with these countries after the departure of Bush. any more than it did six decades ago. prudently. other more recent votes around the world have put relatively pro-American leaders in power in Berlin. Both began complaining about American hegemonism and unilateralism and calling for a multipolar order during the Clinton years. the Bush administration. continues to expand its power and military reach and shows no sign of slowing this expansion even after the 2008 elections.S.14 As the American military budget rises. Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world. Hungary. Nor does predominance mean the United States will succeed in all its endeavors. for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others value. so does the number of overseas American military bases. In places like South Korea and Germany. and in strict obeisance to international law.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 166/311 parts of Eastern Europe. from a liberal perspective. in Bulgaria. notwithstanding its difficult interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. and the furor in Japan has subsided. Since September 11. indeed. it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great powers. and in the Philippines. and Qatar. there has been little measurable change in the actual policies of nations. in part because the Chinese have seen September 11 and American preoccupation with terrorism as a welcome distraction from America’s other preoccupation. traditional allies of the United States in East Asia and in Europe. military presence that stir controversy. the “China threat.S. Tajikistan. the structure of the international system should remain as the Chinese describe it: one superpower and many great powers. moreover. in which all the world 's powers would be peace-loving equals. Compared to the ideal Kantian international order. Kyrgyzstan. Today. global position was eroding pointed to electoral results in some friendly countries: the election of Schr öder in Germany. Pakistan. indeed. this has also complicated eu-Russian relations. Some have suggested that failure in Iraq would mean the end of predominance and unipolarity. Oman. and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbors. As for Russia and China.

are important for a nation. Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about North Korea’s nuclear weapons. also shared by Americans. a humiliation of which Israel has become the living symbol. 17 Its nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian territory from attack by the United States. hence their now two-decades-long military buildup and modernization. and the leaders of radical Islam. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger and often oppressive outside powers. to be the keeper of the global conscience. Like the Americans. Moscow.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 167/311 is not between an American-dominated order and a world that looks like the European Union. too. and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. The return of great powers and great games If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity.with its pacifist constitution and low defense spending -. is a good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less. including military power. several large powers are now competing for regional predominance. it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. indeed. correctly. and a desire for honor. would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO. Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia. there is the United States itself. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to predominance. is moved by more traditional greatpower considerations. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world. the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national identity than with plausible external military threats. India 's regional ambitions are more muted. and typically Russian. view that power is passé. with a long unhappy history as a pawn between the two powers. both with the United States and with each other. But it also looks like Asia's past. Since the end of the Cold War. This was its goal after the Second World War. too. But Russia. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations. meanwhile. Like national movements elsewhere. It foreign policy. Japan. Russian something from the nineteenth century.now appears embarked on a more traditional national course. looks more like is being driven by a typical. which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the dominant liberal West. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world. National ambition drives China's foreign policy today. which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the world. the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia. The leaders of a post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing. this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Nevertheless. and it has become the vehicle for channeling German. but of a postmodern variety. French. as an emerging great power on the world scene. In the Middle East there is Iran. including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect. Islam is not a nation. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from NATO and the United States. including self-respect. in its way. the East Asian future looks more like Europe's past than its present. the United States did not retract but expanded its . beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration into the new European order. but it is clearly engaged in competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself. and this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political component. They do not share a European. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise. the United States has not been powerful enough. As Aaron Friedberg commented. China had its "century of humiliation. the Middle East. Even the European Union. and to be recognized and admired by others for playing this role. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception. Europeans seek honor and respect. and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a safe supranational direction." Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on. it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult. the Western Hemisphere. Democratic and Republican. including al Qaeda. One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. Finally. Islamists have a yearning for respect. and Washington. and since the end of the Cold War. which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power -. During the Cold War. increasingly. postmodern since none of the large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence. or are focused most intently on Pakistan. liberal and conservative. and not just wealth and security. the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev." and would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia’s international status in [is] an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the Great. but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism. 16 Russia's complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. to exercise moral authority. would not insist on predominant influence over its "near abroad. to wield political and economic influence as an antidote to militarism. to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. like China and Japan. and probably could never be powerful enough. and particularly on a dominant America which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea. they believe power. and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world. Central Asia. blend of national resentment and ambition. Europe. until recently. is once again worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide swath of the Middle East and beyond. and now. that status and honor.

India. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War II. influence. of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. and with Russia in Eastern Europe. that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. Even when the United States engages in a war. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible. forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. however. of the kind used in World War I and other major conflicts. intensity. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished. The United States. and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it. could draw in other great powers. whether for practical or idealistic reasons. But that’s not the way it works. That could make wars between them less likely. These. including the United States. too. Armed embargos. would produce its own kind of order. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Most Europeans recoil at the thought. owes its founding to American power. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens . But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. Even the European Union. is not only far from perfect but also offers no Even under the umbrella of unipolarity. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. however distant and one hopes unnecessary. if it ever went away. too. For instance. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. In a genuinely multipolar world. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States guarantee against major conflict among the world 's great powers. would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power. of course. and destructiveness. regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. and especially since the end of the Cold War. Central Asia. as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. but even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee. In a more genuinely multipolar world. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. and Europe. it would not. it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 168/311 influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East. and Japan. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying -. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. It is shaped by configurations of power. with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes. and status. a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia. China. such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. Central Asia. honor. A different configuration of power. Nationalism in all its forms is back.its regional as well as its global predominance. they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. they generally prefer their global place as "No. and the Caucasus. Once having entered a region. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope. The current order. or it could simply make them more catastrophic. and so is international competition for power. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. is more of a traditional than a postmodern power. and the Caucasus. the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. that great geopolitical miracle.

"offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel. paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world.could be destabilizing. and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive. That is certainly the view of most of China 's neighbors. faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious. This is especially true in East Asia. history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region. That commitment. the departure of the United States from the scene -. If the United States withdrew from Europe -. stability.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 169/311 or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance.if it adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore balancing" -. too. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West. independent. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. . The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. In Europe. practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region. obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace. But even China. nationalist Japan. where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances.even if it remained the world's most powerful nation -. both on the seas and on the ground. and comity in the Middle East.this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors.

None is likely to take any step that might invite the focused enmity of the United States. unipolarity minimizes security competition among the other great powers. For their part. the second-tier states face incentives to bandwagon with the unipolar power as long as the expected costs of balancing remain prohibitive. the United States has the means and motive to maintain key security institutions in order to ease local security conflicts and limit expensive competition among the other major powers. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. . As the system leader. "The Stability of a Unipolar World" Second. The raw power advantage of the United States means that an important source of conflict in previous systems is absent: hegemonic rivalry over leadership of the international system. At the same time. the current unipolarity is prone to peace. Summer 1999.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good–Peace/Stability Unipolarity promotes peace and stability – others want to follow US leadership Wohlforth. International Security. No other major power is in a position to follow any policy that depends for its success on prevailing against the United States in a war or an extended rivalry. prof IR Georgetown Xue 170/311 William Wohlforth.

U. dominance and dislike playing host to American troops. relations among the major powers have been intensely competitive. For most of the past four centuries. 55. Not only is there no possibility of a "hegemonic war" (because there is no potential hegemon to mount a challenge). . but a more exciting world is not necessarily a better one.S.8 The second reason is that the continued deployment of roughly two hundred thousand troops in Europe and in Asia provides a further barrier to conflict in each region. 2. however. 2002 Xue 171/311 Stephen Walt. When the balance of power is heavily skewed. other major powers are not inclined to challenge its dominant position. What Joseph Joffe has termed the "American pacifier" is not the only barrier to conflict in Europe and Asia. the dominant position of the United States places significant limits on the possibility of great-power competition.S. Walt. because in this situation both sides can convince themselves that they might be able to win. World politics might be more interesting if the United States were weaker and if other states were forced to compete with each other more actively. the leading state does not need to go to war and weaker states dare not try. Iss. Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. So long as U. regional powers know that launching a war is likely to lead to a confrontation with the United States. overlook the fact that the extent of American primacy is one of the main reasons why the risk of greatpower war is as low as it is. for at least two reasons. however. but they also do not want "Uncle Sam" to leave. primacy is of benefit to the United States. presence effectively prevents regional conflicts from breaking out. In the first half of the twentieth century. Today.S. prof IA Harvard. and to other countries as well. One reason is that because the United States is currently so far ahead. those who argue that primacy is no longer important. Spring 2002 "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. because the danger of war is slight. 9 (20 pages) A second consequence of U. because it dampens the overall level of international insecurity.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Walt US primacy prevents the outbreak of global hegemonic war. great-power wars killed over eighty million people. Miscalculation is more likely to lead to war when the balance of power is fairly even. for example. They resent U. pg. Vol. states within these regions do not worry as much about each other. but it is probably a good deal more pleasant to live in than "interesting" decades like the 1930s or 1940s.S. Thus. because the U. Ironically." Naval War College Review. troops are committed abroad. often punctuated by major wars and occasionally by all-out struggles for hegemony. but it is an important one. but the risk of war via miscalculation is reduced by the overwhelming gap between the United States and the other major powers.9 Thus.S. A comparatively boring era may provide few opportunities for genuine heroism. This tranquilizing effect is not lost on America's allies in Europe and Asia. primacy is a decreased danger of great-power rivalry and a higher level of overall international tranquility.

are the alternatives? . associate Carnegie. Americans seem to have internalized and made second nature a conviction held only since World War II: Namely. to define its "national security" broadly. It is because some Americans have grown tired of power. that is. standing in relative safety behind two oceans. consequently. Quite the opposite. that American freedom depends on the survival and spread of freedom elsewhere. During the Cold War. what. even if unevenly applied. then those nations and peoples who have long benefited. has a history. Even more remarkable may be that the United States has attempted not only to preserve these guarantees but to expand them in the post-Cold War era. that aggression anywhere threatens the danger of aggression everywhere. Neither of these professed desires is a new response to the particular American hegemony of the last nine years. based on their own experience growing up in a uniquely open system of democratic capitalism. as do European yearnings for unity as a counterweight to American power. But in practice. from the international order created and upheld by American power have a stake in bolstering rather than denigrating American hegemony. Great Britain and France in the 1920s and 1930s). to link its survival to that of other nations was extraordinary. Summer 1998. was a decision of singular importance in world history and recognized as such.org/stable/1149376 Today's call for "multipolarity" in international affairs. in short. that their own well-being depends fundamentally on the wellbeing of others. This strategy also came to be taken for granted. but chose not to. “The Benevolent Empire” http://www. the willingness of the United States. American grand strategy in the Cold War consistently entailed providing far more to friends and allies than was expected from them in return. made compromise and mutual accommodation the norm in U. 1998 Xue 172/311 Robert Kagan. less inclined to demonstrate the sort of generosity that has long characterized their nation's foreign policy. Thus. Ever since the United States emerged as a great power. America's share of the world economy." The unique qualities of American global dominance have never been a mystery. But for at least 50 years they have been guided by the kind of enlightened self-interest that. But when one considers the absence of similarly reliable guarantees among the various European powers in the past (between.S.-Allied relations. the overwhelming superiority of its military capacity-augmented for a time by a monopoly of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them-gave it the choice of pursuing any number of global ambitions." Even in the absence of the Soviet threat. far from American shores. in truth. The Americans had an instinctive sense. But on what is that defense budget spent? Very little funding goes to protect national territory." as one British statesman put it in 1951. This approach to international affairs was not an example of selfless behavior. America's style of hegemony reflected its democratic form of government as much as Soviet hegemony reflected Stalin's approach to governance. is very seriously intended. That the American people "might have set the crown of world empire on their brows. Were 90 percent of the interests threatened American? In almost any imaginable scenario in which the United States might deploy troops abroad. There was a time when the world clearly saw how different the American superpower was from all the previous aspiring hegemons. The difference lay in the exercise of power. Let us not call this conviction selfless: Americans are as self-interested as any other people. Leadership Project. in practice. and still benefit." Beyond the style of American hegemony. say. but these days they are more and more forgotten or. that their power and influence would be enhanced by allowing subordinate allies a great measure of internal and even external freedom of maneuver. which. for convenience' sake. senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and director of its U. After all.especially the British-as having managed them. If that generosity seems to be fading today (and this is still a premature judgment). and." as Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis has noted. not least in the American defense budget now being several times higher than that of every other major power. What many in Europe and elsewhere see as arrogance and bullying may be just irritability born of weariness. It is certainly a better international arrangement than all realistic alternatives. primacy will be a world with more violence and disorder and less democracy and economic growth than a world where the United States continues to have more influence than any other country shaping global affairs.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Kagan American Hegemony is the best world option for all nations. For the truth about America's dominant role in the world is known to most clear-eyed international observers. tired of leadership. "Americans so often deferred to the wishes of allies during the early Cold War that some historians have seen the Europeans. the identification of the interests of others with its own has been the most striking quality of American foreign and defense policy. it was American strategy to raise up from the ruins powerful economic competitors in Europe and Asia. This can be said about no other power. America's self-abnegation was unusual. As Samuel Huntington wrote five years ago. America continues. a strategy so successful that by the 1980s the United States was thought to be in a state of irreversible "relative" economic decline-relative. And it was American strategy to risk nuclear annihilation on its otherwise unthreatened homeland in order to deter attack. The uniqueness persisted. it is not because America has grown too fond of power. Heg Good-Kagan more than 90 percent of the military forces sent to expel Iraq's army from Kuwait were American. at least since the Roman Empire. either nuclear or conventional. And the truth is that the benevolent hegemony exercised by the United States is good for a vast portion of the world's population.jstor. much to the chagrin of some of its politicians. The "habits of democracy.S. If fatigue is setting in. and that American national security is impossible without a broad measure of international security.S. undoubtedly did more to attract than repel other peoples and nations. as Gaddis points out. and stability Kagan. on a European or Asian ally. key to economic growth and democracy. the primary purpose would be the defense of interests of more immediate concern to America's allies-as it has been in Bosnia. as encompassing the security of friends and allies. that American prosperity cannot occur in the absence of global prosperity. ignored. To undermine it would cost many others around the world far more than it would cost Americans-and far sooner. before he joined the plethora of scholars disturbed by the "arrogance" of American hegemony: "A world without U. and its uniqueness was not lost on peoples who had just suffered the horrors of wars brought on by powerful nations with overweening ambitions to empire of the most coercive type. In the Gulf War. and even of abstract principles. Most of it is devoted to making good on what Americans call their international "commitments. The strength acquired by the United States in the aftermath of World War II was far greater than any single nation had ever possessed. one suspects. Nor was it lost on those who saw what the Soviet Union planned to do with its newfound power after World War II. Much is made these days. to those very nations whose economies it had restored after World War II. comes dangerously close to resembling generosity. And neither of them.

" Naval War College Review. and it would discover that other states were setting the agenda of world politics if its own power were to decline. 55. that being number one is a luxury they should try very hard to keep. rapid communications. or pursue any other positive political goal should recognize that the nation's ability to do so rests primarily upon its power. . and other such novel features. Spring 2002 "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. prof IA Harvard. They understand. 9 (20 pages) Thus. Even in a world with nuclear weapons.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Laundry List Heg is necessary to prevent WMD prolif. As Harry Truman put it over fifty years ago. advance the cause of democracy. and primacy is still preferable. Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. pg. as do most Americans. extensive economic ties. 2002 Xue 173/311 Stephen Walt. anyone who thinks that the United States should try to discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction. "Peace must be built upon power. promote human rights. an increasingly vocal chorus of nongovernmental organizations. Walt. The United States would accomplish far less if it were weaker. Vol. and promote democracy. People running for president do not declare that their main goal as commander in chief would be to move the United States into the number-two position. as well as upon good will and good deeds. power still matters. promote human rights. Iss."17 The bottom line is clear. 2.

strategicstudiesinstitute. director SSI. considers alternative national security policies. Dr. surfaces the leading assumptions held by American policymakers and strategists. strategy has to be meaningless. http://www. 1/20/2009. . The only policy that meets both the mandates of American culture and the challenges of the outside world is one that seeks to promote the necessary mission of guarding and advancing world order. Colin Gray considers and rejects a policy that would encourage the emergence of a multipolar structure for global politics. it would also promote conflict among the inevitably rival great powers. The monograph identifies the various “pieces of the puzzle” most relevant to national security strategy. In the absence of policy guidance. In addition. Xue 174/311 A sustainable national security strategy is feasible only when directed by a sustainable national security policy. and specifies the necessary components of a sustainable national security strategy. Gray concludes that America has much less choice over its policy and strategy than the public debate suggests. he suggests that Americans culturally are not comfortable with balance-of-power politics and certainly would not choose to promote the return of such a system. 2009 Douglas Lovelace.mil/pdffiles/PUB902.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-War Hegemony solves great power wars and extinction Lovelace.army. Dr.pdf. He argues that multipolarity not only would fail to maintain order. He warns that the country’s dominant leadership role in global security certainly will be challenged before the century is old. director Strategic Studies Institute.

also strongly favors political missionary behavior. environmental. These are readily characterized as follows: 1. and hence political and potentially strategic. globalization. As much to the point. Disengaged lone wolf 4.mil/pubs/display.” http://www. policy to provide purpose and political guidance to U.strategicstudiesinstitute. The United States could try to effect a transition from its current onshore Eurasian strategy of forward deployment. To be disengaged would be to decline to protect one’s vital interests.S. an idea that appeals to many scholars. Furthermore.S. The partnership in multipolarity. The rich strategic history of multipolarity is far from encouraging.army. but it always rises again. 1/2009. is flawed in that the non-American “poles” are not yet ready for prime time. strategy in the future is usefully approachable by identifying four fairly distinctive alternative American roles in the world. Gray. “After Iraq: The Search for a Sustainable National Security Strategy.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-War Xue 175/311 Heg is the only option-multipolarity causes great power wars Gray. Anti-hegemonial offshore balancer and spoiler 3.S. Moderate competitor and partner in a multipolar world. even if this were not the case. to an off-shore posture keyed to a policy role as “spoiler” of potential grand continental coalitions. Moreover.” . no matter how impressive the reach of America’s weapons through the several geographies of the great “commons. Hegemon-leader for global guardianship 2. only the first is truly practicable at present and in the near-term future. though marked by a longing for disengagement. The role of “disengaged lone wolf” simply could not work. As maritime-air-space balancer of large Eurasian menaces. a genuinely multipolar world would be prone to great power wars.cfm?pubid=902 U. The country would not be trusted. influence would be certain to diminish as a consequence of a process of withdrawal. 09 Colin S. since it would eschew the firm commitments that require local presence. This latter value rises and falls irregularly. The problem is that this off-shore role would not suffice to defend the national interest. The United States is engaged in world affairs by economic. professor of International Relations at Reading. the United States would both retain its political discretion over belligerency and favor its national strength in the higher technology features of its armed forces. Of the four nominal choices. prof IR Reading. America’s national culture. U.

the ills of globalization. melting glaciers. which was finally crossed in 1989. no state is free from the motivation of its own interests. The threat associated with a large accumulation of power in a single entity is that the welfare of the entire citizenry is contingent upon the integrity of one player. Great powers have classically been pitted against each other until a single state prevails. and preventable disease still exist today. as regional power struggles show similar patterns of competition. Forget that it has responsibly mediated peace accords and managed with relative decency a string of international conflicts in the modern age. And the rapid economic expansion experienced by China and India within the last fifteen years has done much to alleviate human suffering. In the Franco-Prussian War. Forget that it liberated Europe in two World Wars. Past instances of aggression demonstrate that multiple poles. detractors will cite Vietnam. that is. Both the First and Second World Wars were essentially fought to keep a rapidly growing German power at bay. In the Russo-Japanese War. the United States must be established as an honorable state with ambitions deviant from those of great empires before it. War. Nagasaki. hence. yet. having brought millions of families in these two countries out of their deep-rooted struggles with poverty. an historical basis for argument is only sufficient insofar as it is balanced. detractors will just cite Hiroshima. Rather than attempt a balanced historical record. so will the global progress and human security that marked its rise to power. but history has yet to provide proof that these evils can be eliminated altogether in the first place. however. the delicate task of weighing history in a moral light can be avoided by ignoring altogether the United States’ actions during the 20th Century. it is the dominant model of the ages. While certain problems associated with globalization leave US economic policy morally culpable. The United States’ essentially unilateral overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq serves as a prime example here. ambitions marked by neither the bloodlust of the ancient Romans nor the taste for conquest of the imperial British.harvardglobalization. and war in Iraq. Russia and Japan fought to maintain and extend spheres of influence in Korea and Manchuria. and as long as its leadership in the world continues. US primacy is here to stay. poverty. Just as autocratic rule is a dangerous model for the state. The stakes don’t necessarily have to be global domination. So if US unipolarity is to be deemed universally prosperous. Only after its feats are disregarded—after the moral ambivalence of US history is conceded—can the present and the future of US dominance in world affairs be accurately assessed as either progressive or otherwise. so is it a dangerous model for international affairs. 2006 http://www.” a phenomenon in which technology and liberal ideals are bringing the global citizenry together in degree and form that were unimaginable just fifteen years ago. there are several of grave concern). France attempted but failed to mend a shattered balance of power in Europe by weakening a territorially expanded Prussia. In assessing US integrity. and the magnitude of good caused by the US-driven economic revolution poses an ethically worthy counterbalance to any negative side-effects (of which. and nuclear proliferation. This environment has been framed by a world leadership typified by US power. admittedly. a multipolar world is a world in conflict until the dominant pole emerges. Forget that it defeated communism without splitting the atom. and Japanese internment. Free markets and modern innovation are fostering human progress. . instead of promoting a more peaceful world. detractors will surely cite economic exploitation in Latin America. the international outcry at a prevailing system of global justice that lacks the democratic ideals for which it declaratively stands. McCarthy. which could fall prey to subjectivity and convenient counter-examples of impropriety. Modern times dictate that the best possible structure—that which Heg Good-War comes nearest to ideal global conditions of peace and prosperity—is a world under the leadership of the United States.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 176/311 Heg Good-War Multipolarity causes war-unipolarity solves poverty and security-there’s no world where heg is bad becase the end result of multipolarity is a violent struggle that culminates in unipolarity HCGP 06 Harvard College Globalization Project. And the bipolarity that marked the Cold War years was a dangerous sprint to a unipolar finish line. the desired end being maximum human welfare. even those in the developing world. in fact promote violent competition. This influx of wealth to the poorest regions of the world is a significant development for global welfare and telling of the universal economic opportunities that exists for states. in this sense. Then what is the present state of the world under US tyranny? It is as interconnected as it has ever been in human history.com/ A unipolar world order is susceptible to criticism because limitless discretion granted to a single state is intuitively troublesome. And. Thomas Friedman describes this effect as the “flattening of the world.

A nuclear-armed Iraq. major countries in Europe and Asia will feel the need to acquire their own nuclear armaments. A North Korean nuclear arsenal would pose yet a third threat: nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist group such as al Qaeda.oupjournals. Forces. was the spread of nuclear weapons. The first is that. 2002 (Survival) http://survival. South Korea and Japan. Germany might come to consider it imprudent to deal with a nuclear-armed Russia. one that the United States had devoted considerable resources and political capital to containing and that a serious reduction in the American global rule would certainly aggravate. democratic. Institute for Defense Analysis.org Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. and Japan with a nuclear-armed China. in the absence of an American nuclear guarantee. without nuclear arms of their own. which the United States exerted itself to thwart to the extent of threatening a war in North Korea and actually waging one in Iraq and that the recession of American power would increase: the possession of nuclear armaments by "rogue" states. Nuclear proliferation poses three related dangers. might well decide to equip themselves with nuclear weapons of their own. Lacking the infrastructure of a sovereign state. professor and director of the American foreign policy program at Johns Hopkins. and terrorist groups Mandelbaum ’05 Michael Mandelbaum. a terrorist organization probably could not construct a nuclear weapon itself. That in turn would threaten virtually every country in the world because so much of the oil on which they all depend comes from that region. The spread of nuclear weapons poses a second danger. peaceful countries would not. could spew poisonous radiation over populated areas. trigger a war.' A nuclear-armed North Korea would similarly change the international relations of East Asia for the worse. countries governed by regimes at odds with their neighbors and hostile to prevailing international norms. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by such affluent. and relations among the countries of these regions more suspicious. But it could purchase either a full-fledged nuclear explosive or nuclear material that could form the basis for a device that. or a nuclear-armed Iran. rogue states. while not actually exploding. killing or infecting many thousands of people. trigger arms races similar to the one between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.' Nuclear materials are potentially available for purchase not only in North Korea but elsewhere as well. however. . and Resources Division. and perhaps ultimately Tai-wan. It would surely make Europe and East Asia less comfortable places. would make the international relations of the Persian Gulf far more dangerous. “The Case for Goliath” pg 149-150 Xue 177/311 The greatest threat to their security that the members of the international system did face in the new century. an unlikely development after the over-throw of Saddam Hussein's regime. Extinction Utgoff 02 Victor Utgoff.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Prolif Shell Heg solves proliferation in the hands of allies. a far more plausible prospect. They would seek these weapons in order to avoid an imbalance in power that might work to their disadvantage. than was the case at the outset of the twenty-first century. Especially if the United States withdrew from the region. by itself. It could. If the United States withdrew from Europe and East Asia. Deputy fo Strategy.

for fear that these countries. Today.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381 Xue 178/311 High levels of defense expenditures are not merely to overawe potential challengers. might become hostile to the United States at some future date. . In other words. the second prong of the hegemonic strategy. And the Persian Gulf War was. but coming from so far behind it will be decades before it can challenge American primacy -. among other things. New America Foundation. (In outlining possible competitors. Krauthammer noted. "Only China grew in strength. entails convincing major powers not to build up their military capabilities.and that assumes that its current growth continues unabated.newamerica. the great question is whether or not two other Asian giants -. Beyond American Hegemony." Reassurance. Washington took the lead in waging the 1999 Kosovo war -. the United States should be prepared to fight wars on behalf of Germany and Japan. http://www.India and China -. allowing the United States to assume the burdens of ensuring their security instead. while outspending allies like Germany and Japan on defense. sparing them the necessity of re-arming -. 07 Michael Lind.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Japan Rearm Shell 1/2 US hegemony is critical to preventing a German or Japanese rearmament Lind. having "renationalized" their defense policies and rearmed. NAF. "we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. For example. a reassurance war on behalf of Japan -.in part to forestall the emergence of a Germany prepared to act independently.confirmed by the fact that Japan paid a substantial portion of the United States’ costs in that conflict. even though the threats emanating from the spillover of the Balkan conflicts affected Germany and its neighbors far more than a geographically farremoved United States.") To again quote from the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance.far more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than the United States -.will eschew the development of true blue-water navies and continue to allow the United States to take responsibility for keeping the Gulf open.

If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Japan Rearm Shell 2/2 And. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs. stimulate additional actions. “The Asian nuclear reaction chain” The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia. one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region. then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. and Russia-whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear powerstruggles to maintain territorial coherence. . bringing regional and global economic and political instability and. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States. the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945. Spring 2008. Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons. South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia. Moreover. Like neutrons firing from a split atom. which in turn. Five of these states have nuclear weapons. 2000 Xue 179/311 Jospeh Cerincione Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation. India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race. the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses. this leads to nuclear war Cerincione. director NPP at Carnegie. perhaps. where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. Foreign Policy. the others are capable of constructing them.

perhaps as a result of an alliance of convenience between one of the Asian competitors and Russia. security guarantees and chooses the latter path. 1996). as actors see nuclear weapons in particular as insurance policies against the dangers around them. Zalmay & Ian. Power relations are fluid to the point of instability as small countries seek protectors and larger powers recruit clients. .S.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 180/311 Heg Good-Japan Rearm Ext. it might seek U. a series of wars and eventual emergence of hostile Asian rival to the US Khalilzad & Lesser 1998 (Rand analyst & permanent UN ambassador & Vice President and director of studies at the Pacific Council on International Policy. 13 lexis) China in world III eschews democratization and normalization for an accelerated program of military modernization. Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century. In the rest of Asia. or it might compete with China for Asian leadership.S.. p. RAND Books. In this world. the second-tier powers jockey for position alongside one or another of the competitors within a complex context of border and resource disputes. Japan might choose to go in one of several directions in the face of China’s drive for regional superiority. editors. especially air and naval powerprojection capabilities (Tellis et al. it seems likely that a global competitor to the United States could emerge. The instability from re-arms fuels wildfire proliferation. NBC proliferation proceeds at a rapid clip. Tokyo begins converting its economic power into military strength and deploys a small nuclear arsenal to defend itself and its interests against what it perceives as malign Chinese designs. And in this world. In the worst case—our world III—Japan loses faith in U. Tokyo might decide to ally itself with Beijing. support in balancing China.

U. Japan may obtain its own nuclear deterrent and renationalize its foreign policy. for example. policy is motivated largely. NAF. although not solely.S.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381 In the case of North Korea.000 or more American lives in a war with North Korea for fear that Japan will get nuclear weapons to defend itself. protectorate to that of an independent military great power once again. New America Foundation.newamerica. Washington and other American cities. http://www.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Japan Rearm Ext. 07 Michael Lind.S. emerging from the status of a semi-sovereign U. or that North Korean missiles can strike targets in North America. Beyond American Hegemony. by the fear that if Xue 181/311 Japan loses confidence in America’s willingness to protect it. Sustained American hegemony prevents Japan from both rearming and nuclearizing Lind. . Therefore the public is told instead that North Korea might give nuclear weapons to non-state actors to use to destroy New York. But no president can tell the American public that the United States must be willing to lose 50.

and states worry less about being dependent on others when they are not concerned that these connections might be severed.htm By facilitating the development of a more open and liberal world economy. As Thomas Friedman puts it. The expansion of world trade has been a major source of increased global prosperity. and U. 2002 Stephen Walt.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 182/311 Heg Good-Trade Shell 1/3 First. www. The United States also played a leading role in establishing the various institutions that regulate and manage the world economy. “Without America on duty.navy. Prof gov Harvard. but it is more accurate to say that peace encourages interdependence-by making it easier for states to accept the potential vulnerabilities of extensive international intercourse. American primacy also fosters global prosperity. Economic interdependence is often said to be a cause of world peace. primacy is one of the central pillars upon which that system rests. By providing a tranquil international environment.S. Hegemony is key to trade and interdependence—stability opens conditions necessary for growth. they are less likely to worry that extensive cooperation will benefit others more and thereby place them at a relative disadvantage over time. U. they will also be less fixated on how the gains from cooperation are distributed. JFKSchool of Government Professor at Harvard Univiversity Naval War College Review.S. the current era of “globalization” is itself partly an artifact of American power. WALT. they could safely ignore the balance of power within Western Europe and concentrate on expanding their overall level of economic integration.” . As a number of commentators have noted. primacy has created political conditions that are conducive to expanding global trade and investment.mil/press/Review/2002/spring/art1-sp2. in short. Indeed. American primacy was a prerequisite for the creation and gradual expansion of the European Union. Because the United States was there to protect the Europeans from the Soviet Union and from each other. Investors are more willing to send money abroad when the danger of war is remote. which is often touted as a triumph of economic self-interest over historical rivalries. When states are relatively secure. Spring. there will be no America Online.nwc. In particular.

it is equally true that the vulnerable are not helped by resisting change — by putting up barriers and shutting out competition. They agreed to the Doha Round because they believed their interests lay in freer trade.htm The second point is that strengthening the world trading system is essential to America's wider global objectives. in one way or another. The fact is that for every job in the US threatened by imports there is a growing number of high-paid. bilateral and regional deals exclude others — fragmenting global trade and distorting the . Remarkable advances in technology and productivity laid the foundation for unprecedented job creation in the 1990s and there is no reason to doubt that this country. Conversely. Countries the world over have turned to open trade — and a rules-based system — as the key to their growth and development. that number is approaching around 12 million today. Emerging powers like China. These priorities must continue to guide US policy — as they have done since the Second World War.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Trade Shell 2/3 Collapse of trade leads to great power wars. Over the next decade. the innovative stimulus of global competition. when it withdraws. secretary-general UNCTD. America's openness to service-sector Trade — combined with the high skills of its workforce — will lead to more growth. Americans have never run from a challenge and have never been defeatist in the face of strong competition.wto. education. They are helped by training. 2/26/2004. terror. This is not to say that trade is the answer to all America's economic concerns. but they can never be a substitute. America has been the main driving force behind eight rounds of multilateral trade negotiations. As WTO rules have expanded. Likewise. but they recognize that the US economy cannot grow and prosper any other way. And these new jobs — in aerospace. American Leadership and the World Trade Organization. Fighting terrorism. if it weakens or fails. Even in Cancun the great debate was whether the multilateral trading system was moving fast and far enough — not whether it should be rolled back. We need to hear more about the opportunities. unions. They recognize the importance of finding global solutions to shared global problems. and poverty Panitchpakdi. not saving them. bilaterally or regionally. secretary-general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development. new and better opportunities that — with the right support policies — can flow from a globalized economy. Americans should be deeply sceptical about these claims. does not mean it is easy. This is something which the US — at the epicentre of a more interdependent world — cannot afford to ignore. Indeed. The disappointment was that ministers were unable to reach agreement. and India rightly demand a greater say in an institution in which they have a growing stake. Brazil. http://www. it is critically important that we draw the right conclusions from Cancun — which are only now becoming clearer. and a shift towards higher value-added. They claim that US sovereignty is compromised by international rules. We need to explain that freer trade works precisely because it involves positive change — better products. But people at that time didn’t fully appreciate the power of American ingenuity. Part of this challenge is to create the conditions for global growth and job creation here and around the world.org/english/news_e/spsp_e/spsp22_e. so too has as the complexity of the issues the WTO deals with — everything from agriculture and accounting. highlighted the need for North-South collaboration. Many of the reservations people are expressing today are echoes of what we heard in the 1970s and 1980s. The fact that US leadership is essential. Almost none of the trade issues facing the US today are any easier to solve unilaterally. high skill jobs created by exports. higher-paying employment. The bigger challenge to American leadership comes from inside — not outside — the United States. We especially need to inject some clarity — and facts — into the current debate over the outsourcing of services jobs. I believe Americans realize what is at stake. 2004 Xue 183/311 Supachai Panitchpakdi. stronger rules. the recent initiative. few people had even heard of the GATT. The sound and fury surrounding the WTO's recent Ministerial Meeting in Cancun — let alone Seattle — underline how challenging managing the WTO can be. closing the door to service trade is a strategy for killing jobs. The WTO is also exerting huge gravitational pull on countries to join — and participate actively — in the system. Conversely. p. Besides. By treating some countries preferentially. spearheaded by Ambassador Zoellick. We need to be reminded of the advantages of America's openness and its trade with the world — about the economic growth tied to exports. stronger industries. The reality is this: when the US leads the system can move forward. A decade ago. In America's current debate about trade. But it’s worth remembering that concerns about the impact of foreign competition are not new. The US — together with the EU — was instrumental in launching the latest Doha Round two years ago. A successful WTO is an example of how multilateralism can work. and that other countries have a tangible reason to get on board. Cancun showed that. The achievement was that they exposed the risks of failure. While it is true that change can be threatening for people and societies. There is a bigger danger. But these challenges can be exaggerated. finance. and that multilateral institutions limit rather than expand US influence. the inflation-fighting role of imports. and — after a period of introspection — acknowledged the inescapable logic of negotiation. the US is projected to create an Heg Good-Trade Shell 3/3 average of more than 2 million new services jobs a year — compared to roughly 200. A more visible WTO has inevitably become a more politicized WTO. a more effective WTO. including the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the creation of the WTO. better standards of living. I am well aware that this issue is the source of much anxiety in America today. More and more people recognize that the WTO matters. to re-energize the negotiations and move them towards a successful conclusion is yet another example of how essential the US is to the multilateral process — signalling that the US remains committed to further liberalization. jobs and globalization we have heard a lot about the costs of liberalization. will not soon embark again on such a burst of jobcreation. The world trading system is the linchpin of today's global order — underpinning its security as well as its prosperity. environmentalists. improving health. better job opportunities. The reality is probably just the opposite. what is the alternative to the WTO? Some argue that the world's only superpower need not be tied down by the constraints of the multilateral system. information technology — pay 10 per cent more than the average American wage. The WTO now has 146 Members — up from just 23 in 1947 — and this could easily rise to 170 or more within a decade. that the Round is moving. it is because the stakes are higher. the system drifts. They exist precisely because so many countries have embraced a common vision. to tariffs and telecommunication. So too do a rising number of voices outside the system as well. What sense does it make — for example — to negotiate e-commerce rules bilaterally? Who would be interested in disciplining agricultural subsidies in a regional agreement but not globally? How can bilateral deals — even dozens of them — come close to matching the economic impact of agreeing to global free trade among 146 countries? Bilateral and regional deals can sometimes be a complement to the multilateral system. which has shown time and again such remarkable potential for competing in the global economy. More non-state actors — businesses. if the challenges have increased. better ways of doing things. reducing poverty. to world trade. Exports supported 7 million workers a decade ago. Many Americans worry about the potential job losses that might arise from foreign competition in services sectors.000 services jobs that will be outsourced. much else could fail with it. The process of opening to global trade can be disruptive. Today the WTO is front page news. integrating China and other countries in the global economy — all of these issues are linked. development NGOs — want the multilateral system to reflect their causes and concerns. only that meaningful solutions are inconceivable without it.

Europe. Worse. they can ultimately risk undermining it. Non-discriminatory rules would prevent a return to preferential deals and closed alliances. not power. and millions more have new hope for the future. Trade would bind nations together. and the GATT. There is a basic contradiction in the assumption that bilateral approaches serve to strengthen the multilateral. not by multilateral rules. There is a growing realization that — in our interdependent world — sovereignty is constrained. Millions in Asia. This is in no one's interest. Even when intended to spur free trade. Trade has expanded twenty-fold since 1950. making another war unthinkable. but by the absence of rules. Underpinning all this was the idea that freedom — free trade. the IMF. and each month we hear of a new or expanded deal. now the WTO — would provide the institutional bedrock for the international rule of law. Instead of liberalizing trade — and widening growth — they carve it up. America led in the creation of the multilateral system after 1945 precisely to avoid a return to hostile blocs — blocs that had done so much to fuel interwar instability and conflict. as countries left outside are forced to seek their own preferential arrangements. rules-based system. greatly increasing the chances for world prosperity and peace. China and soon Russia — are part of a rules-based multilateral trading system. Latin America. and Africa are being lifted out of poverty. Japan. All the great powers — the US. the World Bank. America's vision. There are already over two hundred bilateral and regional agreements in existence.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 184/311 world economy. . free democracies. A network of multilateral initiatives and organizations — the Marshal Plan. they have a domino effect: bilateral deals inevitably beget more bilateral deals. It is a vision that has emerged pre-eminent a half century later. a more just world. was that “enduring peace and the welfare of nations was indissolubly connected with the friendliness. This is precisely what we see happening today. or risk further marginalization. in the words of Cordell Hull. fairness and freedom of world trade”. the free exchange of ideas — was essential to peace and prosperity. least of all the United States. India.

S.S. Professor of political science at MIT and member of Security Studies Program. . Heg is key to free trade and communication and ensures that other powers will band wagon Posen. and commercial remote sensing. These collective goods help connect U. military power to seemingly prosaic welfare concerns. U. The Military Foundations of U. allies. seem to understand that they benefit from the U. military position -. prof poli sci MIT. military power underwrites world trade. Hegemony” pg lexis //EM Command of the commons creates additional collective goods for U.S.S. Summer 2003. Those nations most involved in these activities. 2003 Barry R.S.S.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 185/311 Heg Good-Trade Ext. global telecommunications. those who profit most from globalization. Posen. travel. International Security “Command of the Commons. hegemony. which all depend on peace and order in the commons.which may help explain why the world's consequential powers have grudgingly supported U.

and alters the daily routines of tens of millions. Globalization—the spread around the world of cross-border economic transactions—is not an American invention. coherent. if not benign. US heg is key to the global economy and free trade Mandelbaum ’05 Michael Mandelbaum. American economic policies do affect conditions in the rest of the world and the system of global market relations within which these often disruptive transactions take places does rest on the military might and the economic strength of the international system's most powerful member. as by far the most powerful member of the system of sovereign states. It is plausible because.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Trade Ext. and rational. . but American-based firms certainly do conduct a large part of the world's trade and investment. professor and director of the American foreign policy program at Johns Hopkins. “The Case for Goliath” pg 149-150 Xue 186/311 It is satisfying because if the strings that manipulate events the world over lead back to Washington and New York. harms others. the United States surely does exercise considerable influence. nor does the United States control the trade and investment that enriches some. then the world may be seen as intelligible.

police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights. tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. . But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. primacy?” The Weekly Standard The core argument itself is not new: The United States and the West face a new threat--weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists--and. 2004 Mohamed Sid-Ahmed 04 Political Analyst.htm A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki. Japan. Indeed. this war will be without winners and losers. these allegations. Today. whether we like it or not. had no choice but to capitulate." Extinction Sid-Ahmed. no power other than the United States has the capacity. anytime soon. Resident scholar and director of the Program on Advanced Strategic Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. potentially far more serious.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Terrorism Shell US leadership is necessary to prevent terrorist use of WMDs Xue 187/311 Schmitt. The critics "tend to dwell disproportionately on problems in the exercise of [American] power rather than on the dire consequences of retreat from an activist foreign policy. whatever legitimate concerns people may have about the fact of America's primacy. we will all be losers. with no knowledge of nuclear technology. director at AEI. at the time. including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. from which no one will emerge victorious.ahram. even if -. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated.eg/2004/705/op5. nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. political analyst. the international order would quickly return to disorder. “Is there any alternative to U. or can provide the decisive leadership. Certainly not the United Nations or." Lieber writes. except for the two bombs dropped on Japan. well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD. the downsides of not asserting that primacy are.and this is far from certain – the weapons used are less harmful than those used then. In the absence of American primacy. 2006 Gary Schmitt. They forget "what can happen in the absence of such power. This completely changes the rules of the game. as What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures.S. proved to be unfounded. the technology is a secret for nobody. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. February 2006. required to handle this and other critical global security issues. the European Union. This could lead to a third world war.org. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet. http://weekly. according to The American Era. So far. As it turned out. Societies would close in on themselves. it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living.

The threats would remain. In fact. but the possibility of effective and coordinated action against them would be reduced. . “American Primacy in Perspective”. a slide back toward multipolarity would actually be the worst of all worlds for the United States. Foreign Affairs. but it would have fewer carrots and sticks to use in dealing with the situation. Threats inevitably exist-only in unipolar world will we be able to deal with terrorists Brooks and Wohlforth 02 Xue 188/311 Stephen. Issue 4 Some might question the worth of being at the top of a unipolar system if that means serving as a lightning rod for the world's malcontents.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good-Terrorism Ext. But terrorism has been a perennial problem in history. In such a scenario it would continue to lead the pack and serve as a focal point for resentment and hatred by both state and nonstate actors. after all. and multipolarity did not save the leaders of several great powers from assassination by anarchists around the turn of the twentieth century. Assistant Professor. Volume 81. and only after its collapse did he shift his focus to the United States (an indicator of the demise of bipolarity that was ignored at the time but looms larger in retrospect). When there was a Soviet Union. it bore the brunt of Osama bin Laden's anger. Associate Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth. and William.

at least in the case of Iran and China today. The history of international relations suggests that most great crises result from neglecting to address more minor ones early on. That said. current executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). it is probably less costly to nip these threats in the bud to than wait for them to become full-blown security crises. rather. the passive offshore balancing approach leads to the question of whether such a strategy results in putting off a security challenge until it may be far more difficult to deal with. is that Layne spends the majority of his time criticizing the argument for primacy without giving the reader much of a handle on the particulars of his own preferred strategy. and offshore balancing doesn’t solve anything Schmitt. Rather than taking the opposing argument as seriously as Thayer takes his. to claim that it has absolutely no merit leaves readers with the sense that there is as much anger as argument in Layne’s case. As a result. other powers would naturally begin to meet the challenge. Layne resorts to unsubstantiated claims about “neocons. The United States has had far higher defense burdens in the past while still retaining its status as the world’s economic juggernaut. “To Be or Not To Be…An Empire.4Similarly. but doing so might create even more destabilizing competition among other regional powers or lead those same powers to acquiesce to China or Iran’s new hegemony. however. There may be plenty of reasons to worry about the U. in fact. Hegemony and empire are not one and the same. offshore balancing would still require the United States to have a major military establishment in reserve if it wanted to be capable of being a decisive player in a game of great power balancing. As Thayer argues.S.” Nor will they be satisfied with the authors’ loose use of the term “empire. If the latter. 07 Gary Schmitt. the book provides plenty of fodder for debate and thought. Even with all the problems in Iraq. while pulling back from a forward-leaning defense strategy would undoubtedly save money. Moreover. the defense burden is still barely over 4 percent of the U. perhaps tied to the way the book is structured.” White House lies. And speaking of money.” http://www. an empire. Congress on “bridges to nowhere”— really worth Is the $100 billion or so saved—or. shift. Layne’sargument about looming imperial overstretch is itself a stretch. June 2007. Britain had a hard enough time playing this role in its day. such as the United States in the 1920s and 1930s. heg saves money long term.S. lies in Layne’s dyspeptic analysis of current policy opponents. It is possible. And even if we had Henry Kissinger upon Henry Kissinger to carry it out. and an emerging hedging strategy vis-à-vis China. would the American people really let their government play this particular game of international politics. a war in Afghanistan. although their attributes can at times overlap. is that if the United States would only get out of the way. Even if one thinks that the theory is at times oversold. An additional problem. Its biggest problem. finding itself in numerous conflicts regardless. gross domestic product.org/outlook/26387 International security specialists will quibble that Thayer’s and Layne’s two grand strategies are not the sum total of strategies available to the “American empire.” That Thayer and Layne both admit the United States is not an empire in the traditional sense seems to suggest that the country is not.aei. but “guns over butter” is not one of them.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 189/311 AT: Layne/Econ Turn Layne is a hack-his theories are nonsense. spent by the loss in global influence that comes from adopting Layne’s strategy? . his dismissal of the democratic peace theory is equally over-the-top. fairly active in playing the decisive power broker among the other competing states—or more passive in content. fueling their ambitions rather than lessening them. a key problem with the strategy is that it requires a far more calculating style of statecraft than the United States has ever had. economy.ing partners based on power relations rather than on the character of the states themselves? The disappearance of the United States as a security guarantor is likely to lead to more competition among states and to the creation of amore chaotic and fluid international environment. If the former. and cabals (the “Blue Team”) trying to foment a “preventive” war with China. executive director PNAC. Layne’s bet. we do not know whether his model of “offshore balancing” is more British in style—that is.

The beginning of wisdom has to be with Sun-tzu’s dictum on the necessity for knowledge of the enemy and of oneself. even (in the opinion of many) divine. It is almost entirely useless for American or other scholars to write books and articles urging a U.mil/pubs/display.power politics on a global scale. It may well be that this century will see a return of multipolar balance-of.” http://www.” .army.ers this possibility. “After Iraq: The Search for a Sustainable National Security Strategy. professor of International Relations at Reading. U. Americans believe it is a mission of their unique country to improve the world.cfm?pubid=902 When considered over the longer term. there is very little the United States needs to do in the world in order to be secure. adopting a minimalist foreign policy.member that American culture wants to reject what it regards as the cynical balance-of-power politics of expe. one needs to re. Perhaps not all American values. If thwarted in this noble. American policy and strategy must be broadly compatible with American values. foreign policy. Foreign policy is born at home and has to succeed there if it is to succeed abroad. and not all of the time.Page 24 10 American is certain to fail at home eventually.S. with the objective circumstances of the outside world. and strategy must reconcile the demands of a domestic culture that can have dysfunctional consequences abroad.S. prof IR Reading. The current debate to which this monograph relates is replete with arguments about anticipated features of the 21st century that will prove desperately challenging to American national culture.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Offshore Balancing Xue 190/311 Offshore balancing is impossible-cultural pressures make heg or withdrawal the only options Gray. But when one consid.strategicstudiesinstitute. as in this monograph.diency. mission. 09 Colin S. To be sustainable. they are likely to insist that the country withdraw. 1/2009. But any policy vision that is plainly un. Gray. Controversialist Christopher Layne speaks for many Americans when he writes: “Precisely because of its power and geography. national security policy. policy that affronts American culture. even probability.

army. Contrary to the sense of much of the contemporary debate.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Heg causes resentment Xue 191/311 Heg requires consent from other countries-this argument checks itself Gray. Americans have no prudent alternative other than to play the hegemonic role.strategicstudiesinstitute. Gray. prof IR Reading. the role of hegemon-leader for a world order that serves both its own most vital interests as well as those of a clear majority of members of the world community. “After Iraq: The Search for a Sustainable National Security Strategy.” http://www. Only with such consent will America be able to exercise a national security strategy geared successfully to the ordering duty. professor of International Relations at Reading. the United States should choose. 09 Colin S.cfm?pubid=902 Almost by default. 1/2009. . But for the role to be sustainable. such as it is. it has to rest upon the formal or tacit consent of other societies. perhaps simply accept.mil/pubs/display.

Yet. 2006 http://www. and China’s potential for greatness is staggering given its population size. Although united to a degree unprecedented in the history of the continent. neither of these power structures is realistically poised to counter US supremacy anytime soon. This clash of cultures makes the prospect of a collective European military front highly improbable. .harvardglobalization. correspondingly. but it possesses neither the interstate unity nor. Europe is still comprised of individual states. emerging rivals to US dominance are the European Union and China. not to mention the fact that since World War II Europe has continuously cut military spending in order to sustain its expensive welfare states. each with its own interests and unique perspective on the proper direction of the world.com/ Xue 192/311 Should the world’s balance of power shift to a multipolar environment. The European Union may have a strong economy. Unless the European Union can form a strengthened military alliance beyond its already existing economic alliance. Outside the United Nations. vast natural resources. The collective states of Europe outpace the United States economically.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: EU Counterbalancing EU not a serious contender for multipolarity HCGP 06 Harvard College Globalization Project. and increasingly evolving market-oriented economy. a nation must first surface that possesses dual superiority on both the military and economic fronts. the military strength to seriously challenge the United States for global influence. it is destined to operate under the shadow of NATO and US power.

These circumstances typify the conditions that saw the United States’ rise to prominence following World War II and the fall of the Soviets. A true test of national power will come when things inevitably slow down. it is still years behind the West in its technological and financial developments. the United States would suffer an economic blow from a weakened China. In January 2006. But should the United States ever stumble. Capitalist reforms of prior decades have brought the country great wealth but also severe economic inequality. are not enough—world primacy is attained through a host of correctly aligned circumstances. While the Asian giant has both the natural resources and manpower to eventually hold the status of a superpower. suggests that the grossness of the trade imbalance is unlikely to last forever. and the Chinese government will have to confront a series of potentially crippling domestic conflicts before it can assume a global leadership role. and democracy and foster a Chinese population discontented with the repressive nature of its single-party political system. one can be certain that China does possess the resources to eventually rival US power. Modernization is sure to usher in liberal ideals of rights. in fact. China’s greatest ally at the moment. Currently. even in the distant future. Resources. however. 2006 http://www. But the prospect that China. heightened by the rise of a more protectionist-minded Democratic House and Senate. as both countries benefit from their reciprocal trade arrangements—China through the profitable sale of its goods and the United States through the consumption of cheaper goods. and favorable. Surely. As growth assumes a more sustainable pace. This discrepancy has rendered the Chinese economy vulnerable. China’s road to the top only becomes more obstacle-ridden as development increases and as its society modernizes. Recent grumbling in US congressional halls. a notion exemplified by China’s favorable trade balance with the United States. poses a more realistic. on the other hand. World leadership requires domestic stability. . but China does not have the benefit of a world war or a collapsing superpower by which it may scale the ladder of global leadership.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: China Counterbalancing China can’t counterbalance-unsustainable growth and sociopolitical problems HCGP 06 Harvard College Globalization Project. Nonetheless. Modernization will also reveal the extent to which China suffers from economic inequality. a system that has orchestrated a history of rule ripe with human rights abuses and government censorship. namely a power void. It is difficult to imagine world leadership today emanating from a Chinese regime that shows little regard for mankind’s basic rights. US power will remain unthreatened. It remains dependent on Western capital. but the effect would be marginal compared to that experienced by China should the doors to US markets be shut.harvardglobalization. competition has taken a back seat to mutual financial gain. will soon become her greatest foe.com/ Xue 193/311 China. China consistently records double-digit annual growth rates. Until these internal crises are resolved. can replace US dominance is unlikely. China is currently the world’s fourth largest economy and serves as a serious rival to US influence in Asia. equality. Rather. Progress. skilled diplomacy. can attain a global status comparable to the United States or. the world took note when internet search engine Google was forced to censor certain information on the Chinese version of its site prior to launch. China’s significant sociopolitical shortcomings will come to light. but this phenomenal economic expansion is simply unsustainable. long-term threat to the maintenance of a unipolar world. China would not be far behind and could easily overtake it. stable domestic political institutions.

because it wants a peaceful external environment to allow its economy to continue expanding rapidly. Increasingly. Kosovo and Sudan. Both opposed interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo because they were worried about creating a precedent for international intervention in their own secessionist struggles in Chechnya and Tibet.org. Iraq.pdf However. . they will play on the European attachment to the international rule of law in an attempt to split European countries from their American allies. Although China and Russia suffer from lawlessness at home. China and Russia are both likely to be status quo powers. Executive Director of European Council on Foreign Relations. director ECFR. Chinese and Russian support for the UN also has much to do with their internal politics. It is a paradox that the Xue 194/311 strongest supporters of the American post-war order are the losers rather than the winners of the Cold War. does not want to upset the status-quo.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Russia-China War Russia and China will inevitably ally-however they are commited to stability and peace preservation because it’s key to growth Leonard. China. They have opposed interventions in Bosnia. not trying to overthrow regimes. they have been staunch defenders of the letter of the law at the UN Security Council. Belarus. But they will support the existing international system for different reasons. It sees the UN as a useful forum for balancing US power. the most self-aware rising power in history. Russia’s attachment to international institutions has more to do with managing its relative decline. European policy-makers have been particularly concerned by China’s and Russia’s policy of offering unconditional political support. 2007 Mark Leonard. For the Chinese – and to an extent Russian policy-makers – being a responsible global player means accepting the status-quo: not invading other countries. Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe). cheap energy or weapons to regimes that might otherwise collapse or be susceptible to international pressure (including Angola. China and Russia as status quo powers Between now and 2020.uk/pdf/e_707_eu2020_divided_world_leonard. Kazakhstan. and above all not interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states without obtaining the regime’s consent. 1/2007. they will not do this by overt h rowing the existing international order. economic aid. North Korea. www. Iran.cer. It will support international institutions in order to avoid being seen as a threat. Russia and China will compete with each other – not least for influence in Central Asia – but they will inevitably be driven together by their shared belief in the kind of rules which should govern the global order. citing the Charter of the UN to support their decisions. Sudan. Burma.

Published by Routledge. that future major conflicts will be between civilizations). the EU simply does not pose a great danger to the American Empire for two major reasons—political and socioeconomic.46 They were united during the Cold War by the threat from the Soviet Union. the political values of EU are largely those of the United States." American Empire: A Debate. then as other civilizations become more powerful—such as the Chinese or Islamic—Europe and the United States will be united again by the threat from those civilizations. if the “clash of civilizations” argument made famous by Samuel Huntington is correct (that is. and that may be excellent news for future warm relations between them. Thayer. . 34 Yet unlike China. The political similarities between the EU and the United States are enormous. ISBN 0415952034. the United States is the daughter of Europe.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: EU Counterbalancing EU won’t counterbalance-politics and economics too similar Thayer 07 Xue 195/311 Bradley A. Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. in many respects. 2007 "The Case For The American Empire. p. In addition. and history teaches that an external threat can produce comity where once there was rivalry. In essence. This is not a surprise.

Russia supported the United States in spite of the fact that the Bush administration had just unilaterally renounced the Anti-Ballistic-Missile (ABM) Treaty and even though NATO expansion was progressing against Russia's will (Traynor 2001). Instead. traditionally a strong supporter of the United States within the Atlantic Alliance. However. However. allied and nonallied major powers chose to balance the United States when the Bush administration identified Iraq as the next target in the "war on terrorism. But today. most major powers have collaborated with the United States in the pacification of Iraq or have offered financial aid for the reconstruction effort (Sharrock 2003). In fact. thereby dealing a severe blow to US military plans. Russia contributed to the intervention in Afghanistan by providing the United States with intelligence. which calls for the collective defense of any alliance member under threat. most countries aligned themselves with the United States in its "war on terrorism" (Wallace 2002:113). much of this contingent was already waiting on US warships in the Mediterranean and had to be re-diverted to the Gulf (Guardian 2003a. The four countries also threatened to veto the resolution in favor of an intervention that was proposed by the United States.wiley. In fact. they also appeared to bandwagon with the United States in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks (Gittings 2001). Japan. the four countries led international protests against the intervention. and China in particular opposed a preemptive military intervention in Iraq and insisted that the United Nations inspection team should be given more time to establish the existence of a program to develop weapons of mass destruction." France. Germany. the United Kingdom. was invoked for the first time since its foundation when America's European allies unanimously declared their support for the United States and its subsequent intervention in Afghanistan (Black 2001).ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing Countries band wagon rather than counterbalance Krahmann 05 Xue 196/311 Elke Krahmann.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118671849/HTMLSTART? CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 The findings post-September 11 concerning the response of both allied and nonallied major powers—which typically are identified as France. Germany. Turkey rejected a US request for access to military bases on its border with Iraq. NATO 2004) . A further concession to the United States has involved NATO's decision to help with the training of Iraqi security forces (Dombey 2004. the United Kingdom. and Gittings 2003). The other is the strategy of appeasement and acquiescence. Nonallied major powers such as Russia and China should have felt threatened by a US military operation in Central Asia. Despite its close relations and an offer of $24 billion in US grants and loans to compensate for the impact of the war. Russia. Smith 2003). However. 2003. by approving US military bases in the former Soviet Republics of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. When the United States began air strikes on March 20. “American Hegemony or Global Governance? Competing Visions of International Security” pg online @ http://www3. The most surprising opposition to the US intervention in Iraq came from Turkey.interscience. the balancing behavior of allied and nonallied countries over Iraq did not represent a general policy shift in response to a more imperialist United States. 2003b. Although neorealist theory suggests that the declared imperialist strategy of the United States should hasten balancing behavior among allied and nonallied powers. Department of Politics University of Bristol U. extensive diplomatic efforts have been made to heal the relations between the United States and its allies in spite of continued differences of opinion regarding the intervention. 11/18/05. NATO's Article 5. Moreover. and Spain in the United Nations Security Council (Younge. Walsh. As Ikenberry (2003) observes: Scholars of international relations tend to think about two basic strategies that are available to states as they confront a predominant state: balancing and bandwagoning.000 troops from Turkish territory. American strategists had hoped to be able to open a second front in northern Iraq by launching up to 62. and China—to the imperialist security policies of the United States are contradictory. and Henley 2003).K.. strategies for coping with a pre-eminent America tend to fall in between these extremes. and by offering landing rights in Tajikistan (Nau 2002). Walsh. International Studies review. Since the end of the war. One is the classic strategy of the counter-balancing alliance. with China calling for an "immediate halt to military actions against Iraq" (Henley. which these two powers have traditionally regarded as their backyard. Russia.

and it is worth recalling that in the early months of 2003. Russia under Putin. including shared interests and values as well as the inability of the EU member countries to create a military with sufficient funding.allacademic.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing Balancing is empirically denied—no other country has the capabilities Lieber 07 Xue 197/311 Robert J Lieber. military technology. not only has balancing not occurred. population and wealth would otherwise dictate. Indonesia. Several other major powers have actually tightened their bonds with Washington. the Philippines. it would be a mistake to assume that the world has turned against the United States. has adopted a much more critical and assertive stance. 18 and for its part the European Union has not distanced itself from the United States let alone emerged as a strategic competitor. despite its booming economy and rapidly modernizing armed forces. some two-thirds of the member governments of both the EU and NATO supported the Bush administration’s decision. but principal European leaders have either maintained (as in the case of Britain) or reasserted (Germany and France) pragmatic Atlanticist policies. has yet to take an overtly antagonistic position toward the U. APSA Paper 2007. Canada and others have also leaned more toward than away from America. at the time the American-led coalition began it’s intervention against Saddam Hussein. President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder did not speak for their EU partners. India and Japan have developed closer ties with the United States than perhaps at any time in the past Vietnam. Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University.S. And China.php Possible Shifts in the International Distribution of Power Despite expectations that a period of unipolarity would trigger balancing behavior or that FrenchGerman-Russian opposition to the American-led intervention in Iraq would stimulate the formation of such a coalition. As for the leading authoritarian capitalist powers. “Persistent Primacy and the Future of the American Era". Australia. . effective balancing against the United States has yet to occur. 19 There are good reasons for this long-term continuity. but well short of outright confrontation. Despite a significant rise in expressions of anti-Americanism as indicated in opinion polls (and more reflective of disagreement with Bush administration policies than rejection of America itself). power projection and the unity of command that could enable it to play the kind of role in security that its size.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/1/0/5/pages211058/p211058-1. http://www. Despite arguments about “soft-balancing”.

"No doubt. nor is it able or inclined to act in the assertive fashion of historic great powers. in structure. and the world will. But it has not. But this has not happened. According to this line of reasoning. no great-power rival or set of rivals has emerged to challenge the United States. http://www. for the most part. it surely has. much of that wealth will necessarily be absorbed by providing for the country's enormous population (much of which remains poor) and will not be available to fund military development or external undertakings.html Charles Krauthammer Xue 198/311 was more correct than he realized when he wrote in these pages nearly two decades ago about what he termed "the unipolar moment. In perhaps another generation or so there will be great powers coequal with the United States. resemble the pre-World War I era. May/June 2008. India faces many of the same demographic challenges and is further hampered by too much bureaucracy and too little infrastructure. but it still has a largely cash-crop economy and is saddled by a declining population and internal challenges to its cohesion. great powers. Although anti-Americanism is widespread. foreign policy are pervasive.” Foreign Affairs. The fact that classic great-power rivalry has not come to pass and is unlikely to arise anytime soon is also partly a result of the United States' behavior. But in the case of China. President of the Council on Foreign Relations “The Age of Nonpolarity.org/20080501faessay87304-p40/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity. In part.foreignaffairs. it was a moment. countries such as China may come to possess GDPs comparable to that of the United States. multipolarity will come in time. But it lasted for only 15 or 20 years. Japan. Bush has not alienated other nations. which has not stimulated such a response. dominance was real.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Counterbalancing No one can fill in for the US—EU Japan China and Russia are all too weak Haass 8 Richard N. for its part. Russia may be more inclined.S. In historical terms. stimulate competition from others that fear or resent them. Traditional realist theory would have predicted the end of unipolarity and the dawn of a multipolar world. but the EU does not act in the unified fashion of a nation-state. Over time. This is not to say that the United States under the leadership of George W. Doubts about the wisdom and legitimacy of U. Haass. this is because the disparity between the power of the United States and that of any potential rivals is too great. but this has tended to lead more to denunciations (and an absence of cooperation) than outright resistance. wrote. has a shrinking and aging population and lacks the political culture to play the role of a great power. acted in a manner that has led other states to conclude that the United States constitutes a threat to their vital national interests. . U. Maintaining political stability during a period of such dynamic but uneven growth will be no easy feat. The EU's GDP is now greater than that of the United States.S. when they act as great powers are wont to do. Krauthammer. subscribing to just this theory." At the time.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good

Xue 199/311

AT: All Heg Bad Args Your turns are inevitable and OSB is impossible – other nations will always perceive the U.S. as the hegemon Drezner 09
Daniel W., Professor of International Politics at Tufts and a senior editor at The National Interest, 7/15/ 09, “The False Hegemon,” http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21858

The rest of the world certainly seems to treat America as the hegemonic power, for good or ill. According to the New York Times, Latin America is waiting for the United States to break the deadlock in Honduras. Vladimir Putin is incapable of giving a foreign-policy speech in which he does not blast American hegemony as the root of all of Russia’s ills. While Chinese officials talk tough about ending the dollar’s reign as the world’s reserve currency, its leaders also want America to solve the current economic crisis and to take the lead on global warming in the process. It’s not just foreign leaders who are obsessed with American hegemony. Last week, in an example of
true hardship duty, I taught a short course in American foreign policy at the Barcelona Institute for International Studies. The students in my class represented a true cross section of nationalities: Spaniards, Germans, Brits, Estonian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Thai, Ghanaian, Kenyan, Turkish, Belgian, Mexican, Nicaraguan and, yes, even Americans. I cannot claim that my students represent a scientific cross section of non-Americans (one of them complained that I did not rely on Marxism as a structural explanation for American foreign policy). Still, by and large the students were bright, well informed about world affairs and cautiously optimistic about President Obama. That said, a

persistent trend among my students was their conviction that the U.S. government was the world’s puppeteer, consciously manipulating every single event in world
politics. For example, many of them were convinced that George W. Bush ordered Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to precipitate last year’s war with Russia. The Ghanaian students wanted to know why Obama visited their country last week. The standard “promotion of good democratic governance” answer did not satisfy them. They were convinced that there had to be some deeper, potentially sinister motive to the whole enterprise. Don’t even ask what they thought about the reasons behind the war in Iraq. To be sure, the

United States is a powerful actor; the government is trying to influence global events (and Americans are not immune to their own misperceptions). And good social scientists should always search for underlying causes and not take rhetoric at face value. Nevertheless, the belief in an all-powerful America hatching conspiracies left and right frequently did not jibe with the facts. For many of these students, even apparent policy mistakes were merely examples of American subterfuge. Ironically, at the moment when many Americans are questioning the future of U.S. hegemony, many non-Americans continue to believe that the U.S. government is diabolically manipulating events behind the scenes. Going forward, the persistence of anti-Americanism in the age of Obama might have nothing to do with the president, or his rhetoric or even U.S. government actions. It might, instead, have to do with the congealed habits of thought that place the United States at the epicenter of all global movings and shakings. The tragedy is that such an exaggerated
perception of American power and purpose is occurring at precisely the moment when the United States will need to scale back its global ambitions. Indeed,

the external perception of U.S. omnipresence will make the pursuit of a more modest U.S. foreign policy all the more difficult. The Obama administration has consciously adopted a more modest posture in the hopes of improving America’s standing abroad. If the rest of the world genuinely believes that the United States causes everything, however, then the attempt at modesty will inevitably fail.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Multipolarity Bad: War Multipolarity leads to miscalculation and nuclear war

Xue 200/311

Khalilzad 95 Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to the United Nations. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War.” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2. pg. 84 Spring 1995 Finally, and most important, there

is no guarantee that the system will succeed in its own terms. Its operation requires subtle calculations and indications of intentions in order to maintain the balance while avoiding war; nations must know how to signal their depth of commitment on a given issue without taking irrevocable steps toward war. This balancing act proved impossible even for the culturally similar and aristocratically governed states of the nineteenth-century European balance of power systems. It will be infinitely more difficult when the system is global, the participants differ culturally, and the governments of many of the states, influenced by public opinion, are unable to be as flexible (or cynical) as the rules of the system require. Thus, miscalculations might be made about the state of the balance that could lead to wars that the United States might be unable to stay out of. The balance of power system failed in the past, producing World War I and other major conflicts. It might not work any better in the future -- and war among major powers in the nuclear age is likely to be more devastating.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good

Xue 201/311

Multipolarity Bad: War Multi-polarity would cause proliferation, terrorism, Russian lashout, and nuclear wars worldwide Arbatov 07
Alexei, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, member of the Editorial Board of Russia in Global Affairs, “Is a New Cold War Imminent,” Russia in Global Affairs, No. 2, July-September 2007, http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1130.html <<However, the low probability of a new Cold War and the

collapse of American unipolarity (as a political doctrine, if not in reality) cannot be a cause for complacency. Multipolarity, existing objectively at various levels and interdependently, holds many difficulties and threats. For example, if the Russia-NATO confrontation persists, it can do much damage to both parties and international security. Or, alternatively, if Kosovo secedes from Serbia, this may provoke similar processes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria, and involve Russia in armed conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, two countries that are supported by NATO. Another flash point involves Ukraine. In the event of Kiev’s sudden admission into the North Atlantic Alliance (recently sanctioned by
the U.S. Congress), such a move may divide Ukraine and provoke mass disorders there, thus making it difficult for Russia and the West to refrain from interfering. Meanwhile, U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe may cause Russia to withdraw from the INF Treaty and resume programs for producing intermediate-range missiles. Washington may respond by deploying similar missiles in Europe, which would dramatically increase

This could make the stage for nuclear confrontation even tenser. Other “centers of power” would immediately derive benefit from the growing Russia-West standoff, using it in their own interests. China would receive an opportunity to occupy even more advantageous positions in its economic and political relations with Russia, the U.S. and Japan, and would consolidate its influence in Central and South Asia and the Persian Gulf region. India, Pakistan, member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and some exalted regimes in Latin America would hardly miss their chance, either. A multipolar world that is not moving toward nuclear disarmament is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other, states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The probability of nuclear weapons being used in a regional conflict will increase significantly. International Islamic extremism and terrorism will increase dramatically; this threat represents the reverse side of globalization. The situation in Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North and East Africa will further destabilize. The wave of militant separatism, trans-border crime and terrorism will also infiltrate Western Europe, Russia, the U.S., and other countries. The surviving disarmament treaties (the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) will collapse. In a worst-case scenario, there is the chance that an adventuresome regime will initiate a missile launch against territories or space satellites of one or several great powers with a view to triggering an exchange of nuclear strikes between them. Another high probability is the threat of a terrorist act with the use of a nuclear device in one or several major capitals of the world.>>
the vulnerability of Russia’s strategic forces and their control and warning systems.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good

Xue 202/311

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Hege Checks Global War US hegemony checks global war. Walt 02, Academic Dean at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Robert and Renee Belfer Professorship in
International Affairs (Stephen, "American Primacy: It's prospects and pitfalls", Naval War College Review, Spring 2002, Vol. LV, No. 2)

Xue 203/311

A second consequence of U.S. primacy is a decreased danger of great-power rivalry and a higher level of overall international tranquility. Ironically, those who argue that primacy is no longer important, because the danger of war is slight, overlook the fact that the extent of American primacy is one of the main reasons why the risk of great-power war is as low as it is. For most of the past four centuries, relations among the major powers have been intensely competitive, often punctuated by major wars and occasionally by all-out struggles for hegemony. In the first half of the twentieth century, for example, great-power wars killed over eighty million people. Today, however, the dominant position of the United States places significant limits on the possibility of great-power competition, for at least two reasons. One reason is that because the United States is currently so far ahead, other major powers are not inclined to challenge its dominant position. Not only is there no possibility of a "hegemonic war" (because
there is no potential hegemon to mount a challenge), but the risk of war via miscalculation is reduced by the overwhelming gap between the United States and the other major powers. Miscalculation is more likely to lead to war when the balance of power is fairly even, because in this situation both sides can convince themselves that they might be able to win. When the balance of power is heavily skewed, however, the leading state does not need to go to war and weaker states dare not try. The

second reason is that the continued deployment of roughly two hundred thousand troops in Europe and in Asia provides a further barrier to conflict in each region. So long as U.S. troops are committed abroad, regional powers know that launching a war is likely to lead to a confrontation with the United States. Thus, states within these regions do not worry as much about each other, because the U.S. presence effectively prevents regional conflicts from breaking out. What Joseph Joffe has termed the "American pacifier" is not the only barrier to conflict in Europe and Asia, but it is an important one. This tranquilizing effect is not lost on America's allies in Europe and Asia. They resent U.S. dominance and dislike playing host to American troops, but they also do not want "Uncle Sam" to leave. Thus, U.S. primacy is of benefit to the United States,
and to other countries as well, because it dampens the overall level of international insecurity. World politics might be more interesting if the United States were weaker and if other states were forced to compete with each other more actively, but a more exciting world is not necessarily a better one. A comparatively boring era may provide few opportunities for genuine heroism, but it is probably a good deal more pleasant to live in than "interesting" decades like the 1930s or 1940s.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Soft Power High US soft power high, and will continue with new president Fullilove 8 (Michael, Director of the global issues program at the Lowy Institute, Visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, 6/17,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/17/opinion/edfullilove.php)

Xue 204/311

In terms of soft power, too - the ability to get others to want what you want - the case for America's decline is easily overstated. America retains its hold on the world's imagination. For most non-Americans around the world, America's politics are, at some level, our politics as well. Why is the world so interested? America's bulk is only part of the answer. Ultimately, it is not really the size of the U.S. economy that draws our attention. It is not even America's blue-water navy or its new bunkerbusting munitions. Rather, it is the idea of America which continues to fascinate: a superpower that is open, democratic, meritocratic and optimistic; a country that is the cockpit of global culture; a polity in which all candidates for public office, whether or not they are a Clinton, seem to come from a place called Hope. It's worth noting that the declinist canon has emerged at the nadir of the Bush years; America's soft power account will look much healthier the instant the next president is inaugurated.

Jan/Feb) To cope with this new world. principled realism that harbors no illusions about the importance of a strong military in a dangerous world but that also understands the importance of diplomacy and multilateral cooperation. America must set the following priorities. what goes on inside of other countries. the United States should lead the world to stop them.and for the democratic values that unite us -. We failed to stop the killing in Rwanda. To be effective in the coming decades. Foreign Affairs. because the two worst genocides in recent history have taken place there. We need to start taking human rights in Africa particularly seriously. former candidate for democratic prez nomination (Bill. It is shameful that the Bush administration continues to wring its hands over Darfur when it is within our power to do something . We could still do more to mobilize multilateral pressure on the Sudanese government and on China. We must be impeccable in our own respect for human rights. We must restore our commitment to international law and to multilateral cooperation. The norm of absolute territorial sovereignty is moot when national governments partner with those who rape. we must rebuild our alliances. we need a New Realism in our foreign policy -.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Internal Links – Human Rights Credibility Kt Heg Xue 205/311 Human rights credibility is key to heg Richardson 08 Governor of New Mexico.an ethical. Japan. We cannot lead other nations toward solutions to shared problems if they do not trust our leadership. not control. First and foremost. History teaches that if the United States does not take the lead on ending genocide.but that we can only influence. India. torture. And when genocide or other grave human rights violations begin. as we negotiate. and kill masses of people. which has great influence over Sudan.if we are to work with them to solve global problems. no one else will.and toward enforcing that norm through international institutions and multilateral measures. It means expanding the United Nations Security Council to include Germany. The United States should have sent a special envoy as soon as the mass killings began in Darfur. with those who do not. and for years we have failed to stop the killing in Darfur. We need a New Realism based on the understanding that what goes on inside of other countries profoundly impacts us -. We should reward countries that live up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. a country from Latin America. we need to work with other governments that respect and trust us. in Rwanda and now in Darfur. and a country from Africa as permanent members. The United States should lead the world toward acceptance of a greater norm of respect for basic human rights -. A New Realism for the twenty-first century must understand that to solve our own problems. We need to restore respect and appreciation for our allies -. A New Realism A Realistic and Principled Foreign Policy. America must hold itself to a higher standard of leadership. constructively but firmly. This means respecting both the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and joining the International Criminal Court (ICC).

such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. The United States.html#n10)] Finally. Central Asia. Kagan continues… . however. influence. Even when the United States engages in a war. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power. Even the European Union. In a genuinely multipolar world. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. the Middle East. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished. if it ever went away. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes. it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia. In a more genuinely multipolar world. intensity. 1” and are equally loath to relinquish it. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. Europe.hoover. with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. Once having entered a region. liberal and conservative. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations. Central Asia. and the Caucasus. and the Caucasus. too. and since the end of the Cold War. For instance. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it. the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere. owes its founding to American power.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Impact Authors – Kagan US leadership prevents multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict – prefer it to all other alternatives Xue 206/311 Kagan 07 Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [Robert “End of Dreams. Return of History” Policy Review (http://www. beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years. But that’s not the way it works. increasingly. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. there is the United States itself. they generally prefer their global place as “No. however distant and one hopes unnecessary. Central Asia. Most Europeans recoil at the thought. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power. that great geopolitical miracle. the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. and so is international competition for power. that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. Nationalism in all its forms is back. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia. and status.org/publications/policyreview/8552512. That could make wars between them less likely. but even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee. or it could simply make them more catastrophic. This was its goal after the Second World War. and now. Armed embargos. It is shaped by configurations of power. and destructiveness. until recently. would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power. they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. is more of a traditional than a postmodern power. whether for practical or idealistic reasons. it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East. it would not. of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts. the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope. Democratic and Republican. the Western Hemisphere. of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. and with Russia in Eastern Europe. honor. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power.

both on the seas and on the ground. with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region. of course. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But even China. In the Middle East. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia. would produce its own kind of order. or Iran. which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. The world hasn’t changed that much. China. the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia. and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe. nationalist Japan. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. In Europe. the United States. which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace. and especially since the end of the Cold War. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia. too. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition. to expand and fill the vacuum. India. one likely to draw the United States back in again. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel. which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. independent. In an era of burgeoning nationalism. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive. too. competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. This is especially true in East Asia. and Europe. regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world’s great powers. China. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible. forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t change this. faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region. could draw in other great powers. obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Impact Authors – Kagan Kagan continued… Xue 207/311 The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii. where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. The current order. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. and comity in the Middle East. That is certainly the view of most of China’s neighbors. That commitment. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. Difficult as it may be to extend American . history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. particularly Iran. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. if only to secure their interests. stability. It is further competition. It will produce a new instability. “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. including the United States. which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world. A different configuration of power.

.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 208/311 predominance into the future. no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.

particularly the poorest states in the Third World. spreading democracy helps maintain U. The National Interest. Of course. democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. power. Indonesia and Australia. December (lexis)] THROUGHOUT HISTORY. Indeed they do. The first has been a more peaceful world. In addition. it is important to note what those good things are. one gathers from the argument. but nonetheless. primacy.S. but democratic progress has been made in Algeria. Lebanon. American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. increasing respect for human rights. even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. Latin America. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. During the Cold War. Israel and Egypt. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Iraq. Morocco. Rather. the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. India and Pakistan. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East.5 million Afghans. Third. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it). respect for international property rights. particularly war's worst form: great power wars.S. should not even be attempted. Asia and the Caucasus. leadership. and mobility of capital and labor markets.S. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U. the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. Today. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U. in general. the march of democracy has been impressive. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel. power. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. and benefits defense as well because the size of . In Defense of Primacy.S. liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. power behind it. voted in a critical October 2004 election. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. maximizes efficiencies and growth. With its allies. a robust monetary regime. along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened. the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. most notably France and West Germany. but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood. Britain or the United States today. such as in Darfur. peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Impact Authors – Thayer Xue 209/311 US hegemony solves all problems Thayer 06 Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University [Bradley. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists. Second. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies. By all accounts. growing democratization--is directly linked to U. South Korea and Japan. 40 percent of them women. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit. American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because.3 So. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive. once states are governed democratically. Kuwait. as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue. their people would be better off. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe. U. and.S. it is because they are more open. where 8. And so. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce." Consequently. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war.S. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest. whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey.

Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal. helping to ensure military prowess. Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization. which are facilitated through American primacy. . a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank. who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 210/311 the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology. Abandoning the positions of his youth.

hawking his nuclear wares. We're the world's ATM. The United States is the world's economic engine." gobbling up democratic Taiwan and compelling pacifist Japan (reluctantly) to join the nuclear weapons club.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Impact Authors – Brookes Xue 211/311 The collapse of U. Also missing would be other gifts from "Uncle Sugar" . which feeds over 100 million in 81 countries. we are the world's "cop on the beat. military might.ever . the United States is the global balance of power. . And what other nation could or would provide freedom of the seas for commerce. Moreover. “Why they need us: Imagine a world without America”. more than double the amount of the next highest donor (Japan).undoubtedly leading to history's first nuclear (weapons) exchange. A resurgent Russia. . Forget the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia. Washington dispensed $28 billion in foreign aid. would be breathing down the neck of its "near abroad" neighbors. President Bush's five-year $15 billion commitment under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is the largest commitment by a single nation toward an international health initiative . 2001. economic power and unprecedented generosity. driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like information technology. Set aside the differences America made last century . Osama's gang would be fighting them tooth and nail from Saudi Arabia to "Eurabia. "Globo-cop. vaccinate. and Sudan would have no peace agreement. Without the U. Talk about Fourth of July fireworks . Absent U.N.working in over 100 (mostly African) countries. would still be going door to door.N. A. educate and protect children in 157 countries . In Africa. Khan. life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim.just imagine a world where this country had On security. North Korea would be brandishing a solid nuclear arsenal." In Asia. .if those rivals weren't at each other's throats again. Heritage Foundation Commentary. The Koreas might fight another horrific war.S. scheming over a global caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia. al Qaeda would still be an honored guest. they'd be taking orders from Paris or Berlin . 1. leadership. We not only have the largest economy. leadership will spark wars around the globe Brookes 06 senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation (Peter. That includes half the operations of the World Food Program. Liberia would still be under Charles Taylor's sway. providing 17 percent of the International Monetary Fund's resources for nations in fiscal crisis.and 31 percent of the budget of the U.all free of charge? Weapons of mass destruction would be everywhere. indeed. resulting in millions of deaths. and Pakistan's prodigious proliferator. High Commissioner for Refugees. While it's not our preference. In Afghanistan. It wouldn't be sending fighters to Iraq. and funding 13 percent of World Bank programs that dole out billions in development assistance to needy countries vanished on Jan.S. Comrade! In Europe. which assists more than 19 million refugees across the globe. diplomatic influence.S. we spend 40 percent of the world's budget on R&D.starting with 22 percent of the U. instead. Libya would not have given up its weapons. contributing nearly 26 percent of all official development assistance from the large industrialized countries. Gone would be 17 percent of UNICEF's costs to feed. defense and medicine. In 2005. budget." providing critical stability in some of the planet's toughest neighborhoods. meanwhile." rivals India and Pakistan might well find cause to unleash the dogs of war in South Asia . july 4th) The picture isn't pretty.Q. too. including the shipment of oil and gas . China would be the "Middle Kingdom.

with regional competition among the major countries of the Gulf region (Iran. Ferguson's warning may be hyperbolic. Saudi Arabia. or to prevent a hostile power from dominating an entire region. whether to defend friendly states. "apolarity. eventually involving the use of weapons of mass destruction plus human suffering on a vast scale.. but one with no hegemon at all. it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive.S. national interests. Steven Peter Rosen has thus fit-tingly observed. the United States would almost certainly be drawn back into these areas. competition and even military rivalry between France and Germany) of the kind that some realist scholars of international relations have predicted."2z Similarly. Risks in the Middle East would be likely to increase. floods of refugees. Major regional wars. p.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Impact Authors – Lieber Xue 212/311 Withdrawal of US leadership causes multiple regional nuclear conflicts Lieber 05 Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University (Robert J. South Korea. Niall Ferguson has added that those who dislike American predominance ought to bear in mind that the alternative may not be a world of competing great powers. Based on past experience.. but the consequences would almost certainly be harmful both to regional stability and to U. to cope with a humanitarian catastrophe. Although Europe would almost certainly not see the return to competitive balancing among regional powers (i. Thailand. but it hints at the perils that the absence of a dominant power. The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century. and Israel. of economic stagnation and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves.e. Instability and regional competition could also escalate." could bring "an anarchic new Dark Age of waning empires and religious fanaticism. but also in Southeast Asia involving Vietnam. "If the logic of American empire is unappealing. and possibly the Philippines."2 . 53-54) Withdrawal from foreign commitments might seem to be a means of evading hostility toward the United States. of endemic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions. and Iraq) as well as Egypt. and Taiwan would have strong motivation to acquire nuclear weapons – which they have the technological capacity to do quite quickly. Indonesia. and risks to oil supplies are all readily conceivable. Syria." elsewhere the dangers could increase. not only between India and Pakistan. Japan. economic disruption. In Asia.

The familiar powers of the last century are too fatigued or too weak to assume the role the United States now plays. Russia is no longer an imperial power. probably later than some wish and earlier than m any Americans take for granted. economic. and limited appeal worldwide. In any case. It too. Russia. in which international anarchy would be punctuated by eruptions of truly massive destructiveness. American society. Germany. however. China. The bottom line is twofold: For the next two decades. which additionally faces uncertainties regarding its longterm national unity. So it will be with the current American global preponderance. The former major European powers – Great Britain. It can also remind us. given their historical conflicts and clashing territorial claims – would lack the cohesion. mi1itarybudgets and assets. however. Should that commitment fade – either because terrorism has faded. The key question is: What will replace it? An abrupt termination of American hegemony would without doubt precipitate global chaos. the status quo ante does not reappear. any evident American decline might precipitate efforts to reinforce America's leadership. unambiguously earned inclusion among the top five in every one of the twenty¬ year intervals. Some leading states. But a gradual and controlled devolution of power could lead to an increasingly formalized global community of shared interest. and France – are too weak to step into the breach. In the next two decades. Indeed. would side with America if push came to shove. while the principal challenge to American power can come only from within – either from the repudiation of power by the American democracy itself. in a comparative ranking of world powers (cumulative1y based on their economic strength. muscle. Japan. technological. and the gap in the year 2000 between the top-ranked United States and the rest was vastly wider than ever before. that some things endure for a long time. it is quite unlikely that the European Union will become sufficiently united politically to muster the popular will to compete with the United States in the politico-military arena. and its central challenge is to recover socioeconomically lest it lose its far eastern territories to China. Germany. military. Professor of Foreign Policy @ Johns Hopkins University (Zbigniew "The Choice") History is a record of change. The more intense collisions – in the event of America's decline – could spark a wildfire of regional violence. The same is true of India. That role could also be undermined and de1egitimated by the misuse of U. the top five slots at sequential twenty-year intervals have been shared by just seven states: the United States. in any case. undercutting not America's power to defend itself as their sense of common purpose . even if it succeeds in maintaining high rates of economic growth and retains its internal political stability (both are far from certain). with supranational arrangements increasingly assuming some of the special security roles of traditional nation-states. steadily sustained a protracted worldwide engagement against the threat of totalitarian communism and it is currently mobilized against international terrorism. It is noteworthy that since 1880. Even a coalition among the above – a most unlikely prospect.S. will at best be a regional power still constrained by an impoverished population. the United Kingdom. and China. France. An unguided progressive decline would have a similar effect. and sociocultural worldwide preeminence. etc. will fade at some point. populations. rendered all the more dangerous by the dissemination of weapons of mass destruction. Japan's population is aging and its economy has slowed.). the steadying effect of American power will be indispensable to global stability. or from America's global misuse of its own power. As long as that commitment endures. the eventual end of American hegemony will not involve a restoration of multipolarity among the familiar major powers that dominated world affairs for the last two centuries. the shared resentment of American hegemony would not dampen the clashes of interest among states. or because Americans tire or lose – America's global role could rapidly terminate. Only the United States. power. the conventional wisdom of the 1980s that Japan is destined to be the next "superstate" now has the ring of historical irony. a reminder that nothing endures indefinitely.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Transition Wars Xue 213/311 The transition away from American hegemony entails global chaos and conflict – other powers are incapable of maintaining stability Brzezinski 05 National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration. and when they disappear. Nor will it yield to another dominant hegemon that would displace the United States by assuming a similar political. and energy needed to both push America off its pedestal and sustain global stability. spread out over a longer time. antiquated infrastructure. Conduct that is perceived worldwide as arbitrary could prompt America’s progressive isolation. even though rather parochial in its intellectual and cultural interests. Most important. America's role as the global stabilizer will also endure.

but rather its ability to use that power to enlist others in a common effort to shape a more secure international environment .ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 214/311 such.

There is no hiding from threats and dangers in international politics. The United States has an opportunity to do an enormous amount of good for itself and the entire world. I believe that the substantial benefits are worth the costs. This is not unusual in international politics but. not until a challenger (certainly China) thinks it can overthrow the dominant state (the United States). is its "normal" condition. and much else followed. but certainly is missed when absent. These are the costs. a common language. I will demonstrate the good that comes from the American Empire.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Transition Wars The overwhelming power of the US prevents great power conflict Thayer 07 Associate Professor at Missouri State University [Bradley “American Empire: A Debate” (pg 41-42)] Xue 215/311 A great amount of good comes from American dominance.S. and their militaries seeing the other as their principal threat. But there will be intense security competition—both China and the United States will watch each other closely. that they lead. Peace and stability are major benefits of the American Empire. This means that there will be no wars between great powers. The American Empire is no exception. education. It never stops. but are unlikely to do so directly. These costs can be stark and brutal. Throughout history. That sentence is as genuine and as important a statement about international politics as one can make. and they have to be faced directly by proponents of the American Empire. Leadership requires that the United States incur costs and run risks not borne by other countries. In return. it provides stability. So it is with the United States today. order. Americans enjoy the benefits that flow to a leader. even by Americans. Rome's power was so overwhelming that no one could challenge it successfully for hundreds of years. there is no free lunch. allows democracy to spread. and makes possible humanitarian assistance to countries beset by natural and other disasters. The fact that America is so powerful actually reduces the likelihood of major war. Scholars of international politics have found that the presence of a dominant state in international politics actually reduces the likelihood of war because weaker states. their diplomats striving to ensure that countries around the world do not align with the other. pax Romana in Latin means the Roman peace. law. It means that some Americans will die in the service of their country. Every American should be conscious of them. Abandoning our leadership role would be seen as a sign of weakness – only power prevents conflicts Thayer 07 Associate Professor at Missouri State University [Bradley “American Empire: A Debate” (pg 41-42)] U. Where Rome conquered. with their intelligence communities increasingly focused on each other. peace. International politics is not a game or a sport. is not often noticed. furthers economic prosperity. They are considerable. in fact. No one gets anything for free. everything has a cost. The result was stability within the Roman Empire. But right now states are competing with one another. It is equally the case that Americans should be aware of the benefits they enjoy. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats it confronts. then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. I want to make it clear that the benefits that the world and the United States enjoy come with a cost. But as professors teach in Economics 101. it never takes a rest. or the stability brought about by the Roman Empire. In this section. . know that it is unlikely that they could challenge the dominant state and win. including even great powers. Second. Stability Peace. like good health. Realizing this good requires that Americans be bold. although that good is little acknowledged." there is no halftime and no rest. This is because international politics does not sleep. At least. Americans may not pay much attention to it until a crisis occurs. peace and stability have been a major benefit of empires. In fact. Specifically. There are no "time outs. They may resort to other mechanisms or tactics to challenge the dominant country. That was true of the British Empire (pax Britannica) too. power protects the United States.

In fact. and even on the United States itself. The same is true in the anarchic realm of international politics. does not mean that others will respect its wishes to retreat. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom. to make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. . other countries will prey upon those interests. thus abandoning its commitments or making half pledges to defend its interests and allies. If the United States is not strong and does not actively protect and advance its interests.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 216/311 Simply by declaring that the United States is going home.

S. These crises engendered others in the U. another order would take its place. once Soviet communism had been destroyed. global involvement. And the new order. if the United States were to renege on its commitments and allow the international order that it has maintained for 60 years to fall apart. . Including proposed supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truth is. and they are not solely the product of President Bush and the neocons. there is also nothing particularly "conservative" about interventionism. that amount is about the same as the combined defense budgets of the next 12 to 15 nations. American military commitments extend from Colombia to Kosovo to Japan. U. the United States has adopted an increasingly assertive foreign policy to first contain Soviet communism and then. As is often pointed out. standards. the world economy tanked and more war followed. the United States has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 2001. however. March 4th (http://www. an unresolved Korean peninsular crisis.1. once it was born. We are reluctant to deploy military force and eager to withdraw once those forces are deployed. sent troops to the Philippines and Liberia. These are the fruits of American "interventionism. We know what happens when the United States decides to reject "interventionism. or is it the cancer that's destroying it?" I am going to take issue with the way the question is framed. The ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. the American people have also maintained their traditional ambivalence toward the rest of the world. Not only is "interventionism" not "destroying" conservatism. withdrawal from Vietnam marked the beginning of a period of global catastrophe. For the United States. aggressive Russia have made many Americans anxious about the world and our place in it. whether it likes it or not. Pakistan and Somalia. Since the end of World War II. You can see what happens when Americans turn inward by reading the history of the 1970s. The job of conservatives is to ensure that those interventions are aligned with American interests and ideals. less prosperous and less peaceful than the world we know today. who will?” LA Times. "Is interventionism an organic plank of conservatism. freer. Foreign policy writers Robert Kagan and Ivo Daalder calculate that the United States intervened in other countries' affairs "with significant military force" every 18 months on average between 1989 and 2001. periodically intervening in a world order that it has done so much to establish is the only game in town. and conducted missile strikes in Yemen. would not be pleasant. Africa and Central America and the Iranian revolution provided the first state vehicle for jihadism's war on the West.S. These circumstances did not spring up overnight.story?ctrack=4&cset=true)] Xue 217/311 Today's prompt asks us. expand the sphere of liberal democratic nations. you see the same pattern. more peaceful world. But there is no escaping U. Illiberalism was allowed to expand.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-antle-continetti4mar04.S. It is not a pretty sight. We think most people are like ourselves and then become disappointed when they do not live up to U. It would be less free." Let's not make the same mistakes again.S." As the United States has adopted this new international role.2482677. the Bush administration has budgeted more than $600 billion in defense spending for fiscal year 2009. The transition from one to another would be characterized by conflict. government and the global economy. We often wish our problems would go away.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Decline  Reintervention American intervention is inevitable – it’s a question of whether it’s effective Continetti 08 Associate Editor of the Weekly Standard [Matthew “If we don't maintain world order. a rising China and an autocratic. Going back even earlier in our history. when you look at America's failure to maintain the post-Versailles Treaty order that it had helped build following the World War I. a belligerent Iran seeking nuclear weapons. The net result of this foreign policy has been a richer.latimes. We grow frustrated with allies for not doing their "fair share" of maintaining global order. They won't. as the Soviet Union expanded its influence in Central Asia.

the United States could give up the imperial mission. would be sufficient to protect the national interests of the U. Europe and mainland Asia. he has invoked t. now. Taiwan. For example. Prolif causes nuclear war – deterrence fails Lieber 07 Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University (Robert J.–Soviet nuclear balance took two decades to become relatively stable and on at least one occasion. the parties came to the nuclear brink. and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. or pretensions to it. the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962.S. It may be that all other peoples. embraced conspiracy theories about 9/11. Xue 218/311 (Stephen. A robust nuclear balance is difficult to achieve. some have asserted that deterrence and containment. Saudi Arabia. Even though American territory may not be at immediate risk within the next five to seven years. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect. In assessing nuclear proliferation risks in the late-Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Moreover. there is a likelihood that the U. will be more exposed to this danger. The National Interest. South Korea. If you can keep it”. or anyone else. The U. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. on the other hand. which seemed to work during the Cold War. “ An Empire. and in Iran. forces from the Middle East. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. And Iranian President Ahmadinejad has expressed beliefs that suggest an erratic grip on reality or that call into question his own judgment. Current friends would feel less secure and. Malaysia. "Persistent Primacy and the Future of the American Era". APSA Paper 2007) In addition to the threat posed by radical Islamist ideology and terrorism. Iraq and perhaps Algeria. Not only might the technology. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan.S. Such views are altogether too complacent. in the most probable post-imperial world. but the spread of these weapons carries with it the possibility of devastating regional wars. stable deterrence requires assured second strike capability. a country embroiled in an intense regional crisis may become the target of a disarming first strike or. in North Korea. Indonesia and others. hidden Imam. and the assumption that one’s adversary is a value-maximizing rational actor. Iran. will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. but they would not be small. The late Saddam Hussein had shown himself to be reckless and prone to reject outside information that differed from what he wished to hear.S. And control by rational actors in new or recent members of the nuclear club is by no means a foregone conclusion. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans. it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive. and in the process of developing a nuclear arsenal.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Prolif Shell Heg solves prolif Rosen 03 Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University Spring) Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems. without significant exception. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. its interests. If the logic of American empire is unappealing. materials or weapons themselves be diverted into the hand of terrorist groups willing to pay almost any price to acquire them. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U. and coupled with the spread of missile technology. and called for Israel to be wiped off the map . bases and allies surely might be. Over the longer term. may be driven by a use-it-or-lose it calculation. and those of close allies.S. fostered Holocaust denial. the knowledge that whichever side suffered an initial nuclear attack would have the capacity to retaliate by inflicting unacceptable damage upon the attacker. the proliferation of nuclear weapons could become an increasingly dangerous source of instability and conflict.

one that the United States had devoted considerable resources and political capital to containing and that a serious reduction in the American global rule would certainly aggravate.S. a far more plausible prospect.related equipment to Tehran's nuclear program. For instance. which the United States exerted itself to thwart to the extent of threatening a war in North Korea and actually waging one in Iraq and that the recession of American power would increase: the possession of nuclear armaments by "rogue" states. This defensive system will not only provide deterrence to the use of these weapons.' Nuclear materials are potentially available for purchase not only in North Korea but elsewhere as well. 10 years ago. Germany might come to consider it imprudent to deal with a nuclear-armed Russia. The spread of nuclear weapons poses a second danger. multilateral organization of 90-plus nations which uses national laws and joint military operations to fight proliferation. a voluntary. A North Korean nuclear arsenal would pose yet a third threat: nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist group such as al Qaeda. Twenty-five years ago. Heritage. That in turn would threaten virtually every country in the world because so much of the oil on which they all depend comes from that region. and relations among the countries of these regions more suspicious. major countries in Europe and Asia will feel the need to acquire their own nuclear armaments. and friends. Lacking the infrastructure of a sovereign state. without nuclear arms of their own. They would seek these weapons in order to avoid an imbalance in power that might work to their disadvantage. While many of the PSI's efforts aren't made public due to the potential for revealing sensitive intelligence sources and methods. including the WMD. some operations do make their way to the media. might well decide to equip themselves with nuclear weapons of their own. 2008 The United States military has also been a central player in the attempts to halt weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile proliferation. For instance. there were only six nuclear weapons states. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by such affluent. It could. but also provide policymakers with a greater range of options in preventing . countries governed by regimes at odds with their neighbors and hostile to prevailing international norms. they may carry. allies. trigger arms races similar to the one between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Especially if the United States withdrew from the region. the missile and WMD proliferation trend is not positive. there are 28 countries with ballistic missile arsenals of varying degrees. and perhaps ultimately Taiwan. the PSI stopped exports to Iran's missile program and heavy water. an initiative to counter the spread of WMD and their delivery systems throughout the world. its deployed troops. including Europe. South Korea and Japan. The U.S. military's capabilities help put teeth in the PSI. could spew poisonous radiation over populated areas. It would surely make Europe and East Asia less comfortable places. Nuclear proliferation poses three related dangers. the United States is also developing the world's most prodigious-ever ballistic missile defense system to protect the American homeland. But it could purchase either a full-fledged nuclear explosive or nuclear material that could form the basis for a device that. in the absence of an American nuclear guarantee.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (Peter. Today. Heg Solves Prolif Hegemony solves allied prolif. than was the case at the outset of the twenty-first century. or a nuclear-armed Iran. A nuclear-armed Iraq. He is also a member of the congressional U. The Case for Goliath: How America Acts As the World’s Government in the Twenty-First Century. democratic. it may provide the best answer to the spread of ballistic missiles and the unconventional payloads. while not actually exploding. trigger a war. Why the World Still Needs America's Military Might. would make the international relations of the Persian Gulf far more dangerous. p 189-191) Xue 219/311 The greatest threat to their security that the members of the international system did face in the new century. The first is that.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Ext. President Bush created the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). In 2003. In the same vein. Today there are nine members of the onceexclusive nuclear weapons club. While missile defense has its critics. by itself. If the United States withdrew from Europe and East Asia. a terrorist organization probably could not construct a nuclear weapon itself. rogue state prolif and terrorism Mandelbaum 05 Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins (Michael. according to the U. and Japan with a nuclear-armed China. however. nine countries had ballistic missiles. was the spread of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately. an unlikely development after the over-throw of Saddam Hussein's regime. killing or infecting many thousands of people.' A nuclear-armed North Korea would similarly change the international relations of East Asia for the worse. which many believe is actually a nuclear weapons program. with Iran perhaps knocking at the door.S. peaceful countries would not. November 24. Heg solves prolif Brookes 08 Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. State Department.

said it best when describing the value of missile defense in countering the growing threat of WMD and delivery system proliferation: "I believe that one of the reasons we've seen the proliferation of these missiles in the past is that there has historically been no defense against them. the Director of the Missile Defense Agency." . whether from a state or non-state actor. Perhaps General Trey Obering.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 220/311 or responding to such attacks.

Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. the president. and because its society is so wealthy. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca. With a population already over 1. there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America. groups opposed to U. its power enabled the United States to help rebuild Europe and Japan. the military. If Russia. Atomic Iran. the former Soviet Union.D. China. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. As discussed below. and it cannot insulate a state from all outside pressures.navy. too. members of Congress. Also. When the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf increased in the late 1970s. 176-178] The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Few countries or nonstate groups want to invite the “focused enmity” of the United States (to use William Wohlforth’s apt phrase). Serbia. in 1990–91 it used these capabilities to liberate Kuwait. Unlike 9-11. and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy – Islamic terrorists. North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. it had the wherewithal to oust the network’s Taliban hosts and to compel broad international support for its campaign to eradicate Al-Qaeda itself.S.The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. So.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities. “American Primacy” http://www. but anti-American elements are forced to rely on covert or indirect strategies (such as terrorist bombings) that do not seriously threaten America’s dominant position. to assist them in developing stable democratic orders. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. At the beginning of the Cold War. Today. Iraq. of course. Were American power to decline significantly. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy.nwc . our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power . it has ample resources to devote to whatever problems it may face in the future. Would the U. In China.htm)) Perhaps the most obvious reason why states seek primacy—and why the United States benefits from its current position— is that international politics is a dangerous business.There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. for example. and countries and groups that have done so (such as Libya. too. Because the United States is so powerful. It would have been much harder to do any of these things if the United States had been weaker. The US will respond to the next attack – and the world will end. the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked.7 The United States was also able to deploy powerful armed forces in Europe and Asia as effective deterrents to Soviet expansion. The apocalypse would be upon us.S. and it will be better equipped to resist the pressures that arise. the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States.Then.S. and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another. U.S. which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. pg. interests would probably be emboldened and overt challenges would be more likely.Still. Being wealthier and stronger than other states does not guarantee that a state will survive. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues. the United States created its Rapid Deployment Force in order to deter threats to the West’s oil supplies. U. primacy helps deter potential challenges to American interests in virtually every part of the world.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Terrorism Shell Xue 221/311 Heg solves terrorism Walt 02 professor of international affairs at Harvard (Stephen. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map. or the Taliban) have paid a considerable price. when the United States was attacked by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in September 2001. our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. however. dominance does provoke opposition in a number of places.mil/press/review/2002/spring/art1-sp2. But the strongest state is more likely to escape serious harm than weaker ones are. in Political Science from Harvard University [Jerome Corsi (Expert in Antiwar movements and political violence). and to subsidize the emergence of an open international economic order. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. CORSI 05 Ph.

Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. they might be happy to fan the diplomatic fire beginning to burn under the Russians and the Chinese. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. yet every president is by nature a politician. Many of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from the disgrace of World War II. when in the last century French did not start launching nuclear weapons themselves. . Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam. But for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. For this there would be no effective answer.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good the Americans a second time in just over two decades had been forced to come to their rescue. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. If the Xue 222/311 suddenly inflicted upon America. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge. especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. So weakened by the loss of New York.

if we return to the 1990s policy of pretending globalization will solve all our problems. but that is not enough. and recharge is fine." then we may awake before long to a disaster worse than 9/11. or even after D-Day and Iwo Jima. September 11. 1941. in a world where al Qaeda continues to plot. Egypt. World War II was not finished after El Alamein and Midway. So it is today. and Saudi Arabia--in such a world. if we place our faith once again in accommodation and "stability. if you do not wander down to Ground Zero. 2001. in a world where U. Lexis) A short pause to rest. and Iran is less than two years away from having them. never forgive--and never flag in our determination to prevent a recurrence. But turning Xue 223/311 away from the world's dangers for long would be a mistake.S. Much remained to be done before the monstrous evils of fascism and Nazism were defeated. It is for that very reason that we must keep our gaze resolutely focused on Ground Zero and our mind fully engaged to imagine worse horrors that may yet transpire. Weekly Standard. Two battles have been won. 5/3. security depends on alliances with shaky dictatorships like Pakistan. . and states like Syria continue to support transnational terrorist groups. can seem almost as distant as December 7. even necessary. We must never forget. much remains to be done before Americans can feel safe. possibly a fatal one. Heg Solves Terrorism US power projection is key to stopping terrorism Boot 03 senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations (Max. If we revert to our pre9/11 passivity. regroup. The war against Islamist terrorism and against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is not over. In a world where North Korea may already have nuclear weapons.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Ext. The horrors of the day are now receding into memory.

However. By lowering the substantive bar constraining the use of force in the absence of an imminent threat and rejecting the alternative that would put in place procedural checks. “Real Leaders Do Soft Power: Learning the Lessons of Iraq. in comparing the United States with other dominant powers of the past. The administration believed that overwhelming U. although American primacy is one of the causes of the terror war "There is no reason to assume that terrorist enemies would let America off the hook if it retreated. The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century. those theorists got it backward. (p. And because of the emphasis on system-level explanations. the administration fueled a fear that the United States would act in an unconstrained fashion that would damage the interests of others and encourage other.S. which compel the United States to push the envelope of preventive force. leadership. more dangerous nations to follow a similar course. 2008) Third. The argument behind the necessity of dispatching Saddam. global position by calling into question the legitimacy of U. such as approval by the UN Security Council or a regional organization such as NATO.. This element of U.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good AT: Heg Causes Terrorism Their ev isn’t reverse causal – collapse of heg wont stop terror Lieber 05 Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University (Robert J. 29)) Xue 224/311 Realist views tend to rest on certain general assumptions about the nature of world politics.S.S. Yet. for example. was more [End Page 160] remote. The world rallied to the United States after 9/11 and supported the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban's alliance with al Qaeda represented a clear and present danger. . By acting without the support of others. And in the case of Iraq. the invasion of Iraq unintentionally fueled a global public perception that both al Qaeda and the United States were threats to peace and stability. that states with the capacity to use WMD or who make these weapons available to terrorists can be reliably deterred. soft power is particularly critical in the face of terrorist threats.S. some realists downplay the traits of especially violent and fanatical individual leaders or groups. realists believed Saddam Hussein could have been dissuaded from attacking his neighbors and that even if he eventually acquired nuclear weapons.” Washington Quarterly. Spring. military power freed the United States from having to seek the support of others because other countries would have no choice but to side with the world's sole superpower. invoke the examples of great empires that came to grief through imperial overreach or through causing other powerful states to form coalitions against them. the strategy undermined the U. Some in this group. 08 – Dean of the Lyndon Johnson School of Public Affairs at Texas Austin (James. U. Their evidence only assumes a world where we are not a benevolent hegemon – Soft power solves any risk of a terrorist attack Steinberg. primacy makes it all the more important that the United States pay judicious attention to legitimacy and greater compliance with international law rather than it being an excuse to throw them overboard in the hubris of the moment. as Richard Betts notes.S. he could have been deterred by the overwhelming power of the United States. however.

They may not yet look like Western-style democracies. property rights. there is a chance—small as it may be—that once states are governed democratically. civil liberties. Natan Sharansky makes the argument that once Arabs are governed democratically. voted in October 2004. within their own borders. Although democracies have their flaws. 40 percent of them women. simply put. ISSUES AND IMPERATIVES) The experience of this century offers important lessons. Democratic governments do not ethnically “cleanse” their own populations. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. their people would be better off. democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. . They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens. Iraq. the Palestinian Authority. and the rule of law. Precisely because. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. democracy is the best form of government. Bush. but nonetheless. This is because democracies are more likely to align themselves with the United States and be sympathetic to its worldview. the first free elections in that country's history. Using American power to spread democracy can be a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as for the United States. Nuclear War Diamond 95. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel. who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. they respect competition. and now even the Middle East is becoming increasingly democratic. The military power of the United States put Iraq on the path to democracy. the Caucasus. Elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. but democratic progress has been made in Morocco. and Egypt. Europe. Asia. they will not wish to continue the conflict against Israel. open." The United States should do what it can to foster the spread of democracy throughout the world. democracy. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment.5 million Afghans. Winston Churchill recognized this over half a century ago: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. Senior researcher fellow at Hoover Institution (Larry." This idea has had a big effect on President George W. Democratic countries form more reliable."" Whether democracy in the Middle East would have this impact is debatable. Democracy has spread to Latin America. where 8. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Democracy Heg key to promote democracy Thayer 07 Associate Professor at Missouri State University [Bradley “American Empire: A Debate” (pg 42-43)] Xue 225/311 The American Empire gives the United States the ability to spread its form of government. In addition. PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990s: ACTORS AND INSTRUMENTS. Kuwait. and enduring trading partnerships. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Lebanon. the likelihood of conflict will be reduced further. The march of democracy has been impressive. and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. He has said that Sharansky's worldview "is part of my presidential DNA. even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them.

Hegemony is key to democracy promotion McFaul 04. If Adolf Hitler had prevailed in World War II. Washington Quarterly. Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and associate professor of political science at Stanford University (Michael. no 1. command economies run by one-party dictatorships would be the norm and democracy the exception. Similarly. Thus. or to return to power (as in Haiti) when they have been overthrown. but few democratic regimes would have remained. p.S. 405-413) In the past. Heg Solves Democracy Xue 226/311 US hegemony is essential to support democracies Diamond 96 Senior researcher fellow at Hoover Institution (Larry. vol 28.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Ext. and certainly is crucial to our ability to help popular. disintegration. global power has been an important reason why certain countries have become models for emulation by others. Given the linkages among democracy. legitimate democratic forces deter armed threats to their overthrow. even good ideas need powerful actors to defend and advance them. “Beyond the Unipolar Moment: Why the United States Must Remain Engaged”. “Democracy Promotion as a World Value”. rather than Soviet dissolution. . power. p 147) There is a genuine correlation between the advance of democracy as well as democratic norms worldwide and the growth of U. No country has done more to strengthen the norms and practices of democracy around the world than the United States. Orbis. has been a factor in the diffusion of democracy around the world. and of its Western democratic allies. The global power of the United States. if the Cold War had ended with U. democratic values would have survived. and human rights-as well as the recent finding of Professor Adam Przeworski (New York University) that democracy is more likely to survive in a country when it is more widely present in the region-we should not surrender our capacity to diffuse and defend democracy.S. peace. It is not only intrinsic to our ideals but important to our national security that we remain globally powerful and engaged-and that a dictatorship does not rise to hegemonic power within any major region.

in the course of his journeys. have embraced the international market economy – and drawn closer to the west – because . which promote prosperity. Lal has traveled the world and. mobility of capi¬tal and labor markets—to promote economic growth. Lal argues. He realized that free markets were necessary for the development of poor countries.business follows the flag. China. and labor. and now a professor who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India that strongly condemned empire. capital. The stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit. India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to the world than Germany and Japan did in the ‘30s. soldiers create the conditions in which the American economy may thrive. which leads to a growing integration of the world economy through the increasingly free movement of goods. He has abandoned the position of his youth and is now one of the strongest proponents of the American Empire. World Policy Institute. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case. thereby helping to promote investment and prosperity. has witnessed great poverty and misery due to a lack of economic development. Econ stagnation causes nuclear war Mead 92 Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. They and their leaders they believe the system can work for them. but particularly those in the Third World. respect for intellectual property rights.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Economy Primacy is key to the global economy and helping Third World countries Thayer 07 Associate Professor at Missouri State University [Bradley “American Empire: A Debate” (pg 43-44)] Xue 227/311 Economic prosperity is also a product of the American Empire. 1992) Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. In 1998."62 Globalization is the process of creating a common economic space. and "we are able to shape the environment [of international politics] in ways that are advantageous to us and that are stabilizing to the areas where we are forward deployed. rich against poor.. so that they too may enjoy economic prosperity. and this order "has been essential for the working of the benign processes of globalization.' Lal submits that the only way to bring relief to the desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the American Empire." Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the American Empire comes from Deepak Lal. a former Indian foreign service diplomat. Russia. and this led him to recognize that his faith in socialism was wrong. It is the responsibility of the United States. particularly states in the Third World. It has created a Liberal International Economic Order (LIED)—a network of worldwide free trade and commerce. Just as a conservative famously is said to be a liberal who has been mugged by reality.. researcher at the World Bank. prolific author. we will face a new period of international conflict: North against South. to use the LIEO to promote the well-being of all economies. The American Empire has created this network not out of altruism but because it benefits the economic well-being of the United States. (Walter Russell. the Secretary of Defense Wil¬liam Cohen put this well when he acknowledged that "economists and soldiers share the same interest in stability". the hard "evidence and experi¬ence" that stemmed from "working and traveling in most parts of the Third World during my professional career" caused this profound change. Empires provide order.

far more rapidly and in much greater volume in the early twenty-first century than ever before. Second. and other instruments of liberalization. political authorities now understand that putting up barriers to imports in an attempt to revive domestic production will in fact worsen economic conditions everywhere. The Weekly Standard. it was not the only one. the North American Free Trade Agreement. Market economies remain subject to cyclical downturns. The economic collapse of the 1930s caused extensive hardship throughout the world and led indirectly to World War II by paving the way for the people who started it to gain power in Germany and Japan. governments have taken steps that have helped to prevent a recurrence of the disasters of that decade. or implement improper ones. acting on the lessons drawn from that experience by professional economists. whether seventeenth century Dutch tulips or twentieth century Japanese real estate and Thai currency. Third. “Power for Good. prolonged failure of the international economy. the United States has pushed for the expansion of international trade by midwifing the World Trade Organization. by applying the lessons of the past. Since the end of the Cold War. an active American international economic role has been crucial both in fortifying the conditions for global economic well-being and in coping with the problems that have occurred. governments have increased rather than cut spending. In responding to these events. Since the 1930s. A twenty-first-century American retreat could have similarly adverse international economic consequences. the lifeblood of the global economy. change constantly and sometimes rapidly: Capital flows across sovereign borders. with the corresponding increase in the likelihood that a nuclear shot would be fired in anger somewhere in the world. which public policy can limit but has not found a way to eliminate entirely. The absence of such a role could weaken those conditions and aggravate those problems. the 1920s and 1930s. inflicting the kind of hardship the world experienced in the 1930s (which some Asian countries also suffered as a result of their fiscal crises in the 1990s) does not lie beyond the realm of possibility. the United States safeguards the extraction and export of Middle Eastern oil. counted as the most serious potential consequence of the abandonment by the United States of its role as the world's government. shows James Stewart.' In the face of reduced demand. Moreover. In retrospect. the United States has made the dollar "the world's 'reserve' currency" and supplied loans to "governments in the throes of currency crises. p." Fourth. played by Henry Travers. They can act too slowly. Markets also have an inherent tendency to form bubbles. playing . since the Great Depression. governments can make errors. a serious. policing Atlantic and Pacific shipping lanes. just as medical science must cope with the appearance of new strains of influenza against which existing vaccines are not effective. Heg Solves Economy Xue 228/311 Heg key to the economy Boot 06 senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (Max. 192-195) Although the spread of nuclear weapons. the global economy suffered serious damage that a more active American role might have mitigated. by providing a ready market for goods exported by such countries as China and Japan. for instance. In the previous period of American international reticence. in the monetary realm. or fail to implement the proper policies. the Great Depression is widely believed to have been caused by a series of errors in public policy that made an economic downturn far worse than it would have been had governments responded to it in appropriate fashion. for example. Still. This means that measures that successfully address economic malfunctions at one time may have less effect at another. America the Indispensable”.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Ext. And fifth. 11 No. The Case for Goliath: How America Acts As the World’s Government in the TwentyFirst Century. In contrast to the widespread practice of the 1930s. Vol. Fiscal and monetary crises have evoked rescue efforts rather than a studied indifference based on the assumption that market forces will readily reestablish a desirable economic equilibrium. for instance. the United States provides the security essential for international commerce by. the United States "became the indispensable supplier of demand to the world. that cause economic harm when the bubble bursts and prices plunge. Most importantly. The overall American role in the world since World War II therefore has something in common with the theme of the Frank Capra film It's a Wonderful Life. 28) Mandelbaum also points to five economic benefits of American power. especially periodic recessions and currency crises. First. like a living organism. in which the angel Clarence." Heg solves economic collapse Mandelbaum 05 Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins (Michael. the global economy and the national economies that comprise it. excessive values for particular assets.

Similarly. .ICWest 09-10 Heg Good never been born. should the American government abandon some or all of the ways in which it had. a less secure and less prosperous place. The abdication by the United States of some or all of the responsibilities for international security that it had come to bear in the first decade of the twenty-first century would deprive the international system of one of its principal safety features. the world very likely would have been in the past. how life in his small town of Bedford Falls would have unfolded had he it is with the United States and its role as the world's government. at the dawn of the new century. Without that role. George Bailey learns that people he knows and loves turn out to be far worse off without him. come to support global economic activity. which keeps countries from smashing into each other. the world economy would function less effectively and might even suffer a severe and costly breakdown. A world without the United States would in this way resemble a fleet of cars without gasoline. and would become in the future. who believes his existence to have been worthless. In this sense. So Xue 229/311 the bank clerk George Bailey. a world without America would be the equivalent of a freeway full of cars without brakes. as they are historically prone to do.

the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. growing at over 10 percent per year for over a decade. all aimed at Taiwan. especially involving its power projection forces--i.” Jun 25. Why the World Still Needs America's Military Might. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. There would be no victors in such a war. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway. today Beijing has the world's third largest defense budget and the world's fastest growing peacetime defense budget. 2008 We know that China is undergoing a major military buildup. each armed with its own nuclear arsenal. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass. China would quickly unite Taiwan with the mainland under force of arms. If China were to retaliate. China hasn't renounced the use of force against its neighbor and rival. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable.raise the possibility of a nuclear war. free-market democracy. we would see the destruction of civilisation. it cannot be ruled out entirely. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang. I would daresay that military tensions across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait between Taiwan and China would be much greater today if not for an implied commitment on the part of the United States to prevent a change in the political status quo via military means. commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. since the region has failed to develop an overarching security architecture such as that found in Europe in NATO Extinction Straits Times 00 [“Regional Fallout: No one gains in war over Taiwan. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -. the system of military alliances in Asia that the United States maintains provides the basis for stability in the Pacific. this means South Korea. Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -. Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. With the US distracted. a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons.truce or a broadened war. In his book The Korean War. president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. the Philippines and. navy.horror of horrors -. to a lesser extent. Singapore. . east Asia will be set on fire. short of using nuclear weapons.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – China War Xue 230/311 Heg deters China/Taiwan war Brookes 08 Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. November 24.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (Peter.S. It increased its defense budget nearly 18 percent annually over the past two years. He is also a member of the congressional U. there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later.e. and ballistic missile forces. Taiwan. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In the region. could enter a new and dangerous phase. hostilities between India and Pakistan. Indeed. told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability. In general. air force. Heritage. for China puts sovereignty above everything else. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests. which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. LN] THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. In south Asia.. then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. It is believed by many analysts that absent American military might. a vibrant. Japan.

and which I call the Post-Vietnam Order. 08 – Prof. it has been the best thirty to thirty-five years in Asia’s long history.org/conferences/asias-strategic-challenges-in-search-of-a-common-agenda/conference-papers/fifth-session-conflict-in-asia/whywar-in-asia-remains-thinkable-prof-hugh-white/ June 2) It can help to start by thinking about the sources of the remarkable peace that has characterised East Asia in recent decades. Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute (Hugh. of Strategic Studies at Australian National University. As Rich Armitage said over lunch yesterday. . and Japan about its security from China.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Decline Causes Asian Instability Xue 231/311 Hegemony solves Asian stability White. The US has simultaneously assured China about its security from Japan. US primacy was the absolute core of this order. “Why War in Asia Remains Thinkable”. The heart of that order was a posture of double assurance provided by the US to the other two powers. but crucially.iiss. http://www. Obviously. China and Japan that arose at the end of the Vietnam War. The foundation of that peace has been a remarkable set of relationships between the US.

International Affairs. that a foreign policy premised on American hegemony. the influence of extraregional other important regional aspect of US power is the ability to avoid excessively deep entanglement or involvement and. realized early on that there was no clear distinction between American moral concerns in Bosnia and America's national interest there. logic applies to regional arrangements: the United States maximizes its power by promoting forms of regionalism so loosely institutionalized that they do not tie down or constrain the US but. the resulting crisis eventually required the deployment of thousands of troops on the ground. But the ‘backyard’. perhaps counterintuitively. It has been able to take the region for granted and. It is this fact that. Heg decreases interventionism Kristol and Kagan 02 Editor of the Weekly Standard. and to Brazil’s more assertive regional policy within South America more generally. (Andrew. especially on the part of Argentina. Second. Had the Bush Administration. smaller regional groupings that could emerge as effective challengers to the US. might have been able to put a stop to Milosevic's ambitions with a well-timed threat of punishing military action. to avoid having a regional policy at all (as has arguably been the case since 2001). Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [William and Robert “Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy” (http://www. overseas interventions than under the "vital interest" standard. A similar. to escape from ensnaring and diverting lower-level conflicts within its powers. Third. a broader and more forward-leaning conception of the national interest might have made the later large and potentially costly interventions unnecessary . Published Online: Jan 24 2006 12:00AM) The contrast with the United States is instructive. at the same time. the dominant power in the system may take the opportunity to exploit regional conflicts to its own advantage and to engage in offshore balancing in precisely the way in which neo-realist theory would predict. Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein were given reason to believe that the United States did not consider its interests threatened by their behavior. A passive world-view encouraged American leaders to ignore troubling developments which eventually metastasized into full blown threats to American security. This pattern has been visible in the cases of both the Asia-Pacific region and the Americas.org/books/16811)] It is worth pointing out.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good A2: Heg Bad – Intervention Xue 232/311 US form of heg is exercised without getting entangled – more power means we don’t need to intervene Hurrell 06 Director of the Centre for International Studies at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Nuffield College. The same could be said of American interventions in Panama and the Gulf. not more. Oxford. This is certainly true (even if the rise of the US to regional hegemony is often dated too early and its extent exaggerated). though. Much is made of the unique position of the United States and the degree to which. or more accurately contain. of regional neighbours. But because the Bush team placed Bosnia outside the sphere of "vital" American interests. but less often noted. with the enormous credibility earned in the Gulf War. the United States. unlike all other modern great powers. for example. In each case. This has been particularly evident in the reactions of regional second-tier states to the attempt by India and Brazil to obtain permanent seats on the UN Security Council. only to discover that they had been misled. attempts to develop a global role can easily stir the animosity. Hegemony. or at least raise the concerns. for long periods.wnyc. provides Brazil with some capacity to develop a relatively autonomous regional role. may in fact mean fewer. liberalism and global order: what space for would-be great powers? (p 1-19). it faced no geopolitical challenge from within its region and was able to prevent. for the most part. work to undercut or forestall the emergence of other. and on the blending of principle with material interest.

php?main_page=news_article&article_id=294) The new world order toward which we are moving in the twenty-first century may not consist of any true superpowers.commondreams. these political entities will include differing political systems and ideological assumptions. March 1st 2007.com/main/index. In the US.S.is fraying. Power: Hard or Soft Landing?”. The linking of religion and politics in the Islamic world suggests an alternative way of imagining political entities and consequently poses a challenge to a nation-state conception of politics. East and South Asia loom ever larger as their aggregate economic growth transforms global realities. Telopress. continuing ideological differences leading to differing political structures could be a destabilizing influence. and the European Union.S. Africa hosts precious few success stories. EU and Japan fears for job security are combining with historically anomalously long periods of real wage decline. foreign policy is to descend from the high horse of liberal democracy while at the same time helping to establish the global framework that could mediate between both the economic interests and the political-theological differences amongst the disparate regions of the world.htm) Contesting institutions and groups emerge to fill this void. endemic poverty. . ‘Global Vacuum: Contested and Absent Leadership’. Regional power blocks will lead to a new Cold War era – makes resource wars inevitable Telopress ‘9 (David Pan. Instead. http://www. If this specifically liberal democratic understanding of politics will no longer be hegemonic. In South America a progressive inflected nationalism has emerged at ballot boxes and on the streets. Significantly. “World Order and the Decline of U. instabilities and conflicts that threaten metastasis. Herein lays threat and possibility. http://www. In the Islamic world hostility to religious-cultural influences and political meddling has reached a boiling point. the Global Trends 2025 report fails to list the Islamic world as anything but a zone of instability in the twenty-first century.always thin. culture and terrorism demand global leadership. Stephen Julias has been an associate with Curran & Whittington for six years.S. 2/13/09. there is the risk that conflicts between regional blocks could begin a new kind of dynamic familiar from the Cold War in which the different regional blocks establish separate political-economic spheres that would compete for legitimacy and resources. The challenge for U. Regional blocks have rushed to fill the void. But these different powers will not share the conformity of ideology and political structure that stabilized the relations between the nineteenth-century European great powers.telospress. Globalization of economic activity. Developed world consensus toward free trade. Max does contract research on international financial risks and opportunities while teaching in the New School University's Graduate Program in International Affairs. To the extent that the United States continues to pursue a foreign policy that is oriented around liberalism. but rather encompass a set of more or less powerful regional powers including the United States and China certainly but perhaps also India.org/views07/0301-26. Russia. If the rise of China indicates the development of regional political blocks. it also presages the decline of the hegemony of liberal democracy as a universally recognized model for political structure. a new set of risks and possibilities opens up arising from different understandings of what constitutes a valid political structure. heg regional blocks would move to fill the void Xue 233/311 Wolff and Julias ‘7 (Max Fraad Wolff is an economist and free lance researcher/writer. The inequalities within India and China hint at great tensions and frailties within these precious models of successful development. Though a rising China seems to bode for increasing stability.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Regional blocks In a world without U.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 234/311 .

it's more dire than that. ‘Resource Wars: Can We Survive Them?’. 2002 summit meeting in Havana attended by the US and Russia along with host country Cuba. http://www. would have survived. only our imagination can speculate what might have followed and whether planet earth. or at least a big part of it. if anyone's paying attention. The threat is real and once nearly happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October.globalresearch. Had he done it. peace declining. if at all. ." Under a worst case scenario.php? context=va&aid=5892) Resources and wars for them means militarism is increasing. There may be nothing left but resilient beetles and bacteria in the wake of a nuclear holocaust meaning even a new stone age is way in the future. there's no second chance the way Einstein explained after the atom was split. but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.ca/index. His famous quote on future wars was : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought. We later learned a miracle saved us at the 40th anniversary October. Devastation was avoided only because Soviet submarine captain Vasily Arkhipov countermanded his order to fire nuclear-tipped torpedos when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers near Kennedy's "quarantine" line. For the first time.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Regional blocks Resource Wars will lead to a nuclear war culminating in extinction Xue 235/311 Centre for Research on Globalization ‘7 (6/6/07. Stephen Lendman for the Centre for Research and Globalization. They'd better be because beyond the point of no return. 1962. and the planet's ability to sustain life front and center. we were told how close we came to nuclear Armageddon.

I am of the opinion. With an exponentially growing economy and population. the Ba in Chinese. and ultimately eclipse the reigning superpower. http://www. Eventually another nation will fill the power vacuum left by the United States and China seems to be the most likely candidate. http://74. beginning in about 2004 or 2005.au. China would rush to fill the vacuum Xue 236/311 UGA ‘7 (University of Georgia. China and India have been growing in economic power. Mosher President of Population Research Institute in a Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Moreover. A Hegemon. that the CCP leadership has always had a grand strategy.” He says that with China participating in the global market without mind to the Western that govern the system like transparency.S.eu/papers_07/papers%2007/Cason. 3 The PRC accuses the U. .S. and of domination on a global scale. currently occupies. the global market would disintegrate and this would bring less equality and the breakdown of capitalism. Some analysts fear that if this scenario plays out. of expansion. Mosher ‘6 (Steven A.” but this should be understood as secret envy and hidden ambition: It is Hegemony that the PRC itself seeks. of “seeking Hegemony. Elizabeth A. is more dominant than a mere superpower. defined by longstanding Chinese usage as a single. of Hegemony.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/mos021406.htm) In recent years.132/search? q=cache:8s_2bKC4B1QJ:www.” the international role that the U. “From Russia…with Energy”. China is quickly gaining power in the world.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good China module Without strong U. China is actively seeking to be the global hegemon.47. alldominant power. the United States of America. October 2007. 02/14/06.they would fill any power vacuum left by the U. centered system began to crumble. It is a strategy of intimidation. It is a strategy to overtake. the U. formed over 25 years of studying the PRC. Cason. it will soon take over the position as the big man at the table. The PRC is bent on becoming the Hegemon. If China continues at the current pace. more dominant even than a “sole superpower. it should be understood.S. However.pdf+Chinese+hegemony+leads+to&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) I strongly disagree with this view. International relations professor and former advisor to the Italian government Carlo Pelanda says that it is important to protect the global market because it is an “engine of wealth for everyone. World governance has been dominated by the United States hegemony since the Breton Woods conference in 1944 and the United States has enjoyed its position as the big man at the table. China will cause the global market to collapse due to their unfair competitive advantage and their infrastructural problems and will also contribute to increased instability in the world system.S. leadership.thegrandalliance. of assertiveness. in short.af. it is clear to me that they continue to have a grand strategy today.S. diminishing the relative power of the United States.125. It is a strategy. surpass.

http://74.” an ascending China inevitably will challenge the geopolitical equilibrium in East Asia. continues his military build-up and. maintains his Leninist dictatorship. the historical grievances of a Weimar Republic. and the Hegemonic ambitions of a Soviet Union at the height of its power. the People’s Republic of China of Mao Zedong survives to the present day. in combination. it will cast an ever-lengthening shadow over Asia and the world. The doctrine of peaceful rise thus is a reassurance strategy employed by Beijing in an attempt to allay others’ fears of growing Chinese power and to foretall the United States from acting preventively during the dangerous transition period when China is catching up to the United States . ascending powers have always challenged the position of the dominant (hegemonic) power in the international system—and these challenges have usually culminated in war. Mosher President of Population Research Institute in a Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.S. Notwithstanding Beijing’s talk about a “peaceful rise. The myths and lies that continue to prop up Mao’s image also serve to bolster the political legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party itself.47. its system of government largely unchanged.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 237/311 China module If China were to gain hegemony it would cast a shadow worse than Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia Mosher ‘6 (Steven A. its ruling party intact.132/search? q=cache:8s_2bKC4B1QJ:www.125. 02/14/06.pdf+Chinese+hegemony+leads+to&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) Unlike the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler or the Soviet Union of Joseph Stalin. As China grows more powerful and attempts to rectify those grievances and act out those Hegemonic ambitions. hegemony. Jordan Professorship of International Affairs at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University.au.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/mos021406. cherishes his grand ambitions. China’s rise to power would lead to war Layne ‘8(Christopher Layne is a Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute and Mary Julia and George R. All this suggests a PRC that has. the evidence would seem to indicate. ‘China’s Challenge to U. The current Communist leadership proudly declares itself to be Mao’s heirs. the paranoid nationalism of a revolutionary Islamic state. January 2008) China’s rise affects the United States because of what international relations scholars call the “power transition” effect: Throughout the history of the modern international state system.af.

Slow economic growth. and Russia continue to rise relative to that of the United States and Europe. A reinforcing trend is that demographic. contributing to NATO’s inability to sustain its Afghan mission. “an historic shift of relative wealth and economic power from West to East. influence due to ongoing globalization. and other problems will decrease the relative influence of key U. “A World Without the West. the 2008 report stresses the constraints on U. “Besides Afghanistan. Sino-Russian power would lead to a new cold war era Weitz 09 (Richard Weitz is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at Hudson Institute. if not by ideology. .S.” the head of the SCO writes in his fictional 15 June 2015 letter to the NATO Secretary-General. and we could not stand idly by. NATO and the SCO would come to be seen as two Cold War-type blocs divided. aging populations.” posits a situation in which the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) becomes the dominant institution in Central Asia.” and other factors. 1/14/09. Russia and China move to fill the resulting power vacuum—as well as to ensure their control over the region’s energy riches—while India. Russia. and other countries bandwagon with them.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Sino-Russian Module A Sino-Russian alliance would move to fill any power vacuum left by the United States Xue 238/311 Weitz ‘9 (Richard Weitz is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at Hudson Institute. allies in Europe and Asia. The United States and its European allies lose the will to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries.” According to the posited SCO head. though unlikely.S. and a lack of an effective unified foreign policy apparatus make it impossible for the EU to sustain its even currently low levels of defense spending. “The Afghan situation threatened to destabilize the whole region.org/?q=node/5013) The emergence of a Sino-Russian condominium in Eurasia would have disastrous implications for world order. ‘A Central Asia Without the West?’. The NIC analysts consider this Eurasian scenario possible. and Iran could use their pivotal position to monopolize the production and export of Eurasian oil and gas. Whereas the 2004 NIC study projected continued American global dominance with the acquiescence of most of the other great powers. 1/14/09. China. than by enduring geopolitical and other cleavages.” but the failure of the Western countries to sustain their regional role undermined this strategy by leaving them at the mercy of Eurasia’s authoritarian great powers. economic. leveraging government controls to manipulate for political advantage energy flows to Western markets. the diffusion of military technologies.org/?q=node/5013) One of the scenarios. we had disturbing intelligence that some ‘friendly’ Central Asian governments were coming under pressure from radical Islamic movements and we continue to depend on Central Asian energy. India. who is identified as a Russian national. “The Central Asians thought they could use the SCO for their own purpose of playing the neighboring big powers off against one another. A Sino-Russian condominium over Central Asia emerges due to the failure of NATO to sustain its regional commitments. http://www. if—as the report projects— the relative power and influence of China.cacianalyst.cacianalyst. Iran. ‘A Central Asia Without the West?’ http://www.

international consensus and enforcement has created private patchworks of enterprise and outreach authority. The case for this reality is probably adequately self evident in the TNC case.” In other words. there won’t be an established global government. Ironically. “By 2025. ‘Global Vacuum: Contested and Absent Leadership’. but rather an acceleration of the processes and mechanisms that have been and currently are underway in efforts to create a world government. and companies. 12/18/08.php?context=va&aid=11426) In discussing the structure and nature of a new international system. Is this the future? It certainly is absent the ability of states to agree and inter-governmental consortia to perform. the absence of effective state control. http://www.globalresearch. philanthropic foundations. Thus. international organizations. if not by representative government organizations then by other forces that today’s globalization empowers. power vacuum Xue 239/311 Wolff and Julias ‘7 (Max Fraad Wolff is an economist and free lance researcher/writer. it would be “unlikely to see an overarching. Current trends suggest that global governance in 2025 will be a patchwork of overlapping. with shifting coalitions of member nations. The powerful global forces of Transnational Corporations (TNCs) and International NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs) abhor many elements of the present power vacuum and have been rushing to fill the void with line item governance and outsourced power.org/views07/0301-26. http://www. But the transformation will be incomplete and uneven. comprehensive. by 2025. the report states that. The largest NGOs control annual budgets several times larger than many of the states that they work in. This is most clear in vital regions were pressing humanitarian concern and vital resources compel leading firms and NGOs to operate in the absence of local or international governmental authority. nation-states will no longer be the only – and often not the most important – actors on the world stage and the ‘international system’ will have morphed to accommodate the new reality. TNC and NGO alike are market diven. ‘From Global Crisis to “Global Government” US Intelligence: A Review of Global Trends 2025. often ad hoc and fragmented efforts.” The report states that under a situation in which there are many poles of power in the world. Without one center of world power companies would move to fill the power vacuum Centre for Research on Globalization ‘8 (Andrew Gavin Marshall for the Centre for Research on Globalization.htm) The power vacuum created by the lack of global political leadership will be filled.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Corporations module Corporations and non-government entities would move to fill U. NGOs. social movements. we are seeing the rise of private global governance by NGO and TNC. . Max does contract research on international financial risks and opportunities while teaching in the New School University's Graduate Program in International Affairs. They look to TNC giving and giving from the wealth of individuals invested in globalization. Stephen Julias has been an associate with Curran & Whittington for six years. The potential power of these entities is not often fully appreciated. NGOs are often funded by the great fortunes of globalization and regularly turn to fundraising for programs.ca/index. yet little coordination and cooperation between them all. unitary approach to global governance. Major corporations account for 50 of the top 100 economies in the world. March 1st 2007. expansions and survival.S. We are seeing an uncoordinated privatization of functions that states evolved to perform.commondreams.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good ***HEG GOOD*** Xue 240/311 .

“The Costs of U. Military Spending. and U. U. US heg improves trade relations.S. growth performance open to international transactions. The results of this study tend to confirm the importance of U.S. Michael Oden.S. Michael Doyle has even suggested that U. even a number of prominent proponents of the democracy-leads-to peace model have cited the importance of U. Xue 241/311 Mark E. 1999. these costs are not incorporated in the econometric models supporting the SSA theory. hegemony provides the basis for cooperation in security and economic affairs that is essential for domestic liberalism in states. hegemony in helping to maintain peace in Europe and Asia.S. It is shown that while military power and spending commitments may have positive effects on the terms of trade.S. terms of trade.S.S. but without international leadership and security guarantees. University Press of America As I have noted previously. these military variables had direct and indirect negative impacts on the U.S. 2002. Hegemony: Military Power. even democratic states may conflict with each other.relations World peace depends on US hegemony.S. Department of Community and Regional Planning.S. hegemony yielded specific supply side benefits as favorable terms of trade reduced relative input prices and boosted profitability. economic growth was likely negative in the cold-war era. In the context of a model of U. Pietrzyk.S. trade performance over the 1951-1987 period. Although Gordon and his co-authors recognize the potential costs of sustaining a large. the willingness to threaten potential adversaries with military forces capable of acting on a global scale was seen to positively affect the U. University of Texas at Austin For David Gordon and his collaborators in the social structures of accumulation (SSA) tradition. Trade Performance” . Dean Acheson’s insight that international military and economic leadership is necessary to maintain peace and liberty in international society remains a valuable premise for the conduct of American foreign policy. This paper attempts to extend the SSA analysis by empirically measuring the effects of both military spending and military power on U. the overall effect of the postwar military system on U. net export balance and therefore domestic aggregate demand.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg good. Democracy may aid cooperation betweens states. “International Order and Individual Liberty: Effects of War and Peace on the Development of Governments”. globally active military apparatus. . hegemony as both a peace factor and as a stabilizer of democracy.

“The Politics of Hegemony: The United States and Iran” Volume VIII.mepc. pressure. Unfortunately. 2000. Present Dangers: Crisis & Opportunity in American Foreign & Defense Policy. ed. Bill. acts as a catalyst strengthening and solidifying relations between and among dominant regional hegemons. condemnation has resulted in both intraregional and interregional alliances featuring Iran and China at the center of concentric circles of countries that resent and resist U. Middle East Policy Council.S. or even concern about the possibility of such an event. In the Middle East and East Asia these nation-states include Syria and North Korea respectively. Encounter Books //wyo-tjc] One would like to think that this new consensus reflects a recognition that the United States cannot afford to allow a hostile power to dominate Europe or Asia or the Persian Gulf.-led alliances that have been so successful—to paraphrase Lord Ismay in more diplomatic language—at keeping the Americans engaged. for example. the United States has pursued policies designed to weaken regional powers such as Iran and China. Iran and China. “Statesmanship in the New Century”. The pressures applied by the global hegemon often have unintended. interventionary hegemony.S. and that the best way to avoid another world war is not by being willing to cede Europe or Asia to hostile domination.asp In its attempt to protect and expand its hegemonic power. . U.S. way to prevent such a development is to preserve the U. 9/ 2001.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg good. [Paul. U. Figure 1 indicates how two regional hegemons. Paul Wolfowitz (Bush’s Deputy Secretary of Defense). Kagan & Kristol. the allies reassured and the aggressors deterred.relations US heg strengthens relations between other nations. http://www. and in the long run the cheapest. today’s consensus reflects as much the complacency bred by our current predominance as agreement on how to shape the future to prevent another world war. but by making it clear in advance that we will oppose it and thereby prevent any such effort.S. have come to form a fundamental cross-regional alliance. Xue 242/311 James A. counterproductive consequences. that the safest.org/journal_vol8/0109_bill. Maintaining US heg and preventing the rise of other hegemonies key to stop a next world war. Number 3.

The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii. however. the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. until recently. beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years. and since the end of the Cold War. where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia. they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. It is shaped by configurations of power. and especially since the end of the Cold War. the Western Hemisphere. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. In a genuinely multipolar world. Central Asia. there is the United States itself.S hegemony solves any scenario for extinction Robert Kagan 2007 Xue 243/311 Finally. and destructiveness. Most Europeans recoil at the thought. But even China. increasingly. that great geopolitical miracle. But that ’s not the way it works. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. Once having entered a region. For instance. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. Central Asia. intensity. with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia. and the Caucasus. Central Asia. if it ever went away. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. and so is international competition for power. India. for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. and now. and with Russia in Eastern Europe. whether for practical or idealistic reasons. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations. In a more genuinely multipolar world. These. Democratic and Republican. Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. Even when the United States engages in a war. the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible. would produce its own kind of order. and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it.solves extinction U. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. honor. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. Armed embargos. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power. of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East. they generally prefer their global place as “No. is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world ’s great powers. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. could draw in other great powers. it would not. the United States. This was its goal after the Second World War. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes. and Europe. That could make wars between them less likely. the Middle East. liberal and conservative. China. that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg good. it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. too. regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. and status. Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia. Nationalism in all its forms is back. too. including the United States. forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished. the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia. and the Caucasus. that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. of course. The United States. owes its founding to American power. Even the European Union. The current order. influence. such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. of the kind used in World War I and other major conflicts. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. but even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power. would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. 1” and are equally loath to relinquish it. which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region. is more of a traditional than a postmodern power. or it could simply make them more catastrophic. however distant and one hopes unnecessary. Europe. A different configuration of power. with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. This is especially true in East Asia. faces the .

In an era of burgeoning nationalism. China. one likely to draw the United States back in again. stability. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. independent. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. In the Middle East. obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. . In Europe. which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. if only to secure their interests. “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. Conflicts are more likely to erupt if the United States withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world. which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn ’t change this. particularly Iran. The world hasn ’t changed that much. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia. no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path. competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. too.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 244/311 dilemma that an could unleash an ambitious. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia. both on the seas and on the ground. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. It is further competition. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West. to expand and fill the vacuum. That commitment. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It will produce a new instability. or Iran. and comity in the Middle East. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region. history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe. the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. nationalist Japan.

and it mediated in the conflict between Israel and Syria in Lebanon. expeditionary force rescued Americans and others trapped in the Liberian civil conflict. But a hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. the United States completed the withdrawal of 15. The simple truth of this era was stated last year by a Serb leader trying to explain Slobodan Milosevic's decision to finally seek rapprochement with Washington. that shaped the lives and fortunes of billions around the globe. It should be taken as a compliment and a guide to action.cfm?fa=view&id=276 . Dangerous Nation: America’s Place in the World from its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the 20th Century. In Africa. the carrier task forces of the U.000 soldiers after restoring a semblance of democratic government in Haiti and. Xue 245/311 William Kristol and Robert Kagan 1996 (http://www. Conservatives should not accede to it. M. the United States maintained the deployment of thousands of soldiers and a strong naval presence in the Persian Gulf region to deter possible aggression by Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran.000 ground troops to implement a peace agreement in the former Yugoslavia.P. incidentally. In the Western Hemisphere. and just those of a military or diplomatic nature. "Milosevic knows that all satellites of the United States are in a better position than those . The leaders of Russia and China understand this.000 American troops stationed in South Korea helped deter a possible invasion by the rulers in Pyongyang.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg good. Boris Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin joined in denouncing "hegemonism" in the post-Cold War world. China and Europe. America influenced both the external and internal behavior of other countries through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. advancing its interests. U. Seventh Fleet helped deter Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan. bad for conservatism. John F.S. and Iraq." the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance.. Today's lukewarm consensus about America's reduced role in a post-Cold War world is wrong. Yale University.. both as a government and as an amalgam of large corporations and individual entrepreneurs. the United States tried to shore up friendly democratic regimes in developing nations. "As a pragmatist. Through the United Nations. The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. Through aid programs. Having defeated the "evil empire. The first objective of U. Iran. with the United States at the center. They meant this as a complaint about the United States. The enormous web of the global economic system.000 in Western Europe as a symbolic commitment to European stability and security. B.S hegemony solves several scenarios for war and incentivizes global peace.S. a U. These were just the most visible American actions of the past six months.A.P.S.S.Robert Kagan is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. and Iraq." the Serbian politician said. American University) TWENTY YEARS later.solves war U. In East Asia. In Europe. supporting its friends. the Balkans.Toward a NeoReaganite Foreign Policy . the United States sent 20. it is bad for the country and. almost without public notice.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index. allowed Americans to wield influence in many other ways of which they were entirely unconscious. In the Middle East. maintained 100. and the 35. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security. the United States made a thousand decisions in international economic forums. national security and foreign policy. That is America's position in the world today. prevented a military coup in Paraguay.D. a period that few observers would consider remarkable for its drama on the world stage. Kennedy School of Government. Consider the events of just the past six months.. it is time once again to challenge an indifferent America and a confused American conservatism. During the same period. Ph. it maintained sanctions on rogue states such as Libya. relations with Russia. Eastern Europe. What should that role be? Benevolent global hegemony. and standing up for its principles around the world. (Knopf 2006) was the winner of the 2008 Lepgold Prize and a 2007 Finalist for the Lionel Gelber Prize. He is listed as one of the world’s “Top 100 Public Intellectuals” Kagan is an expert in U. combined with the pervasive influence of American ideas and culture. NATO expansion. At their April summit meeting. the European Union. and intervened diplomatically to prevent the escalation of a conflict between Greece and Turkey. Conservatives will not be able to govern America over the long term if they fail to offer a more elevated vision of America's international role.S. Harvard University.

The events of the last six months have excited no particular interest among Americans and. for that matter.is thus misconceived. The most difficult thing to preserve is that which does not appear to need preserving. .ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 246/311 that are not satellites. Despite misguided warnings of imperial overstretch. During the Cold War. Americans have taken these remarkable benefits of the post-Cold War era for granted. the spread of freedom and democratic governance. Americans have come to take the fruits of their hegemonic power for granted. Most of the world's major powers welcome U. the United States finds both the Europeans and the Japanese -. indeed. To achieve this goal. therefore. The ubiquitous post-Cold War question -. And that is the problem.supportive of its world leadership role. seem to have been regarded with the same routine indifference as breathing and eating. In a world in which peace and American security depend on American power and the will to use it. Today the lack of a visible threat to U.S. vital interests or to world peace has tempted Americans to absentmindedly dismantle the material and spiritual foundations on which their national well-being has been based. therefore. the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness. The principal concern of America's allies these days is not that it will be too dominant but that it will withdraw. the United States needs a neo-Reaganite foreign policy of military supremacy and moral confidence." And America's allies are in a better position than those who are not its allies. the two most powerful forces in the world -. They do not notice that potential challengers are deterred before even contemplating confrontation by their overwhelming power and influence. that America had adversaries. The appropriate goal of American foreign policy. an international economic system of free-market capitalism and free trade.where is the threat? -. and it has done so despite the fact that Americans appear to be in a more insular mood than at any time since before the Second World War. global involvement and prefer America's benevolent hegemony to the alternatives.S. partly because it has all seemed so easy. the strategies of deterrence and containment worked so well in checking the ambitions of America's adversaries that many American liberals denied that our adversaries had ambitions or even. the United States has so far exercised its hegemony without any noticeable strain. American hegemony is the only reliable defense against a breakdown of peace and international order. is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible. and the security of Americans not only to live within their own borders but to travel and do business safely and without encumbrance almost anywhere in the world. The dominant strategic and ideological position the United States now enjoys is the product of foreign policies and defense strategies that are no longer being pursued. Those who anticipated the dissolution of these alliances once the common threat of the Soviet Union disappeared have been proved wrong. They have never lived in a world more conducive to their fundamental interests in a liberal international order. Instead of having to compete for dominant global influence with many other powers.after the United States. Somehow most Americans have failed to notice that they have never had it so good.

The US economy is about five times as large as China's and nearly 15 times larger than India's. we're not going to start singing the Star Spangled Banner. but the government never stops running. Its one-child policy is exacerbating the problem of its rapidly ageing population. Now. It's about how the US operates as a country. Now. where tie-ups and friendships with one country or another could very well change over the next few decades. it has an economy in which less than a quarter of its people truly participate. Further. the US will be trailing the two new world superpowers. the US justice system is fair. or China and India at 8%? We'd take the US for a simple yet incontrovertible reason: its system . will continue to struggle with its overwhelming number of have-nots and its aforementioned corruption problem. turning out the world's most skilled.Sahara Chhabra We're neither economic forecasters nor political prognosticators by trade. eager investors. more are getting the chance. and it will take years of venture capital flowing in before the Chinese finally let go of their rote approach to work and embrace innovation with true entrepreneurial spirit. will remain the leader over other countries Jack & Suzy Welch (Sunday Times Economy and Business Finance writers) June 24 2007 [Lexis] US economic dominance isn't a function of how long it's been leading the pack. the US's stable. that by mid-century. innovative science and engineering PhDs. . what broad-brush scenario would you bet on for the next 50 years? Would it be the US's 3% annual growth. and. US political parties disagree. And even though secondary education in the US gets roundly knocked. Aside from its risky social experiment. we have without doubt the best system of higher education in the world." as it did at the turn of the century. we'd make the case that US economic leadership will be with us for most. How the US handles that problem with a combination of tax and spending policies will determine the strength of its growth engine.in the past that there is more reason for optimism than despair. Yes. not so fast. But neither China nor India comes close to the US in these terms. and for India. we're not saying the US system is perfect or its economy invulnerable. increasingly. India's entrenched bureaucracy and corruption. China and India assume that all three countries will enjoy smooth upward rides: no recessions. We're talking mainly about freedom and stability You have written about reasons to invest in India and China.plus all the other stuff that makes a country thrive. highly adaptable system has conquered enough major problems . if not all. don't worry. of the century. Given that reality. no political crises. the US certainly holds a robust lead in the race for hegemony. hungry entrepreneurs and flush. For China.It will by no means "rule. China and India have ambitious people who dream of building their own companies. it is far more probable that growth trajectories will zig and zag more than zoom. but you haven't said whether you think those countries pose a threat to US hegemony in the world economy. All you need is a ruler to draw the straight-line extrapolation that shows China and India.S. Generally speaking. while inconsistent in delivery. will eventually catch up to the US in terms of pure economic size. no disruptive social uprisings. meanwhile. We'd say. We just believe US economic dominance isn't a function of how long it has been leading the pack. China has other challenges as well. India. Fortunately. straightline calculations do not take into account relationships with other parts of the world. like the Middle East. Unlikely? For sure! With China's massive experiment combining communism and capitalism.But it will remain ahead until other nations develop a total economic and social system that works as well. Healthcare. is widely available. with their faster growth rates. then. and the US's long-term entitlement obligations. no banking breakdowns.from the Depression to the Cold War . often vehemently. But you don't need to be either to see that.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 247/311 American Heg is High we have specific warrants why the U. you see a budget deficit that explodes over the next 20 years. which is why you so often hear experts predicting. If you straight-line extrapolate again. The US has a final competitive advantage that is as powerful as it is unique: its confluence of bright. right now. It's about how the US operates. that would occur as early as 2045. But "right now" doesn't mean forever.In the end. There's a lot more to the world's economic future than a straight-line extrapolation can tell you. Straight-line calculations about the US.the sum of all its parts . healthcare and national security . And when it breaks. Do they? . it bounces back fast. the date would be some 20 years later. That can only give the US an advantage in providing education.works. yet we have about a quarter of the population of either of those nations. We're talking mainly about freedom and stability.

U. superiority—military research and development. Senior Transatlantic Fellow. August/September] In any case. Germany. Tony Blair. Such visitors included Anwar Sadat. and create a new and even better USIA. Rather. command of the commons has been an important enabler of globalization. or as then-reclusive China's welcome to American ping-pong players. seem to come from a place called Hope. One program targeted up-and-coming politicians likely to achieve high office. for that matter) in the White House.” Orbis. “Stability and Change in U. http://www. Kagan. a polity in which all candidates for public office. Fall. visitors. Broadly speaking.S. not from the west. Seasoned public affairs officers stationed in foreign capitals.the case for America's decline is easily overstated. Sometimes a government that might balk at a politically suspect program would be amenable to a visiting American cultural or sports or entertainment group. “End of Dreams. We are not soon likely to see Iran's President Ahmadinejad sipping tea with a President McCain (or even Obama. democratic. it is not really the size of the U. despite a public opinion hostile to the Bush administration.”3 The United States commands the sea. and other thought leaders.. Fullilove. DOMINATES EVERY INDICATOR OF MILITARY STRENGTH Barry Posen. military power relative to others is also necessary. TV news directors. June 18] Xue 248/311 In terms of soft power. No nation is strong enough to counterbalance the US. the air at altitudes above 10. Now that the eu has expanded to include the nations of Central and Eastern Europe. economy that draws our attention. the clear trend in recent years has been toward closer strategic cooperation with the . extensive economic resources.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.S. “The key to a better U. whether or not they are a Clinton.S. a country that is the cockpit of global culture. and space. “Smart Power: Exaggerating America’s Decline”. where neither France. USIA used many resources to reach out to international audiences. democratic nations. There is little that others can do about it. America's soft power account will look much healthier the instant the next president is inaugurated. Japan.brookings. meld them with the newest technology.U.S.S. or at least some of the other advanced.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Soft power is high.hoover. USIA effectively increases soft power through exchanges and cultural transfers Hughes ‘8 (John. The times demand it.aspx. and artists. and Gerhard Schroeder. Christian Science Monitor pg 9. China and Russia cannot balance the United States without at least some help from Europe. it can drive others from these media. Italy.. Europe has rejected the option of making itself a counterweight to American power. HARD POWER IS STRONG -. highly skilled military professionals. teachers. 2007 A qualitative assessment of U. the United States enjoys what I have called “command of the commons. Hamid Karzai.S. Lowy Visiting Fellow. nor Spain proposes such counterbalancing. Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Margaret Thatcher. particularly students . Why is the world so interested? America's bulk is only part of the answer. speaking the local language.edu/opinions/2008/0618_smart_power_fullilove. as with North Korea's recent acceptance of a visit by the New York Philharmonic.S. But those powerful players are not joining the effort. German Marshall Fund. the prospect of a unified Europe counterbalancing the United States is practically nil." USIA actively promoted such visits and exchanges involving journalists. cultivated local newspaper editors. too . For most non-Americans around the world. 2008 [Michael. Competition in this realm depends on areas of great U. Ford International Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is true even among the older members of the European Union. Grand Strategy. It is plausible that U.S. USIA libraries offered books and visual materials for students to learn about America. A House foreign affairs subcommittee found that "contact with America and Americans reduces anti-Americanism . June 26.. Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations. As for Japan and India. have more positive views about America than nonvisitors by 10 percentage points. America retains its hold on the world's imagination. 2007 [Robert. India. where he is Director of the Security Studies Program. Assistant Secretary of State.the ability to get others to want what you want . Pulitzer prize-winning journalist. it is the idea of America which continues to fascinate: a superpower that is open. The Christian Science Monitor. It is not even America's blue-water navy or its new bunker-busting munitions.000 feet. our politics as well.. http://www. Ultimately. image”) In its heyday. meritocratic and optimistic. Return of History”. who fear threats from the east. It's worth noting that the declinist canon has emerged at the nadir of the Bush years. Powerful short-wave radio broadcasts from the Voice of America found audiences in nations whose governments were less accommodating. If it wishes. at some level.html#n10. America's politics are. What a new president and Congress should do is revive the best of these past USIA programs. But we could one day see an American musical group performing to cheers from an audience in Tehran.

Russia’s efforts to increase its influence over what it regards as its “near abroad. the United States has built or expanded bases in Afghanistan. continues to expand its power and military reach and shows no sign of slowing this expansion even after the 2008 elections. hostility to the American military presence began forcing the United States out of the Philippines and seemed to be undermining support for American bases in Japan.S. Hard power is strong and increasing.hoover. and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. Today. The United States spends roughly as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. 2008 [Michael. the most notable balancing over the past decade has been aimed not at the American superpower but at the two large powers: China and Russia. August/September] If anything.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good United States. have produced tensions and negative reactions in the Baltics and other parts of Eastern Europe. and in the Philippines. This has led them to seek closer relations with Washington. 2007 [Robert. Kyrgyzstan. 12 This has provided a cushion against hostile public opinion and offers a foundation on which to strengthen American relations with these countries after the departure of Bush. Two decades ago.brookings. “Smart Power: Exaggerating America’s Decline”. in Bulgaria. Djibouti. Pakistan. both economically and politically. Australia. India has also drawn closer to the United States and is clearly engaged in balancing against China. Hard power is high. Fullilove. Georgia. this has also complicated eu-Russian relations. Because these nations are now members of the European Union. Kagan. Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. a good indication that much of the world continues to tolerate and even lend support to American geopolitical primacy if only as a protection against more worrying foes. while their publics may be more anti-American than in the past. Lowy Visiting Fellow. 14 As the American military budget rises. it is American plans to reduce the U. Overall. 2007 [Robert.org/publications/policyreview/8552512. 15 .html#n10. Since September 11. and even South Korea and the nations of Southeast Asia have all engaged in “hedging” against a rising China. not including supplemental spending totaling over $100 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan. and Romania in Europe. Senior Transatlantic Fellow. Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Poland. there is no shortage of other countries willing to host U. so does the number of overseas American military bases. Oman. http://www. nevertheless pursue policies that reflect more concern about the powerful states in their midst than about the United States. http://www. German Marshall Fund. military presence that stir controversy. traditional allies of the United States in East Asia and in Europe. moreover. Senior Transatlantic Fellow.edu/opinions/2008/0618_smart_power_fullilove. August/September] The world’s failure to balance against the superpower is the more striking because the United States. Japan. Return of History”. Hungary. This level of spending is sustainable.html#n10. June 18] In relation to hard power.S. In places like South Korea and Germany.org/publications/policyreview/8552512. “End of Dreams. In Asia and the Pacific.hoover. especially in the case of Japan and Australia. and the furor in Japan has subsided.aspx. The American defense budget has surpassed $500 billion per year. notwithstanding its difficult interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Return of History”. forces. not what one would expect if there was a widespread fear or hatred of overweening American power. the $14 trillion American economy dwarfs all the others. German Marshall Fund. and Qatar. “End of Dreams. but it remains the only capital capable of running a truly global foreign policy and projecting military power anywhere on earth. 2001. On balance. http://www. Xue 249/311 US power guarantees allied relationships – the aff’s increase in soft power isn’t key.” meanwhile. Kagan. Washington has been bloodied and diverted by its foolhardy invasion of Iraq. Tajikistan. the Philippines is rethinking that decision.

notwithstanding some of the things that the country has experienced and some of the attitudes about the country from around the world. jazz. even before the films are released. and that it is too early to sort of for the United States to be granting this century to someone else. 2007 [Joseph. We`ve just got to get smarter at the way we use our power. “A Conversation With Former Deputy Secretary Of State Richard Armitage. every teenager wants a pair of the latest athletic shoes.Part 3”. but policy’s must change Xue 250/311 Brooks Spector (now completing work on a study of the comparative policy implications of sports. despite their appetite for US popular culture.spoke at a Hanoi rally. in terms of the role we ought to play. once the Bush administration passes into history in 18 months. his appreciation of the US's aspirations might have been an example of the seductions of soft power. But there is another side to soft power.. But surveys record that many young people around the world. " With a little luck. they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . Ho Chi Minh . Professor and Former Dean Of Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. rather than a prelude to a generation of war between Vietnam and the US. that it is not too late to change. in the final years of the Bush administration. I wrote a book in 1990 saying the United States was not in decline.the man who would lead North Vietnam's war against the US for a generation . Spector is visiting senior lecturer in international relations at Wits and a retired US diplomat SECOND OPINION says millions admire US popular culture. even though they controlled no territory.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good soft power recoverable Soft power can save the U. where he is teaching American foreign policy) Junly 22. I would like to propose that. . Hundreds of millions of people around the world are drawn to US popular culture . cultural and academic boycotts. and I read this in this report -. pressing for cultural and sports boycotts and economic sanctions via international organisations and coalitions of NGOs.its films. And so. 2007 [Lexis] The liberation movements exerted their "soft power" too. Harvard Professor Joseph Nye Talks About Current Crises . among these are life.. and tell me if I`m wrong about this.: I hear you. in terms of our leadership. Declaring Vietnam free from French colonialism. scholars and politicians alike ponder how to bring the US's reputation back into congruence with the appeal of its products.. Despite the US's most vehement critics. and I believe that to this day.. Nye. television. unlike tanks or aircraft carriers. liberty and the pursuit of happiness . he quoted the US's Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal .. 11/6] Charlie Rose . women wear designer jeans beneath their chadors. and the same role that we played in the 20th century? JOSEPH NYE: Absolutely.S. Contrary to what Adekeye Adebajo suggested in his piece on the same subject last week. which Nye cautioned about: observe the decline of the US's international reputation in the aftermath of Iraq. but recoverable – the plan’s increase in soft power will restore leadership. and he is a visiting senior lecturer for the International Relations Department of the University of the Witwatersrand. soft power is not simply made with government budgets.. Just after World War Two. but some see the country itself as the greatest threat to peace Soft power is low. rock and R & B music. and DVDs of US movies are sold on street corners around the world. Lexis. Charlie Rose Show Transcripts. clothing styles and fast food. now view the US as the globe's biggest threat to world peace.

many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. Truman. The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent. We must lead the world. and Kennedy -one that is truer now than ever before: the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity. Rather. it is a call to action. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership. the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good soft power recoverable American leadership is low but it can rise with policy change Barack Obama (Democratic senator from Illinois and Democratic presidential nominee) July/August 2007 http://www. .html To recognize the number and complexity of these threats is not to give way to pessimism. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone. These Xue 251/311 threats demand a new vision of leadership in the twenty-first century -. But this is a mistake we must not make.a vision that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking. by deed and by example. and the world cannot meet them without America. The American moment is not over. I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world. but it must be seized anew. Such leadership demands that we retrieve a fundamental insight of Roosevelt. If elected president.foreignaffairs.

. pg. The path to such a partnership is straightforward. Soft power is on an upswing – several reasons Rubin 2008 (James P. The electoral victories of Merkel in Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy in France have altered the political landscape in the two major countries that parted ways with the United States over the Iraq war. Since the Annapolis peace conference in November 2007. Washington may never again achieve the kind of automatic solidarity with its European allies that it enjoyed during the Cold War. Likewise. has been the change of personalities. Undoing the damage to the United States wrought by the Iraq war and other Bush administration policies is a tall order. detention center at Guantánamo Bay. 87. Most important of all. who teamed up with Russian President Vladimir Putin to challenge President Bush over the Iraq war. Key European countries have worked in harmony with the State Department to demand a halt to Iran's uranium-enrichment program and to secure UN security Council sanctions against Tehran. Iss.S. decisions by the Supreme Court and Congress to rein in the Bush administration's extremist policy on the treatment of terrorist suspects and enemy combatants has helped quiet the outrage throughout Europe over the U. they are now at least hopeful about the future. Most of the United States' leading politicians know that restoring lost respect and admiration for the United States is crucial. and North Korea. With ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the constant threat of a terrorist attack.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good soft power recoverable Amending relations with Europe is possible Xue 252/311 Rubin 2008 (James P.S. Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac. and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. 4. there will be little time to make up for lost ground before the next crisis hits. but progress is possible. European frustrations with Washington's handsoff stance in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process have largely disappeared. 4. the costs of the United States' failing to win back the support of its allies would be far greater. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affair. Foreign Affairs Jul/Aug Vol.-European relations. And although Europeans continue to be frustrated by what they see as Washington's selfishness on the subject of global warming. and both parties' candidates for president say such an effort is imperative. The combination of former Vice President Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize and the fact that all three remaining presidential contenders have recognized the need for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has created a sense of optimism across the Atlantic that the United States is finally coming around to the global consensus. Iss. however. the Israeli Palestinian peace process. Cuba. Both leaders have gone out of their way to avoid public spats with the Bush administration. Merkel's pro-Americanism and Sarkozy's stated intention to improve France s prickly partnership with the United States stand in stark contrast to the policies of their predecessors. Foreign Affairs Jul/Aug Vol. Although there are risks to any diplomatic enterprise of this kind.99 12 pgs “Building a New Atlantic Alliance: Restoring America’s Partnership With Europe”) President Bush's second term was unquestionably better than his first on a number of pressing issues-especially Iran. making transatlantic relations far less strained than they were a few years ago.99 12 pgs “Building a New Atlantic Alliance: Restoring America’s Partnership With Europe”) The new administration's honeymoon period is likely to be short. 87. Washington's emphasis on diplomacy over military force and its shift from belligerency to persuasion have had a salutary effect on U. pg. And building a new partnership across the Atlantic is the place to start. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affair. And thanks to the Bush administration's about-face on negotiations with North Korea-as well as the recent glimmerings of diplomatic progress with Pyongyang European leaders no longer feel compelled to send their own envoys to Kim Jong Il as peacemakers. and the benefits would be substantial. That political will must be translated into a new resolve to compromise with the United States' European allies. That is why a new partnership with Europe should be launched right away.

“America’s Global Reach after Bush. September 2007 The Iraq imbroglio shook the US-European strategic relationship deeply.S. and Visiting Senior Research Associate at the IISS. the Arab-Israeli conflict and Iran. NATO's mission in Afghanistan. not all of them unique to Bush. .20 These could strain. including counter-terrorism cooperation in its many forms. remain. Senior Visiting Research Fellow. Prof of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke.CAREFUL POLICY-MAKING COULD REPAIR THE U. as could the World Trade Organisation Doha Round.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good at: iraq permanently ended soft power IRAQ DID NOT PERMANENTLY END SOFT POWER -. on the economic side.” Survival. or reinforce. Many crucial issues. but the fundamentals remain sound. the transatlantic security dimension. Policymakers and other opinion leaders on both sides of the Atlantic continue to hold to a pretty robust consensus that international peace and prosperity are best served by US-European cooperation. and particularly the challenge of coordinated compromises on agricultural policy. IMAGE Xue 253/311 Bruce Jentleson. Changing Character of War Programme. Oxford University.

Because soft power is particularly important in dealing with issues arising from the bottom chessboard of transnational relations. Power today is distributed among countries in a pattern that resembles a complex. Distinguished Professor at Harvard and Former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government. Some analysts describe this world as unipolar. the disparity between American power and that of the rest of the world looks overwhelming. While potential coalitions to check American power could be created. Today that share has already declined.) This adds a new dimension to questions of security and risk. But power measured in resources is not the same as power measured in terms of being able to produce the outcomes one wants. economic power among states is already multipolar. and it makes no sense to speak of unipolarity. March 2008 At first glance.” Survival. On this bottom board. they also show that the cause of the decline is government policies. With American spending constituting nearly half of world military expenditure. these two forces combined to increase American power. and America’s relative pre-eminence will diminish. multipolarity or hegemony. military power is largely unipolar. at the beginning of this century. The United States is the only country with both intercontinental nuclear weapons and large. and includes issues for which the military instruments that dominate the top board are clearly insufficient. The bottom chessboard is the realm of transnational relations that involve actors crossing borders outside of government control. At some point in the future. At the beginning of this new century. The contemporary information revolution and its attendant brand of globalisation are transforming and shrinking the world. the United States is not a hegemon. This realm includes players as diverse as bankers electronically transferring sums larger than most national budgets. For example. they will eventually lose. but the country regained much of its soft power within a decade. The United States also leads the world in the information-based ‘revolution in military affairs’. the United States will likely remain the world’s single most powerful country in military. the United States should guard against taking its soft-power resources for granted. COLLAPSE IS INEVITABLE AS A MULTITUDE OF GLOBAL PROBLEMS OVERWHELM THE U. with the United States. Europe and Japan representing a majority of world economic output. and often must bargain as an equal. (More people died in the 1918 flu pandemic. This is important because policies can change relatively quickly. as modern challenges to its leadership and security are of a different sort than they used to be. Unipolarity is misleading because it exaggerates the degree to which the United States is able to get the results it wants in some dimensions of world politics. but both descriptions are wrong. while culture and values change more slowly. It also includes ecological threats. America’s resources in this area are increasingly important. Power defined in behavioural terms – the ability to influence others to produce the outcomes one wants – always depends on context. because each is an oversimplification of the situation in a world where no one form of power is decisive.S. In the early 1970s. American policies in Vietnam led to low ratings in polls. In economic size. such as pandemics and global climate change. In terms of soft power and cultural prominence. And yet it is from this bottom board that many of the most important security challenges arise. naval and ground forces capable of global deployment. the Asian cyber-community and economy will loom larger than their American counterparts. and like one-dimensional chess players in a three-dimensional game. and China’s dramatic growth rapidly making it the fourth major player. terrorists transferring black-market weapons and hackers disrupting Internet operations. the American twentieth of the global population represented more than half of the world’s Internet users. coercive power in an overbearing. OTHERWISE. “Recovering American Leadership. power is widely dispersed. state-of-the-art air. On this economic board. Still. The country also attracts the most foreign students each year to its institutions of higher education. Because of its leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment in traditional power resources. for example. In terms of power resources. Those who recommend a hegemonic American foreign policy based on traditional military power are relying on inadequate analysis. countries like Russia. technology will spread to other countries and peoples. three-dimensional chess game. China and India have differing goals and priorities. the United States is far and away the world’s number-one film and television exporter. On the top board (representing the first context in which power resources may be analysed). America is well ahead.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good SP key to hegemony / at: hegemony resilient Xue 254/311 SOFT POWER KEY TO HEGEMONY. But with time. economic and soft-power terms well into the twenty-first century. But on the middle board. than as a direct result of the First World War. Joseph Nye. others as multipolar. and it is unlikely that they would become firm military allies unless the United States used its hard. unilateral manner that undermined its soft or attractive power. not American culture and values. while multipolarity is misleading because it implies several roughly equal counties. that can do damage on a scale equal or larger to that of major wars. While polls show that American soft power has declined in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. . it would be very difficult for other nations to organise a traditional military challenge against the United States. America’s roughly one-quarter share of world economic output (at official exchange rates) is equal to the next three countries combined.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 255/311 .

and that requires the soft power of attraction as well as the hard power of coercion. 2007 [Joseph and Richard. China and others. Japan. and it makes no sense at all to claim American hegemony.org/component/option. The only way to grapple with these problems is through cooperation with others. the new conventional wisdom was that the world was a unipolar American hegemony. In the past. Yet it is on this bottom board that we find most of the greatest challenges today. indeed. on the bottom board of transnational issues outside the control of governments. Some neo-conservative pundits drew the conclusion that the US was so powerful that it could decide what it thought was right. http://www. And. the world is already multipolar. Power is the ability to get the outcomes one wants. “CSIS Reports – A Smarter. Professor and Former Dean Of Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. 11/6] Military power is typically the bedrock of a nation’s power. Whether the possession of resources will produce such outcomes depends upon the context. and the US cannot obtain the outcomes it wants without the cooperation of Europe. with the Cold War's end. both are co-chairs of the CSIS Commission on Smart Power. 2001. But the new unilateralism was based on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of power in world politics. But we have learned during the past five years that this is an inadequate basis for sustaining American power over time. modern tank army is a powerful resource if a war is fought in a desert. and others would have to follow.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good SP key to hegemony Only way to achieve goals is through soft power Canberra Times (Australian News Paper) March 15. Charles Krauthammer celebrated this view as the new unilateralism. 2007 Xue 256/311 Analysts and pundits have often been mistaken about America's position in the world. There is no simple military solution that will produce the outcomes we want. For example.1/. a large. A decade later. the contexts of power differ greatly. power is chaotically distributed. For example. and likely to remain that way for decades. It is understandable that during a time of war we place primary emphasis on military might. On the top board military relations among states in the world is. and it heavily influenced the Bush Administration even before the attacks on September 11. and Armitage.com_csis_pubs/task. the conventional wisdom was that the US was in decline. unipolar.view/id. Nye. America’s power draws just as much from the size of its population and the strength of its economy as from the vitality of our civic culture and the excellence of our ideas. . but in today's world.csis. it was assumed that military power dominated most issues. The distribution of power in politics today is analogous to a three-dimensional chess game. including everything from climate change to pandemics to transnational terrorism. More Secure America”. two decades ago.4156/type. Soft power is key to hegemony. but not if it is fought in a swamp as the US discovered in Vietnam. These other attributes of power become the more important dimensions. But on the middle board of economic relations. deputy secretary of state from 2001 to 2005.

S. Lest anyone think that this approach is weak or naive. more balanced approach. deterring Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Nye. influence. deputy secretary of state from 2001 to 2005. we are extending U. not diminishing it. . http://www. managing China's rise or improving the lives of those left behind by globalization. “Stop Getting Mad. 2007 [Joseph and Richard.our ability to attract and persuade. and Armitage. too many people have confused sharing the burden with relinquishing power.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good SP key to hegemony Xue 257/311 Soft power is key to hegemony and the best way to solve global problems.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120502254_pf. 12/9] This fearful approach has hurt the United States' ability to bring allies to its cause. the United States needs a broader. remember that Defense Secretary Robert M. Professor and Former Dean Of Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.washingtonpost. one Democrat -." We -. The nation should embrace a smarter strategy that blends our "hard" and "soft" power -.have devoted our lives to promoting American preeminence as a force for good in the world. Get Smart”.one Republican. But the United States cannot stay on top without strong and willing allies and partners. America. Gates used a major speech on Nov.html. 26 "to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use 'soft' power and for better integrating it with 'hard' power. winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the past six years. when we let others help. both are co-chairs of the CSIS Commission on Smart Power. as well as our ability to use economic and military might. In fact. Whether it is ending the crisis in Pakistan. but it is not too late to change.

S. By appearing to defy important allies' advice and by short-circuiting the UN process that the United States itself had help put in place. Washington complicated its ability to gain the support of other countries on actions that were far more central to U.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good SP key to coalition building SOFT POWER KEY TO COALITION BUILDING -. including constraining Iran and tackling terrorist cells globally. Those who were inclined to support the United States ran the risk of losing the support of their own people. its friends might not balance against the United States by joining with its adversaries. stand on the sidelines. They could and did. “Real Leaders Do Soft Power: Learning the Lessons of Iraq. Spring. as with President José María Aznar of Spain and ultimately Prime Ministers Tony Blair of the United Kingdom and John Howard of Australia. .NECESSARY FOR HEGEMONY AND SOLVING TERRORISM Xue 258/311 James Steinberg. and Washington could do little to punish them. Dean of the Lyndon Johnson School of Public Affairs at Texas Austin. however. interests. When the United States acts against well-intentioned counsel.” Washington Quarterly. 2008 To secure international support requires that the United States take seriously the views of others in formulating its own strategy.

The trend is especially bad in the Middle East. South Korea and North Korea) and the E3+3 on Iran (Britain. Changing Character of War Programme. and 85% had a less favourable view of US foreign policy. had not widened further. particularly with . International peace and prosperity are most likely to be achieved if the United States plays a significant and constructive leadership role. HEGEMONY IMPACTS HAVE NOT CHANGED -. re-demonstrates effectiveness and renews a vision that inspires a sense of a better future can best serve the interests of the United States and the world. a third party asked to help negotiate a resolution to a conflict. and Visiting Senior Research Associate at the IISS. Russia. Russia and China).2 This is not and that was in putatively more sympathetic countries such as Egypt. This is partly a matter of size.U. The breadth and depth that anti-Americanism has now reached are hard to deny. was also taken as a boast of pre-eminence. when necessary. through such arrangements as the Middle East Quartet (United States. the duality of globalisation and identity-based fragmentation. is much less exclusive than was the case with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's 1970s Middle East shuttle diplomacy or the Camp David negotiations of presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. the Six-Party Talks (US.” Survival. and victory in those wars that may need to be fought.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good at: hegemony d/n solve post iraq LEADERSHIP IMPACTS ARE STILL TRUE -. Even during the Clinton years some dismay and resentment was stirring. meant in part as a reassurance of engagement. A key element is the role. LEADERSHIP STILL MATTERS POST IRAQ -. Changing Character of War Programme. “America’s Global Reach after Bush. Oxford University. is neither in the US nor the global interest. and Visiting Senior Research Associate at the IISS. though. “America’s Global Reach after Bush. “America’s Global Reach after Bush. thank you very much'. America's self-description as 'the indispensable nation'.S. The 2006 Pew Global Attitudes poll found 70% of respondents had a less favourable view of the United States than they had five years earlier. But within each of these configurations the US role is key.” Survival. even with all the damage the Bush foreign policy has done to America's power and position. is 'not much of one.OUR IMPACTS ARE STILL TRUE Bruce Jentleson. A US foreign policy that re-establishes mutuality. Prof of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke. Diplomacy needs to be used more and military power. Jordan. better. often played by the United States. reassurance for friends and allies. September 2007 What global role should the United States play? The answer. Prof of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke. Still.1 about being the leader. and partly since. and Visiting Senior Research Associate at the IISS. Senior Visiting Research Fellow. Prof of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke. Some wounds from the Bush years are still raw. Russia. American military power remains crucial for strong defence and credible deterrence against both state and non-state aggressors. where another poll found only 12% with favourable views and 65% with deep suspicion of American motives - American retrenchment. while having deepened. for some of the world. Senior Visiting Research Fellow. France and Germany and the United States. China.DESPITE IRAQ. Changing Character of War Programme. HEGEMONY IS CRUCIAL TO GLOBAL STABILITY Xue 259/311 Bruce Jentleson. consistent with the semi-hierarchical international structure. and failed and failing states pose inherent global leadership difficulties for anyone. of peace broker. The world is not unipolar. European Union. the changing nature of security threats. September 2007 While the United States cannot be a provider of global security to the extent that it was during the Cold War. United Nations). Oxford University. September 2007 Globally there is ambivalence. much of the world still looks often to the United States for leadership. Other major powers also are involved.” Survival. Today this role. And the systemic dynamics of geopolitical transition. Oxford University. And this was in a much more harmonious international context than the Bush years. it does need to be a 'security enhancer'. it remains true that most aspects of international peace and prosperity are most likely to be achieved if the United States plays a significant and constructive leadership role. ROLE AFTER THE COLD WAR REMAINS CRITICAL TO GLOBAL PEACE Bruce Jentleson. Japan. bolstering critical security factors for allies and global order more broadly. Senior Visiting Research Fellow. Morocco and Saudi Arabia. but nor is it a multipolar world in which the United States is just another country. The best the 2007 Pew poll showed was that anti-Americanism.

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good regard to the security dimension. Xue 260/311 .

Oxford University. the bottom line is that the possession of power does not guarantee the successful exercise of influence. Either way. Changing Character of War Programme. or in spite of it. America spends more on its military than the next 15 nations combined. IT’S NOT Xue 261/311 Bruce Jentleson. America is the world's oldest democracy.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good at: hard power is sufficient NO. the United States would be sitting pretty. and Visiting Senior Research Associate at the IISS. oppose.” Survival. Thucydides wrote of the claim made by the Athenians at the height of their power. “America’s Global Reach after Bush. The weak don't always roll over or fall into line. 'and the weak accept what they have to accept'. The fundamental flaw. The United States is at the head of almost every important diplomatic table. bargain with. This may be because of its very preponderance of power. even 'bandwagon' against it as the dominant power.5 If the ancient Greek historian was right. Prof of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke. And the strong are not always strong enough to achieve their objectives on their own or on their own terms. Senior Visiting Research Fellow. in Thucydides's dictum is the gap between power and influence. September 2007 'The strong do what they have the power to do'. States balance against.6 . The American economy accounts for close to 25% of world gross domestic product. Even a state as powerful and dominant as the United States has found out the hard way that its crucial foreign-policy challenges are less about doing what it wants to do than getting others to do what it wants them to do and ensuring that outcomes are what it wants them to be. though.

He helped bring terms like "the human security agenda" and "the responsibility to protect" into the lexicon. Academic Joe Nye coined the term to mean the use of power to co-opt. publishing a book called Giving. But there are some encouraging signs and." American influence has substantially diminished. "We have a variety of tools. "Again and again." A Bush guy endorsing soft power! On this side of the border." Former president Bill Clinton. It was the image of a generous country that sought not to impose its will on other countries or even impose its values. Lloyd Axworthy's ears were lighting up. it's becoming an accepted term internationally . Mr. Axworthy as a trailblazer. His years may be remembered well for soft power and for staying out of Iraq. Lambasted for wimpiness from critics for this and his strong opposition to the invasion of Iraq. added the longtime Liberal. if you have hard power to back it up. Under Paul Martin and more so now under Stephen Harper. Mr. Gates emphasized soft power. as John Manley says.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good combo key Hard and Soft power are key to stability Globe and Mail October 15. 2007 [Lexis] Xue 262/311 On the best ways to spread democracy. "While we don't talk about the human security agenda much in Canada. Ex-president Jimmy Carter has been doing much the same. back after World War II. Under the panoply of soft power. He senses . has had the look of a one-man soft-power dynamo. "How do they rebuild it? They start talking to people. "he returned to the importance of soft power. as 9/12ers wrestle away the agenda after years of fear-mongering wrought by the 9/11 calamity. who supported the use of hard power in Kosovo. Mr. talking in a recent interview in GQ about how America's image can be restored. the country is demonstrating some strength in both kinds of power.that his much-derided foreign-affairs strategy is gaining credibility. soft power has become a staple. who could play a central role in the next administration. going around the globe stirring up goodwill." The Bush administration is not making any radical turn toward constructive engagement." Mr.and may well be correct in doing so . Axworthy made soft power a centrepiece of his diplomacy when he served as foreign minister in the late 1990s. Not all of them are hammers. Where they left a gaping hole was in the armed forces. the columnist said. Mr. But it showed the way." Jean Chrétien releases his memoirs this week. Axworthy sought to advance humanitarian causes and peace efforts by reaching out to forces in civil society and playing a lead role in campaigns to create the International Criminal Court and to secure a land mine treaty. While big flaws in our foreign policy performance remain. Here is Colin Powell. "We should remember what that image was. Mr. that hole is being filled as the military gains munitions and respect. Gates said. They start using diplomacy and public diplomacy and all the tools of soft power that we talked about here. celebrating the growing power of NGOs. rather than to coerce: constructive engagement as an alternative to military force. who now serves as President of the University of Winnipeg. Axworthy. sees Mr. Brooks said. Hard power has taken a big hit. . who served as foreign-affairs adviser under Brian Mulroney and as United Nations ambassador from 2000 to 2003. Axworthy now looks on as his detractors dig into plates of crow on the war and as they soften their criticism of marshmallow diplomacy. among Democratic Party leaders (one of whom is likely to be the next president). the former secretary of state. Paul Heinbecker. They start assisting people.a term that is used and attributed to Canada." said Mr. "Iraq and to some extent Afghanistan have shown." On how to promote freedom in Iran. "that relying on primarily the military to carry out your foreign policy doesn't work. Soft power works better.

Even if Washington had a more inward-looking foreign policy. American popular culture has a global reach regardless of what the government does. March 2008 In light of these new circumstances. the global reach of American culture helps to enhance America’s soft power – individualism and liberties are attractive to many people. Distinguished Professor at Harvard and Former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government. however. Moreover. Moreover. individualism and change (as well as sex and violence). American films and television express freedom. particularly fundamentalists. Generally. radical groups would resent the power of the American economy that would still reach well beyond its shores.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good at: hegemony bad – terrorism NO ALTERNATIVE -. CNN and the Internet.TERRORISTS WILL TRY TO STRIKE AMERICA EVEN IF HEGEMONY DECLINES Xue 263/311 Joseph Nye. “Recovering American Leadership. are repulsed by these American values. There is no escaping the influence of Hollywood. American corporations and citizens represent global capitalism.” Survival. But isolationism would not remove the vulnerability. curtailed its alliances and followed a more isolationist foreign policy. Some. how will the only superpower guide its foreign policy after the experience of the Iraq war? Will it provide global leadership or conclude that the best course in world affairs is to remain uninvolved? Some Americans are tempted to believe that the United States could reduce its vulnerability if it withdrew its troops. new problems like climate change and pandemics cross borders without the slightest regard to American culture or intentions. . which is anathema to some. Turning inward does no good if the problems follow you home.

Europeans seek honor and respect. indeed. 16 Russia's complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world. that status and honor. prudently.senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Robert. 07 . and because of its size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. It inspires fears and jealousies. several large powers are now competing for regional predominance. Even the European Union. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration into the new European order. It is also comparatively benevolent. are important for a nation. and to be recognized and admired by others for playing this role. from a liberal perspective. Japan. Return of History”. in its way. http://www. India 's regional ambitions are more muted. as an emerging great power on the world scene. but it is clearly engaged in competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself. including self-respect. Since the end of the Cold War. American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world. Like national movements elsewhere. As Aaron Friedberg commented. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from NATO and the United States. it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. Nevertheless. to wield political and economic influence as an antidote to militarism. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to predominance. expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the world. “End of Dreams. including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect. and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a safe supranational direction. like all other nations. correctly. Moscow. French. since none of the large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence. They do not share a European. The United States is not immune to error. . 17 Its nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian territory from attack by the United States. Like the Americans. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity. hence their now two-decades-long military buildup and modernization. like China and Japan. too. the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev. including al Qaeda. the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national identity than with plausible external military threats.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor. The return of great powers and great games If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity. would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO. and not just wealth and security. it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great powers. the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia. is moved by more traditional great-power considerations. to be the keeper of the global conscience. and Washington. the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. During the Cold War. and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign international configuration of power. and typically Russian. both with the United States and with each other. but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism. conducting themselves wisely. The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world. Compared to the ideal Kantian international order. Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about North Korea 's nuclear weapons. which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power -. meanwhile. with a long unhappy history as a pawn between the two powers. and it has become the vehicle for channeling German. But it also looks like Asia's past.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good impact – global nuclear war Xue 264/311 American leadership is vital to preventing global nuclear conflicts in every region of the world Kagan. postmodern view that power is passé. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. In the Middle East there is Iran. and the leaders of radical Islam. however. It stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous world. It is being driven by a typical. which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region.with its pacifist constitution and low defense spending -. to exercise moral authority. would not insist on predominant influence over its "near abroad. for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others value. blend of national resentment and ambition. including military power. also shared by Americans. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise.html) This is a good thing. and in strict obeisance to international law. in which all the world's powers would be peace-loving equals. is a good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less.now appears embarked on a more traditional national course. Islamists have a yearning for respect.realclearpolitics. the East Asian future looks more like Europe's past than its present. and probably could never be powerful enough. The choice is not between an Americandominated order and a world that looks like the European Union. too. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. is once again worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. The leaders of a post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing. but of a postmodern variety. do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide swath of the Middle East and beyond. it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult. Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world. Russian foreign policy. National ambition drives China's foreign policy today." and would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia 's international status in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the Great. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception. they believe power. therefore. looks more like something from the nineteenth century. 7/19. or are focused most intently on Pakistan. and this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political component. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea. But Russia. Islam is not a nation. the United States has not been powerful enough.

the Western Hemisphere. with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia. Central Asia. too. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power. Europe. and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. Finally. Democratic and Republican. until recently. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations. [Continues Next Page -. Central Asia. and now. China had its "century of humiliation. it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia. Central Asia. is more of a traditional than a postmodern power. whether for practical or idealistic reasons. and the Caucasus. liberal and conservative. This was its goal after the Second World War." Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on. the Middle East. which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the dominant liberal West. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger and often oppressive outside powers. beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years. Once having entered a region. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. a humiliation of which Israel has become the living symbol. and the Caucasus. and with Russia in Eastern Europe.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 265/311 and a desire for honor. increasingly.No Text Removed] . The United States. and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it. they generally prefer their global place as "No. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. there is the United States itself. the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East. they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia. and since the end of the Cold War. and particularly on a dominant America which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe.

a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia. That commitment. which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism.this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors. and Europe. however distant and one hopes unnecessary. if it ever went away. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii. where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. the departure of the United States from the scene -. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. But that 's not the way it works. it would not. however. practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region. as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying -its regional as well as its global predominance. intensity. influence. that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. and destructiveness. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. that great geopolitical miracle.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good impact – global nuclear war Xue 266/311 Nationalism in all its forms is back. Even when the United States engages in a war.even if it remained the world's most powerful nation -. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished. These. the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere. honor. Armed embargos. That is certainly the view of most of China 's neighbors. that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. In a more genuinely multipolar world. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West. including the United States. it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. It is shaped by configurations of power. could draw in other great powers. forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity. That could make wars between them less likely. But even China. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. or it could simply make them more catastrophic. China. owes its founding to American power. and status. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel. and comity in the Middle East. the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope. stability. for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. too. A different configuration of power. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. too. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. the United States. but even today Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee. "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. India. regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. would produce its own kind of order. In a genuinely multipolar world. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would.could be destabilizing. of course. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power. and especially since the end of the Cold War. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance.if it adopted what some balancing" -. of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts. This is especially true in East Asia. which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace. nationalist Japan. The subtraction of American power from any region would . such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive. If call a strategy of "offshore the United States withdrew from Europe -. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia. Most Europeans recoil at the thought. and so is international competition for power. is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world's great powers. For instance. faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious. In Europe. Even the European Union. of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. independent. both on the seas and on the ground. The current order. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible.

which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. It is further competition. particularly Iran. the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path. In an era of burgeoning nationalism. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't change this. competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. or Iran. It will produce a new instability. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak.Xue 267/311 not end conflict but would simply change the equation. The world hasn 't changed that much. one likely to draw the United States back in again. if only to secure their interests. to expand and fill the vacuum. In the Middle East. China. ICWest 09-10 Heg Good . A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to "normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition.

S. increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. visit. and cruise liners. the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. . or even a return to the good old balance of power. Meanwhile. wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U. who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons. as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew. Professor of History at New York University. and capital--has raised living standards throughout the world. while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates. labor. In Africa. less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work. Foreign Policy. limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder. terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas. except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. With ease. religious orders. Meanwhile. perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities. In Latin America. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. July / August 2004 For more than two decades. beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir. the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good impact – global nuclear war Xue 268/311 COLLAPSE OF HEGEMONY RESULTS IN APOLARITY WHICH RISKS NUMEROUS SCENARIOS FOR NUCLEAR WAR Niall Fergusen. Be careful what you wish for. targeting oil tankers. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis. Houston or Chicago. it would inevitably become a less open society. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. say. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents. Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony. unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. aircraft carriers. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. or do business.

The implication is that if the US fails in exerting pressure on Iran.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good impact – middle east U. Indeed. they have urged the administration to bomb Iran's nuclear installations. Ala'eddin Borujerdi said: I do not think Americans would make such erroneous [movements] requiring Iran to resort to such an option. 2007 [Lexis] The chairman of the Majlis Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy has said: Notwithstanding its military power in the Persian Gulf. insisting that Washington would consider opening direct talks with Iran only if and when the Iranians agree to end their uranium enrichment programme. He went on: In order to justify their military presence. there was hope that President George W Bush would pursue the idea of a detente with Teheran under which the two governments will also discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions. Borujerdi said: The security of the Persian Gulf should be maintained by the countries in the region on the basis of bilateral or multilateral accords. Talking to the Mehr news agency correspondent about the sensitive position of the Strait of Hormuz and the possibility of Iran exercising control over the strait in the face of some unwise movements in the Persian Gulf by America and Britain. These lobbying efforts have played into the hands of the remaining neo-conservative ideologues in the Bush administration who. As part of this strategy. too. Mr Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have made it clear that they reject the idea. and if it decides to kindle a fire then it will suffer. the MP said: Americans know the consequences of attacks on Iran. despite the disastrous consequences of their policies in Iraq. continue to campaign for a US policy aimed at achieving a 'regime change' in Teheran. the Israelis would have no choice but to use their own military power. Members of the Saudi royal family have expressed concerns that the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime and the coming to power of a Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad have helped shift the balance of power in the Persian Gulf in favour of Iran.S. Referring to America's problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. But much of that optimism has evaporated. At the same time. Stressing the importance of the Strait of Hormuz for the economic and societal security of the countries in the region. There are also signs of pressure by Saudi Arabia and Israel on the Bush administration to pursue a tougher approach vis-a-vis Teheran. and without a doubt. power key to intervene to keep Iran and Israel conflict from going nuclear The Business Times (Singapore News Paper) January 9. Americans are trying to sow the seeds of discord among the countries in the region and Britain is playing a pivotal role. And they have demanded that the Americans join the Arab Sunni regimes in developing a more aggressive strategy to contain Teheran. American military power key in Persian gulf areas to prevent wars BBC News Monitoring Middle East January 20. Israeli officials and their supporters in Washington have been lobbying the Bush administration to use both diplomatic and military power to bring an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions. America is seriously vulnerable and fragile. in the aftermath of the publication of the report by the bipartisan commission and the nomination of new Defence Secretary Robert Gates. they would not make such mistakes. . He stressed: Americans are vulnerable even not taking into account the Strait of Hormuz. 2007 [Lexis] Xue 269/311 ONE of the recommendations by the Iraq Study Group (ISG) was that the Bush administration engage Iran as part of an effort to bring stability to Iraq where Teheran enjoys influence on leaders of the Shi'ite majority.

it has been the best thirty to thirty-five years in Asia’s long history. China and Japan that arose at the end of the Vietnam War. The foundation of that peace has been a remarkable set of relationships between the US. but crucially. and Japan about its security from China. and which I call the Post-Vietnam Order. As Rich Armitage said over lunch yesterday. Prof. “Why War in Asia Remains Thinkable”. White. The US has simultaneously assured China about its security from Japan. of Strategic Studies at Australian National University. 2008 Xue 270/311 [Hugh.iiss.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good impact – asian stability Hegemony solves Asian stability. http://www. . Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute. US primacy was the absolute core of this order. The heart of that order was a posture of double assurance provided by the US to the other two powers. Obviously. June 2] It can help to start by thinking about the sources of the remarkable peace that has characterised East Asia in recent decades.org/conferences/asias-strategic-challenges-in-search-of-a-common-agenda/conferencepapers/fifth-session-conflict-in-asia/why-war-in-asia-remains-thinkable-prof-hugh-white/.

Miscalculation is more likely to lead to war when the balance of power is fairly even. and Fakiolas.51 It sets out US hegemonic pretensions most explicitly: Our Nation’s cause has always been larger than our Nation’s defense. and intends to keep. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. “Pax Americana or Multilateralism? Reflecting on the United States’ Grand Strategic Vision of Hegemony in the Wake of the 11 September Attacks”. the United States has no option but to act unilaterally and forcefully to take preventive actions in order to attain and consolidate security. Vol. Project Muse] At the six-month anniversary of the attacks. because in this situation both sides can convince themselves that they might be able to win. In the first half of the twentieth century. however. PhD from IMEMO. great-power wars killed over eighty million people. Moscow. and Tassos E.8 The second reason is that the continued deployment of roughly two hundred thousand troops in Europe and in Asia provides a further . He made it clear that he expected governments everywhere to help him remove the “parasites” that were threatening their own countries and international peace. the dominant position of the United States places significant limits on the possibility of great-power competition. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent. 2. When the balance of power is heavily skewed. because the danger of war is slight. pg. 2007 [Efstathios T. 9 (20 pages) Spring 2002. not deterrence and containment. other major powers are not inclined to challenge its dominant position." Naval War College Review. and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace. often punctuated by major wars and occasionally by allout struggles for hegemony. however. those who argue that primacy is no longer important. It must strike first before hostile rogue states and their associated terrorist organizations are able to pose a threat or resort to force by using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the United States and its allies. for at least two reasons. Iss. One reason is that because the United States is currently so far ahead. currently working as a strategy and southeastern European affairs analyst at ATEbank.”50 Moreover. Stephen Walt. overlook the fact that the extent of American primacy is one of the main reasons why the risk of great-power war is as low as it is. PhD from the Department of War Studies. for a just peace — a peace that favors liberty. Xue 271/311 Fakiolas. relations among the major powers have been intensely competitive. The primary principle that guides its strategy is that because terrorist groups cannot be deterred. but the risk of war via miscalculation is reduced by the overwhelming gap between the United States and the other major powers. the ideas and policy prescriptions promulgated in this document have become the cornerstone of US grand strategy. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers.S. the leading state does not need to go to war and weaker states dare not try. Today. "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. The vision of hegemony was also pronounced in his June 2002 West Point graduation speech. King’s College London. 55.. for example. in a White House address and flanked by flags of 175 nations and diplomats from more than 150 countries. military strengths beyond challenge — thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless.53 Heg Good – War (General) ( ) US primacy prevents the outbreak of global hegemonic war. Russian Academy of Sciences and is a special adviser on Russian and east European affairs for a Greek business firm. Ironically. Proquest A second consequence of U. the crux of which is preventive war and assertive engagement.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good impact – terrorism Heg is key to winning the war on terror and solving WMD terrorism. as we always fight. primacy is a decreased danger of great-power rivalry and a higher level of overall international tranquility. late in 2002 the Bush administration officially released a document titled The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. We fight. Bush urged US allies to stand behind him in the war on terror. He noted that “America has. For most of the past four centuries. Not only is there no possibility of a "hegemonic war" (because there is no potential hegemon to mount a challenge).52 Since then.

. but it is an important one. So long as U. regional powers know that launching a war is likely to lead to a confrontation with the United States. because the U. but a more exciting world is not necessarily a better one. presence effectively prevents regional conflicts from breaking out. but they also do not want "Uncle Sam" to leave. What Joseph Joffe has termed the "American pacifier" is not the only barrier to conflict in Europe and Asia. This tranquilizing effect is not lost on America's allies in Europe and Asia. primacy is of benefit to the United States.S. World politics might be more interesting if the United States were weaker and if other states were forced to compete with each other more actively. because it dampens the overall level of international insecurity. states within these regions do not worry as much about each other. and to other countries as well. They resent U. U. dominance and dislike playing host to American troops.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 272/311 barrier to conflict in each region.9 Thus.S. troops are committed abroad. but it is probably a good deal more pleasant to live in than "interesting" decades like the 1930s or 1940s. Thus.S. A comparatively boring era may provide few opportunities for genuine heroism.S.

promote human rights." Naval War College Review. 2.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 273/311 Heg Good – Laundry List Heg is necessary to prevent WMD prolif. Iss."17 The bottom line is clear. The United States would accomplish far less if it were weaker. and promote democracy. Vol. and it would discover that other states were setting the agenda of world politics if its own power were to decline. rapid communications. Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. . "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. Stephen Walt. extensive economic ties. As Harry Truman put it over fifty years ago. an increasingly vocal chorus of nongovernmental organizations. They understand. that being number one is a luxury they should try very hard to keep. advance the cause of democracy. as well as upon good will and good deeds. power still matters. 9 (20 pages) Spring 2002. 55. anyone who thinks that the United States should try to discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction. promote human rights. Even in a world with nuclear weapons. "Peace must be built upon power. People running for president do not declare that their main goal as commander in chief would be to move the United States into the number-two position. pg. Proquest Thus. as do most Americans. and other such novel features. and primacy is still preferable. or pursue any other positive political goal should recognize that the nation's ability to do so rests primarily upon its power.

William.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 274/311 Heg Good – Peace/Stability ( ) Unipolarity promotes peace and stability – others want to follow US leadership Wohlforth '99. . International Security. unipolarity minimizes security competition among the other great powers. At the same time. Summer 1999. No other major power is in a position to follow any policy that depends for its success on prevailing against the United States in a war or an extended rivalry. the second-tier states face incentives to bandwagon with the unipolar power as long as the expected costs of balancing remain prohibitive. The raw power advantage of the United States means that an important source of conflict in previous systems is absent: hegemonic rivalry over leadership of the international system. As the system leader. None is likely to take any step that might invite the focused enmity of the United States. "The Stability of a Unipolar World" Second. the United States has the means and motive to maintain key security institutions in order to ease local security conflicts and limit expensive competition among the other major powers. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. the current unipolarity is prone to peace. For their part.

p. In addition. US Navy commander.htm) The national security implications of GCC pose unique challenges for the United States in part because it is best suited to lead counter-GCC efforts. US leadership is key to solve warming.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49. the United States may foster trust and cooperation while beginning to anticipate some GCC effects. prosperity.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49. The U. The Nation has the economic and informational power to develop and resource effective methods and the international status to foster global cooperation and implementation. but the potential impacts of GCC should lead national security policymakers to consider how environmental security will play a role in the future. In addition to fighting and winning the nation’s wars. national security is defined as the need to maintain the safety. military. and informational power will be the drivers of GCC responses as they provide the needed resources ideas and technology.ndu. and survival of the nation-state through the use of instruments of national power: diplomatic. It will be through invoking military and diplomatic power that resources are used and new ideas are implemented to overcome any GCC challenges. the US military has a long history of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Good – Warming US military power and leadership is key to solve climate change.S. . economic. Maybee 8 (Sean C. by addressing environmental security. p.htm) Xue 275/311 For the purpose of this essay. 98. 98. http://www. military already has a robust capacity to respond and could continue to develop and use it to help other nations to build that capacity. Maybee 8 (Sean C. US Navy commander. http://www.

The main countries in the U. On the contrary. Thus. and as such. in particular with the United States. making the Southeast Asian states more reliant on bilateral defence arrangements. China is a power of second rank compared with the United States. Bush describes China as a strategic competitor. Thus. However. U. reassurances that research and development on the TMD will continue only leaves China with the option of proceeding with military modernization to build up its deterrence capabilities. aimed at developing a deterrent force as well as a force capable of engaging in military operations at sea. of Political Science. Bush is unlikely to call for a revival of the idea of a strategic partnership with China. policy on the Spratlys may be characterized as guarded non-involvement. On the contrary. Dr Mahathir also painted three scenarios for Asia.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 276/311 Heg Key to South China Sea – First Line First.S. In this scenario. and the Philippines. the U. Asst Prof. conflict in the SCS culminated into a global nuclear war. the military agreements facilitate training. Although the United States looks at China's Spratly policy as an indication of its possible bid for regional hegemony. the consolidation of a structure of deterrence in the South China Sea may provide Southeast Asia with the level of military security and reassurance necessary to allow for the development of stronger co-operative ties with China. The Pacific Fleet begins to patrol the South China Sea. At the same time. University of Aarhus. troops have resumed joint exercises with the Philippines from 2000. “Choose Your Own Style of Democracy”. since 1999.S. he said. the financial crisis of the late 1990s delayed some of these efforts. U. However. the opponent will refrain from attack. Contemporary Southeast Asia. “Deterrence and Co-operation in the South China Sea”. The United States shares the widespread perception within Southeast Asia that China's moves in the South China Sea indicate that it might have expansionist intentions. The Administration of George W. network of military co-operation agreements are Singapore. they cannot afford to ignore the worst-case scenario of conflict involving China. In the first -the worst possible scenario -Asian countries would go to war against each other. during the Cold War.S. This geostrategic picture suggests that cooperation on managing the regional balance of power is not on the cards. Second. he said. the United States has maintained its strategy of forward deployment. It might start with clashes between Asian countries over the Spratly Islands because of China's insistence that the South China Sea belonged to it along with all the islands. American reservations about direct involvement in the Spratly dispute do not imply that cordial relations between the United States and China are on the agenda. Washington prefers that the regional states settle their disputes without its involvement as long as these do not pose a threat to U. Bush has voiced strong support for a theatre missile defence (TMD) system covering Japan. A structure of deterrence does not operate on the basis of cooperation between opposing powers. Deterrence is directed at the intentions of opponents: if the existence of deterrent forces are seen to prevent the opponent from achieving gains through aggression. Thailand. China declares war on the US and a full-scale war breaks out with both sides resorting to nuclear weapons. lexis) The South China Sea constitutes a first line of defence for the littoral states of Southeast Asia. the power-projection capabilities of the various states are constrained by a mutual display of force between the United States and the Southeast Asian states on the one hand. the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. policy towards China. and China on the other. the United States would offer to help and would be welcomed by Asean. Odgaard 2K1 (Liselotte.S. and accusations of Chinese military espionage in the United States. reefs and seabed minerals. As a consequence. and interoperability. [4] In line with this hardening of U. proquest) In his speech. a structure of deterrence appears to be in the making. Aug 1. forward military presence in the pacific deters China and leads to stabilization allowing a political solution to be brokered. Nor can deterrence be equated with violence and volatility. is no immediate threat to the latter. South Korea. Clashes occur between the Chinese navy and the US Navy. Thus. However.S. . and Taiwan. Strait Times 1995 (staff. the relationship between the two powers has suffered a downturn because of Chinese opposition to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air strikes in Yugoslavia. it is not prepared to play an active part in the Spratly dispute unless freedom of navigation through Southeast Asian waters is threatened. Denmark.S. In substitution of the permanent base arrangements In general. the United States maintains its support for the ASEAN position on the non-use of force concerning dispute settlement in the South China Sea. permitting the United States to be seen to be engaged in Southeast Asia as a flexible regional balancer. May 21. Therefore. p. interests. Technological constraints are likely to force Bush to moderate his position on such defence plans. The majority of the Southeast Asian states have embarked on a modernization of their naval capabilities. exercises. Instead.

Finally. Secondly. mechanisms of consultation and limited co-operation are emerging as a focal point in the approaches to diplomacy and international law of the littoral states of the South China Sea. Thirdly. the fact that the challenges are founded in different security practices between China and Southeast Asia implies that the threats towards regional security arising in the Spratly dispute are not caused by the malevolent intentions of one state or entity. China and Southeast Asia must establish a code of conduct defining their rights and obligations in the South China Sea. China and Southeast Asia must compromise on their different approaches to diplomacy. three preconditions must be fulfilled. . Instead. First. the emerging structure of deterrence can provide the Southeast Asian states with the military security necessary for them to develop a partnership with China in the South China Sea. The analysis suggests three principal conclusions. Odgaard 2K1 (Liselotte. the challenges are the result of interaction in an environment where the states have not yet established concrete mechanisms of order. Within the confines of a structure of deterrence.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 277/311 Heg Key to South China Sea ( ) American military hegemony balanced with dialogue leads to a peace solution to the South China Sea in the Squo. the efforts at managing the challenges coming to the fore in the Spratly dispute suggest that the seeds of a new order are emerging. lexis) This article has analysed the impact of the Spratly dispute on the security policies emerging between China and Southeast Asia in the South China Sea after the Cold War. going beyond the rudimentary level. First. the emergence of challenges to old security policies in the dispute suggests that it is not merely a peripheral dispute reflecting security relations between China and Southeast Asia after the Cold War. Secondly. Denmark. the United States must maintain its military presence in the region. Aug 1. but a central dispute in the sense that it affects these relations. “Deterrence and Co-operation in the South China Sea”. of Political Science. Contemporary Southeast Asia. What are the prospects that an order combining deterrence and cooperation are consolidated as a stable security practice in the South China Sea? From the preceding analysis. If the United States limits its role to maintaining a stable balance. Asst Prof. University of Aarhus.

The nuclearization of Korea (North. raising questions in an already jittery region about Washington's willingness to maintain stability in Asia. a deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration. nascent nuclear forces will be especially vulnerable to preemption. small. the national security adviser to Jimmy Carter. motivated by post-Vietnam doubts about American power. Similar shockwaves could also travel through the system in different directions (for example. we would stampede the Japanese into going nuclear." "Mind-sets in Asia are profoundly traditional. proposed withdrawing ground forces from the peninsula. increasing Asian nuclearization runs the risk of wild-fire proliferation and arms-racing. Pakistan) and Russia (which would also be affected by events in Japan and Korea). from India to China to Japan to Korea). lexis) Assuming." said Kurt Campbell. Mr. as well as on its responsibilities as the globe's presumptive supercop. Dao 2K3 (James." Second." said Zbigniew Brzezinski. which could then have an impact on the defense policies of Taiwan." he said. leading to miscalculation and nuclear war." he said. India (and through it. l lexis) Deciding if now is the time depends on how well the United States is able to project power across the Pacific. there would still be serious difficulties involved in negotiating the transition to such a world. South or. A secure Korea makes Japan more confident. As in other regions. China might take the opportunity to flex its military muscle in the Taiwan Straits and South China Sea. “Why Keep US Troops?”. The New York Times.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 278/311 Heg Key to East Asian Stability – First Line First. Jan. "They calculate political will by the numbers of soldiers. p. Beijing. multifaceted expansion in nuclear capabilities could increase the dangers of misperception. "The main one would be this: receding American commitment. An American withdrawal from Korea could raise questions about the United States' commitment to the 40. staff . both together) could lead to a similar development in Japan. 8. whether through reunification or competitive arms programs. p. for the moment that an Asia with more nuclear powers would be more stable than one with fewer. which might cause China to accelerate and expand its nuclear programs. A rapid. backing down in the face of irresponsible North Korean behavior. attack on Taiwan and North Korean proliferation. no matter how much the United States asserts its commitment to the region. the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency. Professor of International Relations at Princeton University International Security. "Any movement of American forces would almost certainly involve countries and individuals taking the wrong message. Taipei and beyond. Brzezinski took part in the last major debate over reducing American forces in Korea. Withdrawing forces in Korea would reverberate powerfully in Tokyo. it's hard to say how the Chinese might respond. He faced resistance from the South Korean government. ships and airplanes that they see in the region. Other Asian leaders would be likely to interpret a troop withdrawal as a reduction of American power. North Korea could feel emboldened to continue its efforts to build nuclear arms. And frankly. In Japan the prevailing “nuclear allergy” could lead first to delays in acquiring deterrent forces and then to a desperate and dangerous scramble for nuclear weapons. "If we did it. the Japanese reaction could be quite strong. he contends. Winter. "In the present mood. when President Carter. Mr. US withdrawal from Asia sparks Japan into rapid nuclear armament. Brzezinski says. "And under those circumstances. 5. the prospects for a peaceful transition may be further complicated by the fact that the present and potential nuclear powers are both numerous and strategically intertwined. miscalculation. he argues. Friedburg 1994 (Aaron. And that could drive anxious Japanese leaders into a military buildup that could include nuclear weapons. In Asia." In the 1970's. p. All of this would influence the behavior of the United States. . and war. The arguments against withdrawal then still apply today.000 troops it has in Japan. the ultimate beneficiary of this would be China in the long term.

hold some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world. American leadership in the Caspian key to stability: boosts American hegemony. but also the surest way to provide for the Caspian nations' own security and prosperity. a former adversary in Russia. the Caspian serves as a trafficking area for weapons of mass destruction. and the Middle East.could also benefit.including at least 115 billion barrels of oil -. Ukraine. Even if they can muster the political will to attempt reform themselves. and narcotics -.from infrastructure to telecommunications to transportation and other services -. And until they build close.including a NATO ally in Turkey. political. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to the east.independent of their huge neighbors to the north and the south -. The cooperative development of regional energy reserves and pipelines -. To advance those interests. Foreign Affairs. Washington should strengthen its policy toward the Caspian by giving the highest level of support to the cooperative development of regional energy reserves and pipelines. the attempt will fail so long as they lack the resources to build strong economic and political institutions. and stabilize world energy supplies in the future. it should encourage the construction of multiple pipelines to ensure diverse and reliable transportation of Caspian energy to regional and international markets. Located at the crossroads of western Europe.S. The proven and possible energy reserves in or adjacent to the Caspian region -. eastern Asia. Turkey.Although the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will continue to dominate the global energy market for decades to come. and several fragile new states. Such plentiful resources could generate huge returns for U. Georgia. Iran to the south. firms in other industries -.S. secure. as resources from the North Sea have done in the past. political repression. And together with neighboring Armenia. they will remain vulnerable to Russia's hegemonic impulses. “Caspian Energy at the Cross-Roads”. as the capital generated from Caspian energy development spreads to other sectors. contains Russia and is key to checking terrorism and smuggling Kalicki 2K1 (Jan. and Uzbekistan. With few exceptions. American firms have already acquired 75 percent of Kazakhstan's mammoth Tengiz oil field. and the virtual absence of the rule of law. In particular. lexis) The countries surrounding the Caspian Sea -.are in fact many times greater than those of the North Sea and should increase significantly with continuing exploration. they represent important economic. the fledgling Caspian republics are plagued with pervasive corruption. Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Sept/Oct.thus represents not only a boon for the United States and the world at large. oil and gas development in the Caspian basin could help diversify.a role enhanced by the weakness of the region's governments.Russia to the north. terrorists. which is now valued at more than $10 billion. In addition to these energy-related and commercial interests. p. substantive relations with the West. . the United States has important political and strategic stakes in the Caspian region -. and strategic interests for the United States. and Azerbaijan to the west -. a currently turbulent regime in Iran. U. Over time.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 279/311 Heg Key to Caspian Stability – First Line (1/2) First. companies and their shareholders.

tens of thousands of U. world stability. p. The U. Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic development in the early 21st century. Cohen 1996 (Ariel. Turkey. should ensure free access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 280/311 Heg Key to Caspian Stability – First Line (2/2) Second Failure to contain Russian would destabilize all of Eurasia.15 Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans. of course. and Western jobs would be created. Heritage Foundation. 1065. but for peace. no. such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky. and its allies. these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction.S. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south.S. lexis) Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U. Moreover. Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern NIS. Backgrounder. And. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services. a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. Russian imperialists. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modern market economies and free societies. in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable. the threat to Ukraine. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region. or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the area. if successful. It would endanger not only Russia’s neighbors.S. spark nuclear wars and put a stranglehold on the west. if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed. PhD. the Mediterranean Sea. but also the U. have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. and the Middle East. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $6 billion to date (equal to Russia’s IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). Iran. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS. it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. and security. and Afganistan will increase. Moreover.S. a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf. . Moreover. “The New Great Game: Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia”. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russia’s transition to a democracy and free-market economy. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East.

S. Those forces will remain abroad at least through 2003 to complete the mission of extirpating terrorism in Afghanistan and securing that country for the future. and cooperation will continue. The World and I. that the sale of U. presence comprises air bases. therefore. whether through bilateral agreements.S. and discussions to provide it with genuine assistance began several years ago. the motives of those arms sellers will resemble those of the other states cited here. quite openly wants a U. Unsurprisingly. While American officials profess no interest in long-term bases in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus. ratified by bilateral agreements. Uzbekistan. 1. MacArthur Professor of Research at the Strategic Studies Institute “A Violent Theater: Central Asia’s Militarization”. military assets there against Iraq. p. and Georgia. Of course. Washington now can render military assistance to Armenia. since those systems obviously go with American training and organization. landing rights. military bases and personnel after September 11. as well as a political quest for influence over the security institutions and policies of the recipient states. for example. along with local governments' quest for something in the way of security guarantees against threats to their security. but the United States can be expected to upgrade and extend its overall presence.S.ICWest 09-10 Xue Heg Good 281/311 Caspian Module – AT: No Military Deployments in Caspian United States maintains substantial military presence in the Caspian region. Feb. guarantee of its security. weapons and technologies will soon figure in these states' military profile. they do not even begin to address in public the strategic issues connected with the possibility of using Central Asian or Transcaucasian bases and U. Azerbaijan. The U. This presence. commanders have stated that these exercises and the mutual relationships forged through them were vital in winning local governments' speedy agreement to host U. The final parameters of our relationship with local regimes remain to be determined.S. a quest for revenues and markets to keep their firms going. We can also expect. there is the American military presence in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus. assistance. U. lexis) Finally. multilateral venues like the Partnership for Peace exercises.S. Washington's commitment to consolidating long-term security relationships with those states has undoubtedly intensified. or exercises with the Central Asian Battalion. . Bilateral and multilateral venues of military training. Regular training and advising for the host countries' troops also take place. including military aid and training Blank 2K3 (Stephen.S. and troops to defend those bases. extends to all of the area except for Turkmenistan.

warlords and former communist leaders in Azerbaijan. Some observers have termed this design an informal empire “on the cheap. promotions. where wars and conflicts undermine independence and economic development while hindering the export of oil from the region’s states. members of the Commonwealth of Independent States are required to police their borders jointly with Russian border guards. a highly unstable environment in which metropolitan civilian and military elites.”12 Yeltsin outlined plans to create a CIS military and economic union. Russian oil chieftains in Kazakhstan and military commanders who are still in place in Moldova and Georgia naturally maintain close links with Moscow. In each case. and mid-level officers and bureaucrats drive the process of reintegration. especially Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Heritage Foundation.” a “sustainable empire” which is less centralized than the old Soviet Union. In addition.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 282/311 Caspian Module – AT: No Risk Of Russian Hegemony Lack of American involvement in the Caspian allows Russia’s reemergence as an imperial power. Cohen 1996 (Ariel. local players. Georgia now has four Russian bases and Armenia has three. The struggle to reestablish a Russian sphere of influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia started in early 1992. re-establishing the empire and paying for it with Eurasian oil revenues is a winning proposition.9 Moscow has gone beyond words to establish its power in the Caucasus.8 Russia benefits from instability in the Caucasus. this struggle employs a broad spectrum of military. appeals by the legitimate governments of the Newly Independent States to restore their territorial integrity were ignored by Moscow. and would be forced to seek negotiated and peaceful solutions.13 The aim of such an arrangement would be to ensure Russia’s control of the oil and gas reserves in Eurasia. the turbulent southern periphery is a potential source of political fortunes. covert. President Boris Yeltsin called for a re-examination of Russia’s borders to the detriment of her neighbors. What is common to these conflicts is that without Russian support. For example.11 These statements were echoed on numerous occasions by former Russian Foreign Minister Andrey Kozyrev and other key policymakers in Moscow.S. and economic measures. the separatist Abkhazs in Georgia. While not a full-scale war. and careers. diplomatic. Attempts to Reintegrate the South. In his September 1995 Decree “On Approval of the Strategic Policy of the Russian Federation Toward CIS Member States. and thus are denied effective control over their own territory. such as Trans-Dniestrian ethnic Russians in Moldova. Backgrounder.10 With the collapse of the Soviet Union. Where it lacks troops on the ground.” to protect Russian speakers and to exercise freedom of action in its sphere of influence. This is a classic scenario for imperial expansion. in September 1994. Moscow supports the most pro-Russian faction in the conflict. especially in the murky environment in the aftermath of imperial collapse. Russian political elites have not overcome the imperialist ideology that inspired both pre-1917 and Soviet expansionism. Competing political interests inside Russia’s neighbors often prompt local elites to challenge the faction in power and to seek Moscow’s support. The entire southern rim of Russia is a turbulent frontier. as for their predecessors in St. 1065. PhD. The Russians are setting up military bases in the region in order to gain exclusive control over all future pipelines. and pro-communist clans in Tajikistan. no. For Russian politicians in search of a grand cause. . “The New Great Game: Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia”. For today’s Moscow bureaucrats and generals. the pro-Moscow factions (regardless of their ethnicity) could not have dominated their respective regions. p. Petersburg prior to 1917. upon his return from a state visit to the U. while Azerbaijan is still holding out under severe pressure from Moscow. For example. Yeltsin reiterated Russia’s “right” to conduct “peacemaking” in the “near abroad. The southern tier of the former Soviet Union is a zone of feverish Russian activity aimed at tightening Moscow’s grip in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. lexis) The main threat to the equitable development of Eurasian oil is the Russian attempt to dominate the region in a de facto alliance with the radical Islamic regime in Tehran.

editors. the assurance of U. 13 lexis) China in world III eschews democratization and normalization for an accelerated program of military modernization. RAND Books. or it might compete with China for Asian leadership. Should American protective pledges be seen as weakening. they will certainly give rise to new security dilemmas regionwide that in turn would lead to intensive arms-racing. .. the second-tier powers jockey for position alongside one or another of the competitors within a complex context of border and resource disputes. Zalmay & Ian.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 283/311 Heg Key to Prevent Japanese Rearm First. And in this world. Japan and South Korea. especially air and naval power-projection capabilities (Tellis et al. and possibly war. NBC proliferation proceeds at a rapid clip. protection has resulted in implicit bargains that are indispensable to the American conception of stable international order. Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century. Tokyo begins converting its economic power into military strength and deploys a small nuclear arsenal to defend itself and its interests against what it perceives as malign Chinese designs. South Korea and Japan have both enjoyed the luxury of eschewing nuclear weapons as guarantors of security. especially of maritime and air forces. security guarantees and chooses the latter path. Even if such forces are developed primarily for defensive purposes. The first and most obvious reason is that the United States has treaty obligations to two important Asian states. p. Thanks to American security guarantees. In this world. Tokyo might decide to ally itself with Beijing. Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century. assurance of American hegemony is critical to prevent a resurgent nuclear Japan that would spark arms races and war Khalilzad & Lesser 1998 (Rand analyst & permanent UN ambassador & Vice President and director of studies at the Pacific Council on International Policy.S. it might seek U. the instability from re-arms fuels wildfire proliferation. p. would of necessity have to embark on a significant conventional build-up. In both instances. it seems likely that a global competitor to the United States could emerge. 13 lexis) The third vital interest is to ensure the survival of American allies— critical for a number of reasons. Zalmay & Ian. it is consequential for directly substantive reasons as well. the temptation on the part of both states to resurrect the nuclear option will increase—to the consequent detriment of America’s global antiproliferation policy. growing suspicions. perhaps as a result of an alliance of convenience between one of the Asian competitors and Russia. Power relations are fluid to the point of instability as small countries seek protectors and larger powers recruit clients. In the rest of Asia. RAND Books. 1996). a series of wars and eventual emergence of hostile Asian rival to the US Khalilzad & Lesser 1998 (Rand analyst & permanent UN ambassador & Vice President and director of studies at the Pacific Council on International Policy.S. . Second. support in balancing China. however. While meeting these obligations is necessary to maintain the credibility of the United States in the international arena. Japan might choose to go in one of several directions in the face of China’s drive for regional superiority. editors. is that Japan.S. as actors see nuclear weapons in particular as insurance policies against the dangers around them. and possibly South Korea as well. In the worst case—our world III— Japan loses faith in U. The resulting force posture would in practice be indistinguishable from a longrange power-projection capability possessing offensive orientation. Equally significant.

continued alliance with the United States is the most likely outcome. While not impossible. as was predicted a decade ago? It seems unlikely. a decade or two hence. Its record of economic success and its popular culture provide Japan with soft power. Nye. Some politicians have started a movement to revise Article 9 of the country’s constitution. become a global challenger to the United States. China would want to constrain Japan. Not only have the wounds of the 193os failed to heal completely. Japan does show some ambition to improve its status as a world power. [P. but Japan might not want to play second fiddle. Alternatively.” Foreign Affairs. if Japan were to ally with China.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Japan Module – AT: Heg Doesn’t Solve Rearm Collapse of US leadership in East Asia causes rapid Japanese renuclearization and a SinoJapanese alliance against the US. and polls show that many younger Japanese are interested in becoming a more “normal country” in terms of defense. which restricts Japan’s forces to self-defense. It seeks a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. the combined resources of the two countries would make a potent coalition. but the nation’s ethnocentric attitudes and policies undercut that. Roughly the size of California. Power and Strategy After Iraq. In the highly unlikely prospect that the United States were to withdraw from the East Asian region. but China and Japan have conflicting visions of Japan’s proper place in Asia and in the world. Xue 284/311 Joseph S. economically or militarily. Council on Foreign Relations. Japan might join a Chinese bandwagon. “U. 24-25] . Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Japan will never have the geographical or population scale of the United States. An allied East Asia is not a plausible candidate to be the challenger that displaces the United States. we could produce the sense of insecurity that might lead Japan to decide it had to develop its own nuclear capacity. such an alliance seems unlikely unless the United States makes a serious diplomatic or military blunder. But given Japanese concerns about the rise of Chinese power. Lexis Could a revived Japan.S. July/August 2003. If the United States were to drop its alliance with Japan and follow the advice of those who want us to stay “offshore” and shift our allegiance back and forth to balance China and Japan.

Washington took the lead in waging the 1999 Kosovo war -.S.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381) In the case of North Korea. might become hostile to the United States at some future date. But no president can tell the American public that the United States must be willing to lose 50. the great question is whether or not two other Asian giants -.") To again quote from the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance. . even though the threats emanating from the spillover of the Balkan conflicts affected Germany and its neighbors far more than a geographically far-removed United States. for example. a reassurance war on behalf of Japan -. although not solely.will eschew the development of true competitors. For example. among other things. Today. allowing the United States to assume the burdens of ensuring their security instead. the United States should be prepared to fight wars on behalf of Germany and Japan. Washington and other American cities. Japan may obtain its own nuclear deterrent and renationalize its foreign policy. And the Persian Gulf War was. emerging from the status of a semisovereign U.in part to forestall the emergence of a Germany prepared to act independently. "Only blue-water navies and continue to allow the United States to take responsibility for keeping the Gulf open. by the fear that if Japan loses confidence in America’s willingness to protect it.far more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than the United States -. sparing them the necessity of re-arming -. New America Foundation.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381) High levels of defense Xue 285/311 expenditures are not merely to overawe potential challengers. Sustained American hegemony prevents Japan from both rearming and nuclearizing Lind 07 (Michael. In other words.India and China -. the second prong of the hegemonic strategy.000 or more American lives in a war with North Korea for fear that Japan will get nuclear weapons to defend itself." Reassurance.confirmed by the fact that Japan paid a substantial portion of the United States’ costs in that conflict. protectorate to that of an independent military great power once again. "we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Krauthammer noted. New America Foundation.and that assumes that its current growth continues unabated. but coming from so far behind it will be decades before it can challenge American primacy -.S.newamerica.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Key to Stop German and Japan Rearm ( ) US hegemony is critical to preventing a German or Japanese rearmament Lind 07 (Michael. Therefore the public is told instead that North Korea might give nuclear weapons to non-state actors to use to destroy New York. http://www. or that North Korean missiles can strike targets in North America. Beyond American Hegemony. U. (In outlining possible China grew in strength.for fear that these countries. Beyond American Hegemony. http://www. while outspending allies like Germany and Japan on defense. policy is motivated largely. entails convincing major powers not to build up their military capabilities. having "renationalized" their defense policies and rearmed.

“Without America on duty. JFKSchool of Government Professor at Harvard Univiversity Naval War College Review. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that.navy. When states are relatively secure. American primacy was a prerequisite for the creation and gradual expansion of the European Union. Free Republic. and states worry less about being dependent on others when they are not concerned that these connections might be severed. a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 286/311 Heg Key to Global Economy – First Line First. Investors are more willing to send money abroad when the danger of war is remote. American primacy also fosters global prosperity. primacy is one of the central pillars upon which that system rests. Prior to the final economic collapse. in a spasmodic suicidal response. As a number of commentators have noted.nwc. rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Hegemony is key to trade and interdependence—stability opens conditions necessary for growth. Because the United States was there to protect the Europeans from the Soviet Union and from each other. are almost certain to be released. As Thomas Friedman puts it. at least for many decades.” ( ) Second. By providing a tranquil international environment. The expansion of world trade has been a major source of increased global prosperity. WALT 2K2 (Stephen. are already on site within the United States itself. in short. the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict. As the studies showed. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In particular. . the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts. and U. under such extreme stress conditions. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Economic interdependence is often said to be a cause of world peace. to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations. In addition to immediate responses. Without effective defense.htm) By facilitating the development of a more open and liberal world economy.S. Indeed. “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis”.S. Today. adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. once a few nukes are launched. suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea. forces there. The United States also played a leading role in establishing the various institutions that regulate and manage the world economy. Spring. including U. but it is more accurate to say that peace encourages interdependence-by making it easier for states to accept the potential vulnerabilities of extensive international intercourse.mil/press/Review/2002/spring/art1-sp2. A global economic collapse would escalate to full scale conflict and rapid extinction Bearden 2K (Thomas. lexis) History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. primacy has created political conditions that are conducive to expanding global trade and investment. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it. they could safely ignore the balance of power within Western Europe and concentrate on expanding their overall level of economic integration. June 24. As an example. U. escalating it significantly. they will also be less fixated on how the gains from cooperation are distributed. which is often touted as a triumph of economic self-interest over historical rivalries. and perhaps most of the biosphere. they are less likely to worry that extensive cooperation will benefit others more and thereby place them at a relative disadvantage over time. www. the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate fullbore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. the current era of “globalization” is itself partly an artifact of American power.S. there will be no America Online.

In particular. they will also be less fixated on how the gains from cooperation are distributed. "Without America on duty. Stephen Walt.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 287/311 Heg Key to Global Economy The tranquility caused by US primacy is key to the health of the global economy. in short. As a number of commentators have noted. there will be no America Online. and states worry less about being dependent on others when they are not concerned that these connections might be severed. the current era of "globalization" is itself partly an artifact of American power. When states are relatively secure." Naval War College Review. 2. 9 (20 pages) Spring 2002. they are less likely to worry that extensive cooperation will benefit others more and thereby place them at a relative disadvantage over time. As Thomas Friedman puts it. The expansion of world trade has been a major source of increased global prosperity.11 By providing a tranquil international environment. but it is more accurate to say that peace encourages interdependence-by making it easier for states to accept the potential vulnerabilities of extensive international intercourse. Economic interdependence is often said to be a cause of world peace. pg. primacy is one of the central pillars upon which that system rests. they could safely ignore the balance of power within Western Europe and concentrate on expanding their overall level of economic integration. Because the United States was there to protect the Europeans from the Soviet Union and from each other."13 . 55.S. U. "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. and U. American primacy was a prerequisite for the creation and gradual expansion of the European Union. Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. which is often touted as a triumph of economic self-interest over historical rivalries.12 The United States also played a leading role in establishing the various institutions that regulate and manage the world economy. American primacy also fosters global prosperity. Iss. Vol. Indeed.S. Proquest By facilitating the development of a more open and liberal world economy.10 Investors are more willing to send money abroad when the danger of war is remote. primacy has created political conditions that are conducive to expanding global trade and investment.

S. Nuclear. democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. leadership is critical to democratization effects. democratic ones. popular sovereignty. and biological weapons continue to proliferate. It would not have been possible without the power of our example. instead of being controlled. civil liberties. and our ideals ascendant. “Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s”. DC. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. Washington. it is the result of sustained American leadership. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. with its provisions for legality. Democratic countries form more reliable. That is the central lesson of the twentieth century -. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. they are the concrete real. fell into the wrong hands? That is precisely what would have happened if the Administration and Congress had not acted to ensure the dismantling of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. within their own borders. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. chemical. CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON PREVENTING DEADLY CONFLICT 1995 (staff. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another.and this lesson must continue to guide us if we are to safeguard our interests as we enter the twenty-first. Across the globe. online: http://www. property rights. and openness. The very source of life on Earth. “Building a framework for American leadership in the 21st Century . Today. Secretary of State. accountability. America is secure.carnegie. p. Democracy's triumph is neither accidental nor irreversible. Secretary of State” Statement before the House International Relations Committee. they respect competition. Chairman.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Key to Democracy – First Line First. Second. and the rule of law. the freezing of North Korea's. democratic consolidation is key to preventing nuclear war. the strength of our military. and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Think about it. or the constancy and creativity of our diplomacy. ties of our daily lives. open. our economy vibrant. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens. Oct. appears increasingly endangered. . the movement towards open societies and open markets is wider and deeper than ever before. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another.U.org/sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Would the American people be as secure if weapons of mass destruction. more than seven years have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and five years since the demise of the Soviet Union. Precisely because. and enduring trading partnerships.co m/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n2_v8/ai_19538680/pg_9) Mr. http://findarticles. and the securing of Russia's. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Albright 97 Xue 288/311 (Madeleine. the global ecosystem. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy. Make no mistake: the interests served by American foreign policy are not the abstract inventions of State Department planners. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations.html lexis) This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades.

Data shows the Chinese economy closed out the first quarter with 10. as a powerful international leader while the 55 percent on China as aspirant to lead the world in 2020 is a sharp increment from the 45 percent who believe it has already attained that status. http://www. China has contributed an average of 13 percent to the world economy.250 people polled worldwide saw China emerging as a formidable rival to the U.ph/index.23 trillion. hegemony.Rivalry Xue 289/311 between the United States and China is turning serious with the former tightening global security control and the latter pushing bold groundwork for economic power. With a recent survey indicating that it is statistically feasible to upstage the U. Top Beijing officials burned the economic front by expanding trade alliance and investment network for supremacy. The 57 percent is a somersault from the 81 percent who currently see the U. That also allows China to dominate an expanding world possible for China to lead anew an enlarged socio-economic concordat with different political persuasions.S. The same poll considered economic power and potential for growth as the most important quality for a global leader -.S. Since 1978 when Beijing launched a major economic reform program.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Key Prevent War with China ( ) Absent increased influence.S. and more than 300 years before American independence. “US-China rivalry turning serious.3 percent growth and 2006 GDP is projected to hit $2. accounting for $500 billion worth of commodities from the time it became a member of the World Trade Organization in 2001. What should disturb Washington in the survey commissioned by Germany’s Bertelsmann Foundation is a question of blunder and fallback poked at why American influence is decreasing. making it empirically Its new leadership creates regional synergy and collides head-on with U. while 57 percent believed American supremacy could hang on. (Julius. China is seen in a fast forward roll.” June 20th 2006.S. Chinese leadership will collide with US hegemony.and China has stepped up the challenge with loud action. Romero 2K6.com. author – Journal Online. as a world power over the next decade and a half via economic domination. phenomenal growth became a fixture of modern China that created a spectacle of how communism compatibly operates with market economy.journal.php? page=news&id=4836&sid=1&urldate=2006-06-20) WASHINGTON -. Fifty-five percent of 10. a feat China already enjoyed in 1421 when Great Britain was still contemplating to colonize the U. . economy with widening imbalances. That explains how Chinese civilization greatly influenced the world.S.

Sr. strategic interests. Before NATO intervened in the Bosnia imbroglio in 1995. it demands no American intervention. undermine regional order.hoover. This said. Slobodan Milosevic. Aside from international prodding. Containment. is a Central African affair.S. that of forging an enduring framework of global geopolitical cooperation. online: http://www. and Zimbabwe. Rogue leaders draw conclusions from weak responses to aggression. threaten global commercial relationships. the United States can serve a humanitarian cause by calling international attention to Khartoum's genocide of Christian and animist peoples. cited preventing global anarchy as one of the two goals of "America's global engagement. drawing in the neighboring countries of Greece.S. when Europe and the United States allowed Nazi Germany to propagate its ideology across half a dozen states. the doctrine articulated in response to Soviet global ambitions. or. in contrast. call for direct humanitarian intervention. Turkey. “Using Power and Diplomacy to Deal with Rogue States”. p. No weapons of mass destruction menace surrounding peoples or allies. the ethno-nationalist conflict raised the specter of a wider war. HENRIKSON 1999 (Thomas. Zbigniew Brzezinski. to rearm for a war of conquest.S.edu/publications/epp/94/94a. Saddam Hussein."(4) . as circumstances dictate. which has drawn in small military forces from Uganda. Even the civil war in the Congo. the simmering Congolese fighting is better left to Africans to resolve than to outsiders. or mountains is quite another. But watching rogue behavior with complacency or relying on the United Nations courts disaster in the age of weapons of mass destruction. Regrettable as the bloody civil war in Sri Lanka is. A global doctrine setting forth all-inclusive guidelines is difficult to cast in stone. and it may afford the only realistic option available. military deployment. do not endanger U. Strong Hegemony and force projection is the only way to deal with rogue states. offered a realistic guideline for policymakers. That Iraq's president. jungles. meaning that how Xue 290/311 the United States responds to a regional rogue has worldwide implications. it should pick its interventions with great care. it must be emphasized that the United States ought not intervene militarily in every conflict or humanitarian crisis. for the ethnic conflict between the secessionist Tamil minority and the Sinhalese majority is largely an internal affair. as witnessed by the cold war. A similar response to rogue states cannot be easily cloned for each contingency but may require the United States to corral allies or partners into a unified policy." The other key goal is "impeding the emergence of a power rival. Political turmoil in Cambodia is largely a domestic problem. Deterring security threats is a valuable mechanism to maintain peace. But in dealing with rogue states deterrence and containment may not be enough. which can suck in states to fill the void. Thus. escaped unpunished for his invasion of Kuwait no doubt emboldened the Yugoslav president. and to intimidate the democracies into appeasement. Indeed. Political inaction creates vacuums. events on one side of the planet can influence actions on the other side. must be confronted with robust measures. to take one example. namely. or the world will go down the same path as it did in the 1930s. Most incidents of civil turmoil need not engage U. living in a world without law and order is not an auspicious prospect. Rogue states push the world toward anarchy and away from stability. These types of conflicts.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Key to Deter Rogue States – First Line (1/2) First. in his campaign to extirpate Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina in pursuit of a greater Serbia. military forces.stanford. however. there is no compelling reason for U. and Russia. Although the United States does not want to be the world's sheriff. dispatching armed forces to far-flung deserts. realistically. the former national security adviser to President Carter.html //wyo-tjc) In today's globally interconnected world. Fellow at Hoover Institute. Rwanda. In the case of the decades-long slaughter in southern Sudan. Terrorist rogue states. Offering Washington's good offices to mediate disputes in distant corners is one thing. Angola.

to bring down these dictators--the same strategy the United States followed with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. 140 p.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Key to Deter Rogue States – First Line (2/2) Second. while doing nothing to provide support for their oppressors. This objective does not mean.” FOREIGN POLICY. short of actual war. (Think Again). economic. Endless negotiating with these governments--the preferred strategy of self-described pragmatists and moderates--is likely to bring about the very crisis it is meant to avert. . and military pressure. no treaty would be any trustworthier than the 1994 Agreed Framework that North Korea violated. Failure to deter Rogues sparks a nuclear crises and war Boot 2K4 Xue 291/311 (Max Boot. 20 lexis) True. that neocons are agitating for preemptive war. “Neocons. Neither would be willing to negotiate away its nuclear arsenal. the United States should help them by every means possible. Iran and North Korea are the two likeliest culprits. The greatest danger to the United States today is the possibility that some rogue state will develop nuclear weapons and then share them with terrorist groups. Regime change may seem like a radical policy but it is actually the best way to prevent a nuclear crisis that could lead to war. They do not rule out force if necessary. n. January/February 2004. security is to topple the tyrannical regimes in Pyongyang and Tehran. Senior Fellow for National Security Studies.S. Neocons think the only way to ensure U. however. diplomatic. The Iranian and North Korean peoples want to be free. But their preferred solution is to use political.

Army Major General Rick Lynch. President Bush and the Iraqis must move now to finally accept a measure of accountability for this war … transition the mission for our combat troops and start bringing them home from an intractable civil war. With this in mind. al Qaeda in Iraq and their ideological supporters and pave the way for political and social progress. 2006 (“Frequently Asked Questions About Iraq”. and the violence would escalate.Net.S. it is contradictory . it would cause a shortage in supply which would cause oil prices to skyrocket. However one defines the conflict it is a key battleground and the aftermath of the fighting will dictate what forces sink their roots deep into the Middle East’s future. With respect to Iraq. http://www.” The general said if U. there is no “evidence” that the surge is failing. March 21. commander of Multinational Division Center and the 3rd Army Division said U.shtml) Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy. .” Lynch explained.” Middle Eastern instability sky rockets oil prices.to believe that a reliance on international cooperation and foreign aid will soothe the ire of Iran. “As evidence mounts that the ‘surge’ is failing to make Iraq more secure. 7/9/07 (“Democrats and Some Republicans Ignore Reality in Iraq”. On July 6.” First.islamonline. it becomes clear that any instability in the Middle East would threaten the global oil trade.opinioneditorials. building more IEDs (and) carrying those IEDs to Baghdad. Islam Online. commanders on the ground report the opposite. and we can deny the enemy sanctuaries. it Xue 292/311 is delusional . it could cause a recession in many of the world’s oil dependent countries. the Democrats have always preferred to plow the easy field of political expediency instead of laboring in the difficult field of policy.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Key to Middle East Stability – First Line (1/2) US leadership is key to prevent Middle Eastern stability and prevent escalation. General Lynch said the “surge forces are giving us the capability we have now to take the fight to the enemy.indeed. U. http://www. Frontiers of Freedom.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/topic_15. Now the party of the donkey is being joined by some Republicans who are prepared to ignore reality in favor of mythical rhetoric. reestablishing sanctuaries. forces begin an untimely departure.S.html) It not only seems contradictory. “We can conduct detailed kinetic strikes. The enemy only responds to force and we now have that force. On July 5. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote. we cannot wait until the Administration’s September report before we change course.S.com/guestcontributors/jbell_20070709. If those surge forces go away that capability goes away and the Iraqi security forces aren’t ready yet to do that (mission). despite Reid’s hyperventilating. we can do cordon and searches. Second. “You’d find the enemy regaining ground. and Iraqi forces are making “significant progress” in destroying insurgent sanctuaries. The Middle East has about 65% of the world’s total oil resources. Absent active and engaged U. Reid and his political brethren have spent far too much time trying to make the case that what is transpiring in Iraq is a civil war. Skyrocketing oil prices hamper global economic growth and threaten the world’s economies. leadership Iraq will become a long-term failed state and a terrorist sanctuary. At worst. If the global oil trade were disrupted.S. the day after Reid’s misguided missive. In fact. causing economic collapse.

the only chance a nation has to survive at all.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Key to Middle East Stability – First Line (2/2) ( ) Economic collapse causes global nuclear war and extinction. one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it. we foresee these factors . suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea. in a spasmodic suicidal response.attacks Taiwan. As the studies showed. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. 2000 (Lieutenant Colonel in the U. As an example. Prior to the final economic collapse. adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. under such extreme stress conditions. once a few nukes are launched. Without effective defense. 2000. is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. In addition to immediate responses. forces there. The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It.S. the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts. escalating it significantly.converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years. Army. Bearden. As the collapse of the Western economies nears. 2000. are almost certain to be released. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict.S. . http://groups. to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations. and perhaps most of the biosphere. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that.whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States . including U.yahoo. with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . at least for many decades.and others { } not covered .com/group/Big-Medicine/message/642) (PDAF0842) Xue 293/311 Bluntly. Or suppose a desperate China .

ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 294/311 Heg Key to Middle East Stability ( ) US primacy prevents Middle East instability Stephen M. Robert and Rene Belfer Professor of International Affairs. in 1990-91 it used these capabilities to liberate Kuwait. it had the wherewithal to oust the network's Taliban hosts and to compel broad international support for its campaign to eradicate Al-Qaeda itself. and it will be better equipped to resist the pressures that arise. International Affairs”. (Prominence of United States in Economic. its power enabled the United States to help rebuild Europe and Japan. http://goliath.com/coms2/gi_0199-1555909/American-primacy-its-prospectsand. when the United States was attacked by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in September 2001. Being wealthier and stronger than other states does not guarantee that a state will survive.html) Primacy Provides Security Perhaps the most obvious reason why states seek primacy--and why the United States benefits from its current position--is that international politics is a dangerous business. Because the United States is so powerful. When the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf increased in the late 1970s. it has ample resources to devote to whatever problems it may face in the future.ecnext. But the strongest state is more likely to escape serious harm than weaker ones are. . 2002 (“American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. and because its society is so wealthy. of course. It would have been much harder to do any of these things if the United States had been weaker. At the beginning of the Cold War. and to subsidize the emergence of an open international economic order. March 22. and it cannot insulate a state from all outside pressures. for example. the United States created its Rapid Deployment Force in order to deter threats to the West's oil supplies. (7) The United States was also able to deploy powerful armed forces in Europe and Asia as effective deterrents to Soviet expansion. Walt. Also. to assist them in developing stable democratic orders.

The National Interest. But is this even possible? Can this be achieved without a violent. Outright Shia domination of Iraq should never be allowed.com/postglobal/leon_krauze/2007/04/keep_foot_on_or_chaos_and_shia. ( ) Iraqi instablity spills over and causes terrorism. The consequences of such weapons in the hands of ruthless. literally. Such a conflict is unlikely to contain itself. Saddam’s pragmatic view of religion was perhaps the man’s only virtue. America (and the world) should make sure that Iraq remains a diverse multicultural federation rather than become three isolated and weak enclaves. In addition to the destruction of countless lives. I see no reason why Moqtada al-Sadr and other Shiite strongmen would seek any kind of compromise with Sunni leaders in a pluralist government. civil wars just as often breed new terrorist groups-Hizballah. In fact. Regional War and ‘Shiastan’”. http://newsweek. ultranationalists in the US. . April 30. states may come to rely more and more on dictatorial and authoritarian measures. 2007 (“IF Leave. secularity is a precious asset. and the Tamil Tigers were all born of civil wars.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Key to Iraq Stability (1/2) ( ) US hegemony in Iraq prevents Iraqi collapse Washington Post. once the American forces leave. 1999 (Book Review on “The New Terrorism: Fanatiscism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”. chemical. or any number of other possible permutationsseem to have changed from organized groups with clear ideological motives to small clusters of the paranoid and hateful bent on vengeance and destruction for their own sake.washingtonpost.com/NewTerrorism-Fanaticism-Arms-Destruction/dp/product-description/0195118162) Today two things have changed that together transform terrorism from a ``nuisance'' to ``one of the gravest dangers facing mankind. The technological skills are not that complex and the resources needed not too rare for terrorists to employ nuclear. terrorism in the future may threaten the very foundations of modern civilizations.'' First terroristsbe they Islamic extremists in the Middle East. the country will become a far bloodier and more lawless battleground than it is now. Once that happens. Lexisnexis) THE COLLAPSE of Iraq into all-out civil war would mean more than just a humanitarian tragedy that could easily claim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and produce millions of refugees. or biological weapons where and when they wish. Terrorists frequently find a home in states in civil war. Regional conflict would be.html) Xue 295/311 For a while now. unleashing retaliatory action which in turn can lead to conflagrations perhaps on a world scale. rootless fanatics are not difficult to imagine. In other similar cases of all-out civil war the resulting spillover has fostered terrorism. created refugee flows that can destabilize the entire neighborhood. Second. around the corner. there have been only two possible outcomes in Iraq: the bad and the worse. panic can grip any targeted society. http://www. There are no longer any moral limitations on what terrorists are willing to do. as Al-Qaeda did in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia. neighboring states or transformed domestic strife into regional war. especially given the aggressive expansionist theocracy next door. revolutionary period? The stakes are too high to wait and find out. ( ) Terrorism risks extinction Kirkus Reviews. the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat of Algeria. who and how many they are willing to kill. radicalized the populations of surrounding states and even sparked civil wars in other. There is little question that. Israel and Syria would stretch out their own claws soon enough. Many such groups start by focusing on local targets but then shift to international attacks-starting with those they believe are aiding their enemies in the civil war. May-June 2007 (“Keeping the Lid On”. The consequences of an enormous “Shiastan” right in the heart of the Middle East could prove to be disastrous. Which is the latter and how to avoid it? The worst outcome for Iraq would be a full-scale civil war that ends in the country’s partition. In short. So the bad but not the worst is a state more like India than the former Yugoslavia. It wasn’t an insignificant attribute. the Palestine Liberation Organization. However. To combat such terrorist activities. Given the recent history of both the Middle East and Islam.amazon. these unhinged collectivities now have ready access to weapons of mass destruction.

its enemies everywhere will be emboldened. 2006 (“Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s Address at the Asia Security Conference”. country is sliding into civil war. The recent . The Straits Times. June 3.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 296/311 Heg Key to Iraq Stability (2/2) ( ) US presence in Iraq is key to stability. Singapore Press Holdings Limited. After the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February. There is no choice but for the US and its coalition partners to stay the course and complete the work in Iraq. and we will all be at greater risk. but enforcing basic order and security remains a difficult challenge. If the United States leaves Iraq under conditions that can be portrayed as defeat. Lexisnexis) The security situation in Iraq has not improved. fears grew that the appointment of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his new government after months of deadlock has brought fresh hope of stabilising the situation.

Equally important. currently deployed by the wmd-capable states as well as prospective delivery systems that may be acquired by other Asian states over time. These weapons are important because of the extensive damage they can inflict in relatively compressed time frames. http://www.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 297/311 Heg Key to Asian Arms Control ( ) US heg is key to nuclear arms control in Asia. The list here is in decreasing order of importance: The first critical interest consists of preventing. covert delivery systems. The United States has. are the challenges posed by sophisticated delivery systems. Tellis." In all instances. U. deterring their use becomes the next logical objective. like ballistic and cruise missiles and advanced attack aircraft. The other component of this national objective involves protecting the conus and its possessions from conventional attack.hoover. this interest has two components. and What to do in Asia”. if prevention is impossible. these capabilities must be expanded to include other.html) I believe that the commitment to U. . regional preeminence remains the best solution to our multiple national security interests in Asia. The relative merits of pursuing the maintenance of preeminence as a grand strategy — as opposed to settling for a local multipolar balance of power or slowly disengaging from the region — can be best demonstrated by testing the consequences of each of these alternatives against the multiple goals pursued by the United States in Asia.S. the critical variables here are battlespace denial and power-projection capabilities — both sea. as Bracken points out. deterring. The first and most important involves preserving the continental United States (conus) and its possessions from threats posed by weapons of mass destruction in Asia. Because of the vast distances involved in the Asia-Pacific region. specializing in international security. arguably. interests suggest the following preference ordering: preventing potential adversaries from acquiring such capabilities. if even deterrence is unsuccessful.and air-based — that may be acquired by one or more Asian states. Given the changes in technology.S. several critical interests in Asia. and reducing the threat of attack on the continental United States and its extended territorial possessions. Ashley J. defense. and. April and May 2000 (“Smoke. Fire. attenuating their worst effects through either extended counterforce options or effective defensive measures finally becomes necessary. approaches to conventional war-fighting like strategic information warfare and the technologies and operational practices associated with the "revolution in military affairs. Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In the simplest sense. and Asian strategy. This includes both spin-off technologies emerging from space and commercial aviation programs as well as other kinds of non-traditional. newer.org/publications/policyreview/3492121.

force-mix must emphasize longer-range systems and stand-off weapons. the U. Measures should be taken to correct the Chinese belief that they can confront the world with a fait accompli in Taiwan.” The Washington Quarterly. conflict might lead to a global nuclear holocaust. 2. They would signal to China that any attempt on their part to seek regional hegemony would be costly. Vol. The large distances of the East Asian region also suggest that a future U. Chicago Tribune 1996 (staff.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Xue 298/311 Heg Key to Chinese Containment – First Line First. Because of the potential for conflict between the United States and China over issues such as Taiwan.military cooperation among the ASEAN states and resolving overlapping claims to the Spratly Islands and the South China Sea. The steps we should take now in the region must include enhancing military-to-military relations between Japan and South Korea. and a Sino-U. Such an approach by China would be extremely risky and could lead to a major war. New formal alliance relationships--which would be the central element of a containment strategy--are neither necessary nor practical at this time. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War. and increasing Taiwan's ability to defend itself would also be prudent. These steps are important in themselves for deterrence and regional stability but they can also assist in shifting to a much tougher policy toward China should that become necessary. Dealing with such possible challenges from China both in the near and long term requires many steps. response.S.S. According to the Chinese. 18.S. “China Prepares New Show of Strength”. circulated among officers. reliance on space. China might gamble that these risks would constrain the U. China's military leaders are considering the possibility of a conflict with the United States. No. both the politburo and the Peoples Liberation Army have pledged to use force if necessary to regain the island on which the Nationalists settled after losing the civil war to Mao Tse-tung in 1949. lexis) While a peaceful solution remains a priority. potentially hostile China. .S.The document. According to the emerging Chinese doctrine. US Ambassador to the United Nations. commercial interests in China would be damaged and any intervention could lead to a new Sino-Russian alliance. Zalmay Khalilzad. forcing the United States to risk major escalation and high levels of violence to reinstate the status quo ante. but it would be prudent to take some preparatory steps to facilitate the formation of a new alliance or the establishment of new military bases should that become necessary. failure to deter an invasion sparks a global nuclear war. pg. Ensuring access to key facilities in countries such as the Philippines. and America's sensitivity to casualties. Burden-sharing and enhanced ties with states in East and Southeast Asia will be important. America's need to rapidly reinforce the region in times of conflict. prepositioning stocks in the region. forces in the region against possible missile attacks. susceptibility of U. They recognize the overall superiority of the U. cities to being held hostage.S.S. intervened. the U. heavy U. including a settlement of the dispute over the "northern territories.S. p. the local balance of power in the region will be decisive because in this new era wars are short and intense. strong American capabilities and the containment of China is critical to prevent aggression and war over Taiwan. fostering a Japanese-Russian rapprochement. concludes that even if the U. military but believe there are weaknesses that could be exploited while preventing the United States from bringing its full power to bear in case of a conflict over Taiwan. encouraging increased political. The United States must develop increased capabilities to protect friendly countries and U.A PLA analysis--leaked to Western media--suggests that in the event of war with Taiwan. military posture in general should take this possibility into account.S. weaknesses include vulnerability of U. Feb." and enhancing military-to-military cooperation between the United States and the ASEAN states. Second. 84 Spring 1995 Third. The United States needs expanded joint exercises with states in the region.S. In a possible Taiwan conflict China would seek to create a fait accompli. bases to missile attacks.S. would not intervene because U.S.S. 6. the United States should seek to strengthen its own relative capabilities and those of its friends in East Asia to deter possible Chinese aggression and deal effectively with a more powerful. U. Washington could only retard--but not reverse--the defeat of Taiwan.S.

resolve and its superior war-winning capabilities.n91 During the Cold War. Professor of Political Science. n90 More important. Boston College. Moreover. On the one hand. policy toward China in both the George H. the United States possesses escalation dominance in the Taiwan Strait. it can do so with minimal casualties and rapid deployment. technological. platforms that enable the United States to deliver precision-guided weaponry and carry out surveillance with minimal risk of casualties. the United States can engage and defeat Chinese forces. defense of Taiwan. civilian and government analysts insisted that only if the United States possessed war-winning capabilities and/or escalation dominance could it deter the Soviet use of force in Europe. Chinese analysts understand that China is vastly inferior to the United States in nearly all facets of international power and that it will remain so for a long time. International Security. Chinese military and civilian leaders have acknowledged both U. the most pessimistic U. lexis) Xue 299/311 The United States can continue to deter China from initiating war in the Taiwan Strait for many decades. Maintaining this policy is both possible and necessary. comprehensive national power grew at 3 percent per year. One analyst estimated that Chinese military technology is fifteen to twenty years behind that of the United States. China prefers to maintain the status quo and an international environment conducive to economic and military modernization. and economic bases of national strength. Chinese analyses of "comprehensive national power. educational.W. from conventional to nuclear warfare. Moreover. Bush and Clinton administrations.S.S. “Navigating the Taiwan Strait”.S. Fall. thus further reducing PRC expectations that asymmetric capabilities or a fait accompli strategy could deter U. estimated in 2000 that China would catch up to the United States in 2043 if Chinese comprehensive national power grew at a rate of 6 percent per year and U.S.S. . undermining any Chinese confidence in the utility of asymmetric and fait accompli strategies. Ross 2K2 (Robert. This was post-Cold War U. It should also continue to develop and forward deploy not only aircraft carriers but also Trident SSGNs and UAVs. In the absence of a Taiwan declaration of independence. At every level of escalation.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Key to Chinese Containment American military presence is key to deter Chinese aggression. n92 In the twenty-first century." which takes into account the military. the United States should continue to develop its capabilities in long-range precision-guided weaponry and in its command-and-control facilities. Confidence in its deterrence capabilities enables the United States to protect Taiwan while developing cooperative relations with China.

communications and targeting. Space weapons. using everything I have. like anything else on orbit. In other words. as the only plausible response by the US would be to at least match the opposing capabilities. best exploited as first-strike weapons. the US has no peer competitors in space.” the hair-trigger postures of the nuclear competition between the United States and Russia during the Cold War would be elevated to the “ultimate high ground” of space. http://www. Former director of British American Security Information Council -think tank based in Washington and London. precisely because it quickly becomes impossible to know if the other side has gone nuclear. it is crucial that the United States maintain leadership in Space to deter conflicts and prevent other count Dolman. 3. On the other hand." High Frontier Journal. Unfortunately. Vol. At a minimum. the most powerful argument in favor of the hedging plan. Hitchens 2K3 (Theresa. Furthermore. This dithering approach blatantly ignores the current real world situation. such a strategy increases the likelihood of a space arms race if and when space weapons are ultimately deployed.org/friendlyversion/printversion. should the US reject the hedging strategy and unilaterally deploy weapons in space. developing the “hotline” and pledging to non-interference with national technical means of verification under arms control treaties. 1 Winter.S. there is no risk for potential peer competitors to try. other states may rationally decide not to compete. . Everett C. the fear of an arms race in space.” This should not be surprising to anyone – the United States and the Soviet Union found this out very early in the Cold War. Indeed. Air Force officials participating in space wargames have discovered that war in space rapidly deteriorates into all-out nuclear war. For the US to refrain from weaponizing until another state proves the capacity to challenge it allows for potential enemies to catch up to American capabilities. Director of Center for Defense Information. are inherently vulnerable and. Editor of Defense News. “Space Assurance or Space Dominance. any conflict involving ASAT use is likely to highly escalatory. given the inherent offensedominant nature of space warfare. "Strategy Lost: Taking the Middle Road to Nowhere.ICWest 09-10 Heg Good Heg Key to Space Dominance – First Line First. therefore. such as placing emphasis on early warning radars. as Michael Krepon and Chris Clary argue in their monograph. as the objective of an attacker would be to eliminate the other side’s capabilities to respond either in kind or on the ground by taking out satellites providing surveillance. Thus. this leads to global nuclear war. Aviation Week and Space Technology quoted on